What do you think?
Rate this book
Erasing Hell: What God Said About Eternity, and the Things We've Made Up
How could a loving God send people to hell? Will people have a chance after they die to believe in Jesus and go to heaven?
With a humble respect for God's Word, Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle address the deepest questions you have about eternal destiny. They've asked the same questions. Like you, sometimes they just don't want to believe in hell. But as they write, "We cannot afford to be wrong on this issue."
This is not a book about who is saying what. It's a book about what God says. It's not a book about impersonal theological issues. It's a book about people who God loves. It's not a book about arguments, doctrine, or being right. It's a book about the character of God.
Erasing Hell will immerse you in the truth of Scripture as, together with the authors, you find not only the truth but the courage to live it out.
With a humble respect for God's Word, Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle address the deepest questions you have about eternal destiny. They've asked the same questions. Like you, sometimes they just don't want to believe in hell. But as they write, "We cannot afford to be wrong on this issue."
This is not a book about who is saying what. It's a book about what God says. It's not a book about impersonal theological issues. It's a book about people who God loves. It's not a book about arguments, doctrine, or being right. It's a book about the character of God.
Erasing Hell will immerse you in the truth of Scripture as, together with the authors, you find not only the truth but the courage to live it out.
197 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 2011
About the author
Francis Chan
58 books2,688 followersFrancis Chan is an American pastor and teacher, who lives in California with his wife, Lisa, and their four children. He is the former pastor of Cornerstone Community Church in Simi Valley, CA, which he and his wife started in 1994.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 933 reviews
July 3, 2017
"Erasing Hell" should have been subtitled: Universalism Is Definitely False, But We Don't Know Why
I listened to the audiobook edition of this work, which contains an elaborative interview with the authors (to whom I will refer collectively by the headlining name, though I understand that the greater part of the work was Sprinkle's). In the interview, the authors admit that the book is a response to "Love Wins" – a fact, as I recall, not acknowledged in the book – making Bell's book required reading for a fair shake. But that both books are rather theologically, logically, and exegetically weak should be of concern to anyone caring to honestly approach the subjects at hand.
"Love Wins" is a dabbling introduction to the debate between Everlasting Conscious Torment and Universal Reconciliation. "Erasing Hell" is a dabbling introduction to this subject, as well, but one in rebuttal of another.
The main difference in this regard is that "Love Wins" embraces its role as an inadequate introduction a little more honestly than does "Erasing Hell." This is likely due in no small part to one of the very reasons Bell is ridiculed so continually: he's more interested in making you think than in telling you what he thinks, so for some he can come off as a dodgy problem-starter with no answers. I don't know the man; this criticism may be more or less true: God knows him – though I think it is a supremely Christian thing to give the benefit of the doubt. But if you are going to write a book deliberately shallow on intellectual argument (which certainly is fine), but written on the subject of a highly-controversial intellectual debate, you would do your readers a service to propose your positions with more than the usual diffidence: this is more Bell's strength than Chan's.
Despite Chan's incessant repetition of "I don't want to believe this, but I have to," "Erasing Hell" comes off more like a hurried "Cliff Notes to 'Everything You Need to Know About Hell'" than an introduction to the subject. And no wonder: "Erasing Hell" was conceived, at least partially researched, written, edited, printed-en-mass, marketed, and released within just four months of the publication of the book it is attempting to refute. "Love Wins" eeks by with just a little more modesty and a little more trust in the reader's willingness to continue thinking after they finish the book.
This is only a literary criticism, however, and may after all have quite a lot to do with the stereotypical psychological influences of the two positions: the stress-relieving effect of a strong hope that God will inevitably succeed in reconciling all the dead non-Christians you've ever known, and the converse anxiety-inducing effect of a strong conviction of the impending and unending torture of all the non-Christians you've ever loved.
I should move on to more ultimate perspectives: the theological and exegetical (Biblical interpretation).
One problem is an apparent blurred line between Calvinism and Arminianism, causing the book to suffer from an overall lack of an integral system.
Some background: Arminianism and Calvinism function as internally-consistent rational systems for explaining how God can allow some people to become ultimately condemned. Arminianism remains consistent because it claims, "God loves everyone unconditionally, but is unable to save everyone he loves because his character prevents him from infringing on human will (assuming that it is not possible to save everyone without infringing on human will)." Calvinism remains consistent because it claims, "God is in fact able to save everyone (regardless of human volition), but because he has chosen to hate some people in order to demonstrate his glory through wrath as well through grace, he chooses to not save everyone from condemnation, or as it may be, decides apart from any quality or act of their own who he will condemn." These are the two integral Protestant non-Universalist solutions to the dilemma.A traditional approach to refuting Universalism, therefore, would be either clearly Arminian or clearly Calvinist. "Erasing Hell," on the other hand, sometimes looks like one, sometimes the other.
Thomas Talbott states the above synopsis of Arminianism and Calvinism in other words, via his now-famous propositions:
"(1) It is God's redemptive purpose for the world (and therefore his will) to reconcile all sinners to himself;
"(2) It is within God's power to achieve his redemptive purpose for the world;
"(3) Some sinners will never be reconciled to God, and God will therefore either consign them to a place of eternal punishment, from which there will be no hope of escape, or put them out of existence altogether.
"If this is indeed an inconsistent set of propositions, as I believe it is, then at least one of the propositions is false. Calvinists reject proposition (1); Arminians reject proposition (2); and universalists reject proposition (3)." (see "The Inescapable Love of God" for more)
Though Chan proposes a Calvinistic understanding of God's wrath, his position on God's love remains transparently Arminian. By the end of the book, his solution is – if I may broadly paraphrase: "God wants to save everyone and is capable of saving everyone, but he doesn't, so we must conclude that we do not know what 'God's love' means [— I would add here as well: 'despite Biblical definitions and examples of God's love']." In other words: "Universalism is definitely false, but we don't know why." Both typical Calvinists and Arminians claim to know why. Thus I suggest a fourth proposition with which Arminianism, Calvinism, and Universalism agree:
"(4) A basic knowledge of the moral character of God is possible, and therefore at least a preliminary rational system of theology is also possible."
The authors of "Erasing Hell" appear to agree with propositions (1), (2), and (3), but reject (4). They have chosen to give up a rational, coherent system of theology: something all three traditional positions maintain.
I applaud the authors' ability to embrace a certain level of mystery and ambiguity – this is a trait sorely needed in Christianity today – but as this is a question that concerns the moral character of God, which is a much more fundamental issue than the existence and nature of Hell, I cannot agree with Chan and Sprinkle. If I must choose to be uncertain either of Everlasting Conscious Torment or of God's inherent moral goodness, I cannot choose to be uncertain of God. I cannot condone their position, because I cannot condone the theological method which results in that position. Holding to the character of God is more important than holding even to the character of the Bible, in logical order.
The problem lies in majoring on "Theology General" and allowing our conclusions there to shape our beliefs on "Theology Proper." I ask you to consider whether this is right. Shouldn't the nature and character of God ("Theology Proper") be the absolute basis of all other theology ("Theology General")? We must start with who God is, and allow the answer to that question to ripple through all the theological satellite issues (rather than the other way round): "The goodness of God must be true, but I cannot reconcile this other doctrine at hand, so I must postpone judgment on it until he has taught me further. God must make me see the goodness in it – he must change my conscience – before I can believe he does something which I am not convinced is good, right, loving: fitting with his character. I may not refute the doctrine yet, but I also cannot in all good conscience embrace it yet – to do so would be to sin against my conscience, as Paul in Romans warned. God's goodness, and my simple faith in that one fact, must be enough for me for now. I will take not one intellectual step which contradicts His development of my heart thus far."
Another problem is that one of the most important exegetical issues for a Biblical investigation into the possibility of Universalism or Annihilationism, is the interpretation of the usages of the Greek "aeon" and "aeonios." Even during my fundamentalist "hell fire" seminary days, I knew the traditional translations of these words are often questionable, and the original semantic range was quite broad and various.
"Erasing Hell" does broach the issue, but the result is the most disappointing attempt at an argument in the book. I was hoping for some real work here, but the book leaves one of the two or three strongest Biblical bases in favor of Christian Universalism nearly untouched. Exegetically speaking, this was where the authors' battle was lost.
CONCLUSION: "Erasing Hell" will hardly sway anyone on the fence who was not already leaning toward Everlasting Conscious Torment. It may sate those who do not wish to contend with the issues any longer than is necessary to read the book, as well as those who were never willing to reconsider what they were taught in the first place. These will point to "Erasing Hell" every time "Love Wins" is mentioned, but few others will.
For a more substantial book weighing the options between Universalism and Exclusivism, see "Universal Salvation?: The Current Debate", edited by Robin Parry.
Another good review.
Other Books Referenced in This Review:
July 13, 2011
THE GOOD
First, I have to commend Chan for the tone of his book.* One major detraction for me in reading and rereading Love Wins is Bell’s (sometimes not-so) subtle jabs at New Calvinist theology. Even though I agree with a lot of Bell’s jabs, they’re subtle and feel underhanded. If we’re going to talk about it, let’s just put it out on the table. To Chan’s credit, he does this for the most part. He directly cites Bell (and other authors with whom he takes issue), and even applauds Bell a few times.
It seems at the outset that Chan is going to nuance his arguments carefully, and pay great attention to detail. He says, for instance: "It’s important to understand that Universalism comes in many shapes and sizes. This is why we have to be careful about slapping the label Universalist on people who say that everyone will end up being saved. The term Universalist is about as specific as the term Baptist. If you call someone a Baptist, all you’ve said is that they don’t baptize babies—beyond this, it’s pretty much up for grabs.… It’s important, then, to understand that Christian Universalists believe that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ and Christ alone. There’s nothing untraditional about this. The difference is that they believe people will have another chance (or many chances) after death to believe in Jesus and be saved."
These are a couple of really good, charitable distinctions Chan offers to the larger conversation happening right now. Frankly, they’re distinctions that no one else who’s got a big beef with Love Wins is making. I applaud him for trying to steer the tone of the whole discourse in a healthier (and more Christlike) direction.
Chan calls for humility on the part of everyone involved in the conversation, and he models that attitude throughout the book (though not consistently; see below).
A section of the book I found particularly good was Chan’s exploration of the term gehenna (the most common New Testament word for Hell). He argued persuasively that Bell relies too heavily on later Rabbinic sources to build his picture of Hell. This is a criticism that has often been lobbed at Bell (and more academic New Testament scholars). Chan argues convincingly that while the Valley of Hinon (Gehenna) may well have been the city dump, it occupied a much more important space in the first-century Jewish imagination as a metaphor for judgment.
Finally, Chan’s passion came across clearly in the pages. The same has been said loudly and often by Bell’s critics (phrases like, “He’s clearly writing as a pastor who is tired of doing funerals” and the like). Here, though Chan’s passion seems to be for the Bible itself rather than for persons to whom he’s ministering. The closest he gets is observing the people around him at Starbucks while he’s writing the book.
That said, he does offer a pretty good chapter about what the doctrine of Hell ought to mean for Christians. Though he notes that most statements about Hell were directed at insiders – Jews or Christians, he doesn’t follow this line of thought any further. Even so, he offers some great reminders that Hell is reserved for everything from harsh words to wealth at the expense of others. He observes, for instance: "Jesus preaches hellfire against those who have the audacity to attack a fellow human being with harsh words. It’s ironic—frightening, actually—that some people have written books, preached sermons, or written blog posts about hell and missed this point completely."
THE BAD
A problem with the book is its focus. Is this a direct response to Bell’s Love Wins? It’s been marketed that way. But the book begins as a more general exploration of the doctrine of Hell. But then Chan lobs a few shots at Bell, and quotes him directly. So which is it? Ultimately, this lack of focus damages the credibility of Chan’s arguments.
When he sets up straw men, is he specifically teasing out arguments Bell makes in Love Wins? If so, he doesn’t represent Bell’s position fairly. If not, then why cite Bell so often as a poster-child for the views he’s combating? For instance, early in the book, Chan says, "I don’t want anyone to go to hell. The fact is, I would love for all people to stand before Christ on judgment day and have a chance to say, 'They were right all along, Jesus.'"
Bell never says anything like this in Love Wins. Neither do any other authors Chan cites. So against whom, exactly is he arguing here? Chan’s tactics don’t help the conversation along. Rather than taking Bell’s (and others’) statements and questions as serious challenges, we’re left to wonder if Chan read the same Love Wins as the rest of us. Or why he bothers to bring it up at all if he’s not going to engage the book’s central points.
Another glaring problem with Erasing Hell is Chan’s inconsistent handling of Biblical texts. He’s often very good (though nowhere near as poetic or artistic as Bell). But often enough, Chan is flat-out awful.
Take his discussion of 1 Corinthians 15:22, for instance. Paul says, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."
Focusing only on the back end of the text, Chan argues: "The verse by itself could mean that everyone will end up being saved, but the context doesn’t support this interpretation. When Paul says “all will be made alive,” he’s clearly thinking about the resurrection of believers at the second coming of Christ."
He goes on to argue this from Paul’s use of the word ‘all’ in later verses clearly to mean believers that in this verse, the ‘all’ who will be made alive in Christ must also refer only to believers. But a foundational rule of interpretation is that we start from the inside and work out. Do only believers die in Adam? No, of course not. So the ‘all’ in the first half of the sentence has a different meaning from the ‘all’ in the second half of the sentence? Maybe. But Chan doesn’t address that. He skips over it, ignoring it through some clever selective quoting.
Nor is that the only place Chan oversimplifies or simply ignores portions of texts; I found his handling of Paul’s sermon to the Athenians on Mars Hill particularly awful. Which isn’t ironic at all.
Mistakes like these cast a suspicious light on the rest of Chan’s work in the Scriptures. Ultimately, he seems to be doing the exact thing Bell’s critics claimed: reading the Scriptures through a lens that helps him to see what he already wants to see.
THE UGLY
My biggest problem with Chan’s book is his seeming inability to be self-reflective. Not once does he acknowledge his own influences or biases.
Chan assumes an air of final authority because his reading of the Bible is absolute and uncontestable.
He says of his observations, "Everything I’ve said thus far seems clear to me from Scripture."
Chan beings by writing about how much he agonized over writing the book, over not wanting to get this stuff wrong. He challenges his readers to pray as they read (which I did). This is the same thing the Mormons do when they ask you to read the book of Mormon. The problem is that when we read the Bible isolated from a healthy diversity, we can’t hear the Spirit speak to us. We only hear people who already agree with us. Chan mentions several times that he only used ‘conservative’ commentaries. No surprise his views come out so traditional – he already agreed with his ‘conclusions’ and only listened to people who did too.
Chan’s reading of the Scriptures (like all of ours) is bound to a particular perspective he doesn’t (can’t?) see, or at least doesn’t acknowledge. He assumes, for instance, that the Bible’s picture of Hell develops over time, but not the Bible’s image of God, somehow. We are allowed to confess that the picture of Hell in the New Testament is different and better than the sheol of the Old. But God’s character isn’t more fully revealed in the New. Whatever attributes and characteristics God displays in the Old must be uncritically smashed into the character of Jesus. Why? Chan doesn’t answer. He doesn’t seem to see a conflict.
Something Bell got right in Love Wins is that this discussion isn’t really about Hell. It’s about the Character of God.
And here, Chan suffers most of all. He doesn’t seem to have a clear, compelling picture of God. Chan’s God is distant and incomprehensible. We can’t question, we can’t wrestle. To do so is an affront to God (the Bible’s Wisdom literature be damned, apparently). Jesus’ incarnation doesn’t seem to offer us much help. We are left only to tremble in fear and hope we don’t wind up in Hell.
At this point in the conversation, Love Wins offered some excellent reflections on just how complicated this issue is in the Scriptures and in our conversation.
Chan says, for instance,
"God is love, but He also defines what love is. We don’t have the license to define love according to our own standards and sensibilities."
Fine… I agree. But Jesus did define Love for us in John 15:13: Love is giving up his life for his friends. And then Jesus modeled that by giving up his life for his friends. This has some serious implications for the discussion of the character of God and the nature of Hell, but Chan doesn’t seem to take this seriously as an insight into God’s character. (Whereas Bell does.)
Or, take Chan’s claims about God’s other attributes. Chan claims that the attributes of God the Bible lists – just, holy, loving – are all true, but that God’s justice, holiness and love are not at all like ours. If that’s true, then why even use those words? They become meaningless. We can’t have real conversations about God’s Justice as the source for human justice if those concepts are radically, unapproachably different. But if they’re similar, if in fact one derives from the other, then we end up where Bell does, in a complex conversation about God and Love and Justice and Holiness and how that all plays out. We take the Bible, we take our own experiences of God, and we listen to others’ perspectives and we all try to make sense of it all, all the while confessing we probably won’t in any lasting sense.
Which brings us back to Chan’s take on the Bible. For Chan, the Bible is the final word. God will broker no further discussion or questioning. The problem is that Chan’s god – at least in Erasing Hell is a small, tribal god. He loves penal substitutionary atonement and is absolutely sovereign when it fits Chan’s arguments (otherwise, we totally have free will). Chan tells us we just have to take the Bible (and by extension, God) at its word. But what he means is that we have to take Chan’s reading of the Bible (and by extension, Chan) at its word. And that’s the insurmountable problem in Erasing Hell for me.
Bottom Line: Chan’s book seems rushed to press. He brings virtually nothing new to the table, and doesn’t offer much to the conversation you can’t get from watching the video. Skip it.
Have you read the book? What do you think of Chan’s position? Of his attitude towards Rob? Is this book ultimately helpful or hurtful?
*Even though there’s a coauthor, Chan notes early on that they wrote the book in Chan’s tone. So I’ll only address him in the review.
First, I have to commend Chan for the tone of his book.* One major detraction for me in reading and rereading Love Wins is Bell’s (sometimes not-so) subtle jabs at New Calvinist theology. Even though I agree with a lot of Bell’s jabs, they’re subtle and feel underhanded. If we’re going to talk about it, let’s just put it out on the table. To Chan’s credit, he does this for the most part. He directly cites Bell (and other authors with whom he takes issue), and even applauds Bell a few times.
It seems at the outset that Chan is going to nuance his arguments carefully, and pay great attention to detail. He says, for instance: "It’s important to understand that Universalism comes in many shapes and sizes. This is why we have to be careful about slapping the label Universalist on people who say that everyone will end up being saved. The term Universalist is about as specific as the term Baptist. If you call someone a Baptist, all you’ve said is that they don’t baptize babies—beyond this, it’s pretty much up for grabs.… It’s important, then, to understand that Christian Universalists believe that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ and Christ alone. There’s nothing untraditional about this. The difference is that they believe people will have another chance (or many chances) after death to believe in Jesus and be saved."
These are a couple of really good, charitable distinctions Chan offers to the larger conversation happening right now. Frankly, they’re distinctions that no one else who’s got a big beef with Love Wins is making. I applaud him for trying to steer the tone of the whole discourse in a healthier (and more Christlike) direction.
Chan calls for humility on the part of everyone involved in the conversation, and he models that attitude throughout the book (though not consistently; see below).
A section of the book I found particularly good was Chan’s exploration of the term gehenna (the most common New Testament word for Hell). He argued persuasively that Bell relies too heavily on later Rabbinic sources to build his picture of Hell. This is a criticism that has often been lobbed at Bell (and more academic New Testament scholars). Chan argues convincingly that while the Valley of Hinon (Gehenna) may well have been the city dump, it occupied a much more important space in the first-century Jewish imagination as a metaphor for judgment.
Finally, Chan’s passion came across clearly in the pages. The same has been said loudly and often by Bell’s critics (phrases like, “He’s clearly writing as a pastor who is tired of doing funerals” and the like). Here, though Chan’s passion seems to be for the Bible itself rather than for persons to whom he’s ministering. The closest he gets is observing the people around him at Starbucks while he’s writing the book.
That said, he does offer a pretty good chapter about what the doctrine of Hell ought to mean for Christians. Though he notes that most statements about Hell were directed at insiders – Jews or Christians, he doesn’t follow this line of thought any further. Even so, he offers some great reminders that Hell is reserved for everything from harsh words to wealth at the expense of others. He observes, for instance: "Jesus preaches hellfire against those who have the audacity to attack a fellow human being with harsh words. It’s ironic—frightening, actually—that some people have written books, preached sermons, or written blog posts about hell and missed this point completely."
THE BAD
A problem with the book is its focus. Is this a direct response to Bell’s Love Wins? It’s been marketed that way. But the book begins as a more general exploration of the doctrine of Hell. But then Chan lobs a few shots at Bell, and quotes him directly. So which is it? Ultimately, this lack of focus damages the credibility of Chan’s arguments.
When he sets up straw men, is he specifically teasing out arguments Bell makes in Love Wins? If so, he doesn’t represent Bell’s position fairly. If not, then why cite Bell so often as a poster-child for the views he’s combating? For instance, early in the book, Chan says, "I don’t want anyone to go to hell. The fact is, I would love for all people to stand before Christ on judgment day and have a chance to say, 'They were right all along, Jesus.'"
Bell never says anything like this in Love Wins. Neither do any other authors Chan cites. So against whom, exactly is he arguing here? Chan’s tactics don’t help the conversation along. Rather than taking Bell’s (and others’) statements and questions as serious challenges, we’re left to wonder if Chan read the same Love Wins as the rest of us. Or why he bothers to bring it up at all if he’s not going to engage the book’s central points.
Another glaring problem with Erasing Hell is Chan’s inconsistent handling of Biblical texts. He’s often very good (though nowhere near as poetic or artistic as Bell). But often enough, Chan is flat-out awful.
Take his discussion of 1 Corinthians 15:22, for instance. Paul says, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."
Focusing only on the back end of the text, Chan argues: "The verse by itself could mean that everyone will end up being saved, but the context doesn’t support this interpretation. When Paul says “all will be made alive,” he’s clearly thinking about the resurrection of believers at the second coming of Christ."
He goes on to argue this from Paul’s use of the word ‘all’ in later verses clearly to mean believers that in this verse, the ‘all’ who will be made alive in Christ must also refer only to believers. But a foundational rule of interpretation is that we start from the inside and work out. Do only believers die in Adam? No, of course not. So the ‘all’ in the first half of the sentence has a different meaning from the ‘all’ in the second half of the sentence? Maybe. But Chan doesn’t address that. He skips over it, ignoring it through some clever selective quoting.
Nor is that the only place Chan oversimplifies or simply ignores portions of texts; I found his handling of Paul’s sermon to the Athenians on Mars Hill particularly awful. Which isn’t ironic at all.
Mistakes like these cast a suspicious light on the rest of Chan’s work in the Scriptures. Ultimately, he seems to be doing the exact thing Bell’s critics claimed: reading the Scriptures through a lens that helps him to see what he already wants to see.
THE UGLY
My biggest problem with Chan’s book is his seeming inability to be self-reflective. Not once does he acknowledge his own influences or biases.
Chan assumes an air of final authority because his reading of the Bible is absolute and uncontestable.
He says of his observations, "Everything I’ve said thus far seems clear to me from Scripture."
Chan beings by writing about how much he agonized over writing the book, over not wanting to get this stuff wrong. He challenges his readers to pray as they read (which I did). This is the same thing the Mormons do when they ask you to read the book of Mormon. The problem is that when we read the Bible isolated from a healthy diversity, we can’t hear the Spirit speak to us. We only hear people who already agree with us. Chan mentions several times that he only used ‘conservative’ commentaries. No surprise his views come out so traditional – he already agreed with his ‘conclusions’ and only listened to people who did too.
Chan’s reading of the Scriptures (like all of ours) is bound to a particular perspective he doesn’t (can’t?) see, or at least doesn’t acknowledge. He assumes, for instance, that the Bible’s picture of Hell develops over time, but not the Bible’s image of God, somehow. We are allowed to confess that the picture of Hell in the New Testament is different and better than the sheol of the Old. But God’s character isn’t more fully revealed in the New. Whatever attributes and characteristics God displays in the Old must be uncritically smashed into the character of Jesus. Why? Chan doesn’t answer. He doesn’t seem to see a conflict.
Something Bell got right in Love Wins is that this discussion isn’t really about Hell. It’s about the Character of God.
And here, Chan suffers most of all. He doesn’t seem to have a clear, compelling picture of God. Chan’s God is distant and incomprehensible. We can’t question, we can’t wrestle. To do so is an affront to God (the Bible’s Wisdom literature be damned, apparently). Jesus’ incarnation doesn’t seem to offer us much help. We are left only to tremble in fear and hope we don’t wind up in Hell.
At this point in the conversation, Love Wins offered some excellent reflections on just how complicated this issue is in the Scriptures and in our conversation.
Chan says, for instance,
"God is love, but He also defines what love is. We don’t have the license to define love according to our own standards and sensibilities."
Fine… I agree. But Jesus did define Love for us in John 15:13: Love is giving up his life for his friends. And then Jesus modeled that by giving up his life for his friends. This has some serious implications for the discussion of the character of God and the nature of Hell, but Chan doesn’t seem to take this seriously as an insight into God’s character. (Whereas Bell does.)
Or, take Chan’s claims about God’s other attributes. Chan claims that the attributes of God the Bible lists – just, holy, loving – are all true, but that God’s justice, holiness and love are not at all like ours. If that’s true, then why even use those words? They become meaningless. We can’t have real conversations about God’s Justice as the source for human justice if those concepts are radically, unapproachably different. But if they’re similar, if in fact one derives from the other, then we end up where Bell does, in a complex conversation about God and Love and Justice and Holiness and how that all plays out. We take the Bible, we take our own experiences of God, and we listen to others’ perspectives and we all try to make sense of it all, all the while confessing we probably won’t in any lasting sense.
Which brings us back to Chan’s take on the Bible. For Chan, the Bible is the final word. God will broker no further discussion or questioning. The problem is that Chan’s god – at least in Erasing Hell is a small, tribal god. He loves penal substitutionary atonement and is absolutely sovereign when it fits Chan’s arguments (otherwise, we totally have free will). Chan tells us we just have to take the Bible (and by extension, God) at its word. But what he means is that we have to take Chan’s reading of the Bible (and by extension, Chan) at its word. And that’s the insurmountable problem in Erasing Hell for me.
Bottom Line: Chan’s book seems rushed to press. He brings virtually nothing new to the table, and doesn’t offer much to the conversation you can’t get from watching the video. Skip it.
Have you read the book? What do you think of Chan’s position? Of his attitude towards Rob? Is this book ultimately helpful or hurtful?
*Even though there’s a coauthor, Chan notes early on that they wrote the book in Chan’s tone. So I’ll only address him in the review.
September 10, 2013
In Erasing Hell, Francis Chan speaks with compassion. You can almost feel him trembling over the issues at stake. He recognizes this debate is about God, His nature and His authority. I sensed both humility and prophetic power in this book.
I’ve talked with Francis personally and been at a few conferences where he’s spoken. It’s like watching a fire burn—you don’t know exactly what’s coming next. That same passion is on the pages of his book. Chan lays his heart on the table. It’s rare that a book mixes straight-from-the-heart talk with careful citation of Scripture. Erasing Hell does exactly that. I was not only informed, but moved.
What I read wasn’t the final edit, so some of the contents may have changed by the time the book’s released in early July. But these were some of the chapters:
Does Everyone Go to Heaven?
Has Hell Changed? Or Have We?
What Jesus Actually Said About Hell
Chan’s book goes deep and detailed exactly when it needs to. It occasionally appeals to the original languages, e.g. the meaning of the Greek words Gehenna and aionos. It does so in order to deal with misleading statements about those terms in Love Wins.
The author explains that he asked his friend Preston Sprinkle to assist him in the research. That research and Francis Chan’s presentation are a dynamic combination.
Chan is honest, admitting that when it comes to Matthew 25:46 “everything in me wants to interpret it differently, to make it say something that fits my own view of justice and morality.” Then he adds, “But from what I can tell, this is what the text is saying.”
One of the tests of whether we truly believe in the authority of God’s Word is whether or not we bow to it and accept it by faith even when it is painful or disturbing to do so. (What should it tell us if the Bible seems to always agree with us?) Chan models this approach to biblical interpretation. Will we pridefully believe what we want to, or humbly believe whatever God has told us?
I’ve talked with Francis personally and been at a few conferences where he’s spoken. It’s like watching a fire burn—you don’t know exactly what’s coming next. That same passion is on the pages of his book. Chan lays his heart on the table. It’s rare that a book mixes straight-from-the-heart talk with careful citation of Scripture. Erasing Hell does exactly that. I was not only informed, but moved.
What I read wasn’t the final edit, so some of the contents may have changed by the time the book’s released in early July. But these were some of the chapters:
Does Everyone Go to Heaven?
Has Hell Changed? Or Have We?
What Jesus Actually Said About Hell
Chan’s book goes deep and detailed exactly when it needs to. It occasionally appeals to the original languages, e.g. the meaning of the Greek words Gehenna and aionos. It does so in order to deal with misleading statements about those terms in Love Wins.
The author explains that he asked his friend Preston Sprinkle to assist him in the research. That research and Francis Chan’s presentation are a dynamic combination.
Chan is honest, admitting that when it comes to Matthew 25:46 “everything in me wants to interpret it differently, to make it say something that fits my own view of justice and morality.” Then he adds, “But from what I can tell, this is what the text is saying.”
One of the tests of whether we truly believe in the authority of God’s Word is whether or not we bow to it and accept it by faith even when it is painful or disturbing to do so. (What should it tell us if the Bible seems to always agree with us?) Chan models this approach to biblical interpretation. Will we pridefully believe what we want to, or humbly believe whatever God has told us?
November 28, 2019
“Jesus didn't speak of hell so that we could study, debate and write books about it. He gave us these passages so that we would live holy lives. Jesus evidently hates it when we tear into our brothers or sisters with demeaning words, words that fail to honor the people around us as the beautiful image-bearing creatures that they are.”
Francis Chan speaks once again about the unconformable truths of the Bible, and this time he writes about maybe the most uncomfortable of them all: that a loving God will send us, His sons and daughters, to eternal punishment if we betray Him. This is, needless to say, a very difficult book to read. Many times, while reading it, I was tempted to put it down because of how difficult it is. But I kept on going, because I was determined to face the truth, and reflect on these topics; even if the very existence of hell is one of the hardest concept to grasp, to fully comprehend and to reconcile with the image we, as Christians, have of the Father.
The point is, the Father is a loving God, and He punishes us because He loves us. His concept of love can be incomprehensible for us, but let's never forget that He is love, so - as Francis Chan very intelligently points out - He defines what love is. And just because we don't understand it, doesn't mean it's not true. Now, many Christians have different opinions about Salvation, but as much as I wish I could believe that, when the day comes, we will all be saved; I cannot deny the truth of the Scriptures. A difficult read, but worth the uneasiness.
Francis Chan speaks once again about the unconformable truths of the Bible, and this time he writes about maybe the most uncomfortable of them all: that a loving God will send us, His sons and daughters, to eternal punishment if we betray Him. This is, needless to say, a very difficult book to read. Many times, while reading it, I was tempted to put it down because of how difficult it is. But I kept on going, because I was determined to face the truth, and reflect on these topics; even if the very existence of hell is one of the hardest concept to grasp, to fully comprehend and to reconcile with the image we, as Christians, have of the Father.
The point is, the Father is a loving God, and He punishes us because He loves us. His concept of love can be incomprehensible for us, but let's never forget that He is love, so - as Francis Chan very intelligently points out - He defines what love is. And just because we don't understand it, doesn't mean it's not true. Now, many Christians have different opinions about Salvation, but as much as I wish I could believe that, when the day comes, we will all be saved; I cannot deny the truth of the Scriptures. A difficult read, but worth the uneasiness.
July 25, 2024
Well, this book helped me realize the actual implications of belief in the inerrancy of scripture. Chan and Sprinkle ask a simple question about Hell: Is it true that unbelievers will be tortured in Hell for all eternity? To answer this, they rigorously analyze the biblical texts, with careful consideration of translations from the original Greek or Hebrew. They pursue the question with an open mind, pledging only that they will accept whatever the scripture actually says. And their answer is, Yes. Hell is indeed eternal for all who disbelieve. It’s really in the book, and the book is infallible.
The same answer applies to all questions regarding the morality of ancient traditions described in the Bible. God, the authors explain, “Hasn’t asked us to figure out why He does the things He does. We can’t. We are not capable. Our thinking is inferior to His. Let’s not think that spending a lot of time meditating on the mysteries of the universe places us on a level that allows us to call God into question.”
The authors aim to follow this logic without hypocrisy, regardless of any seemingly moral considerations. For example, “God commands the Israelites to slaughter all the inhabitants of Canaan (Deuteronomy 20:16-18). Men, women, and children—every … single … one. Even though God is merciful, he tells them to take no prisoners. Slaughter them all.”
In response to modern notions such as scientific enquiry or learning from experience, Chan and Sprinkle advise that “at the end of the day, we have to simply believe what the Scripture says and not go beyond it. With all these tough questions, it’s best to let God be God and believe that the Judge of all the earth will do right.” … “I really believe it’s time for some of us to stop apologizing for God and start apologizing to Him for being embarrassed by the ways He has chosen to reveal Himself.”
And at this call for mindless obedience to “higher” authority no matter what it dictates, I finally realized the full moral depravity of belief in biblical inerrancy.
The same answer applies to all questions regarding the morality of ancient traditions described in the Bible. God, the authors explain, “Hasn’t asked us to figure out why He does the things He does. We can’t. We are not capable. Our thinking is inferior to His. Let’s not think that spending a lot of time meditating on the mysteries of the universe places us on a level that allows us to call God into question.”
The authors aim to follow this logic without hypocrisy, regardless of any seemingly moral considerations. For example, “God commands the Israelites to slaughter all the inhabitants of Canaan (Deuteronomy 20:16-18). Men, women, and children—every … single … one. Even though God is merciful, he tells them to take no prisoners. Slaughter them all.”
In response to modern notions such as scientific enquiry or learning from experience, Chan and Sprinkle advise that “at the end of the day, we have to simply believe what the Scripture says and not go beyond it. With all these tough questions, it’s best to let God be God and believe that the Judge of all the earth will do right.” … “I really believe it’s time for some of us to stop apologizing for God and start apologizing to Him for being embarrassed by the ways He has chosen to reveal Himself.”
And at this call for mindless obedience to “higher” authority no matter what it dictates, I finally realized the full moral depravity of belief in biblical inerrancy.
April 8, 2012
Erasing Hell is, in large part, Francis Chan's response to Rob Bell's Love Wins. After reading both books. After reading both books, I have to confess to feeling oddly perplexed by the whole debate - not because the topic is unimportant, I believe it's vitally important, but because both books are ultimately very lightweight. For the life of me, I can't understand why two books of such low caliber have created such an enormous debate.
I'm getting a bit ahead of myself though. Regardless of the quality of the books, let me first compare how this one stacks up against Love Wins. Put simply, it does quite well in this respect. Love Wins was a train wreck theologically speaking. I don't say that simply because I disagree with Bell's position, but because the way he went about making his case was a shocking display of poor hermeneutics. He played fast and loose with both Scripture and historical facts. In fact, the only thing in the book worse than the theology was the quality of writing (I consider it one of the worst written books I've ever encountered and can't begin to understand why Bell is praised a great and artistic writer.). You can make an intelligent case for Bell's conclusion, but he completely failed to make such a case in his book.
By contrast, Erasing Hell does a good job with its theology. With the exception of its analysis of Romans 9 (a passage very few commentators seem to understand) Chan makes a sound case with solid hermeneutics. I could nit pick certain parts of the book (I lost track of the number of times Chan states that he wishes the Bible didn't say what it says about hell. Seriously Francis, we got the point the first 10 times you repeated that), but overall his argument is solid. In a pure head to head match up between Erasing Hell and Love Wins, Chan comes out on top and it's not even close.
So why the three star rating? Because this book, along with Love Wins, depresses me in a way that has nothing to do with theology. Putting both the methodology and conclusions of the two books aside, both of them are, as I mentioned at the outset of this review, extremely lightweight. They represent a serious deficiency of deep thought. Another review I read referred to Chan's writing as "dumbed down." At risk of sounding uncharitable, I have to agree. The book's case is biblical, but deep, incisive and thought provoking it is not.
I don't expect all Christian books to be scholarly. It wouldn't be a good thing if they were. However, I do find it alarming and depressing how shallow most evangelical writing is. This discussion is a perfect illustration. Here we have two of the most popular and dynamic pastors in American evangelicalism, neither of whom is apparently capable of discussing theology in any true depth. Chan even admits as much in the introduction and had to call in the help of a coauthor so he could achieve what depth is there. Even though I agree with his conclusions, I find that deeply troubling.
That's not to say the book is worthless. I'd gladly recommend it to someone who's been taken in by Bell's arguments, and that's enough to make me glad it exists. But it also leaves me worried for the future of evangelicalism. American evangelicalism has trumpeted anti intellectualism for a long time now and we're seeing the results. Unfortunately, I see little indication of it turning around. Eventually that lack of depth will drive people like me away from evangelicalism. There's only so much shallowness that can be endured
I'm getting a bit ahead of myself though. Regardless of the quality of the books, let me first compare how this one stacks up against Love Wins. Put simply, it does quite well in this respect. Love Wins was a train wreck theologically speaking. I don't say that simply because I disagree with Bell's position, but because the way he went about making his case was a shocking display of poor hermeneutics. He played fast and loose with both Scripture and historical facts. In fact, the only thing in the book worse than the theology was the quality of writing (I consider it one of the worst written books I've ever encountered and can't begin to understand why Bell is praised a great and artistic writer.). You can make an intelligent case for Bell's conclusion, but he completely failed to make such a case in his book.
By contrast, Erasing Hell does a good job with its theology. With the exception of its analysis of Romans 9 (a passage very few commentators seem to understand) Chan makes a sound case with solid hermeneutics. I could nit pick certain parts of the book (I lost track of the number of times Chan states that he wishes the Bible didn't say what it says about hell. Seriously Francis, we got the point the first 10 times you repeated that), but overall his argument is solid. In a pure head to head match up between Erasing Hell and Love Wins, Chan comes out on top and it's not even close.
So why the three star rating? Because this book, along with Love Wins, depresses me in a way that has nothing to do with theology. Putting both the methodology and conclusions of the two books aside, both of them are, as I mentioned at the outset of this review, extremely lightweight. They represent a serious deficiency of deep thought. Another review I read referred to Chan's writing as "dumbed down." At risk of sounding uncharitable, I have to agree. The book's case is biblical, but deep, incisive and thought provoking it is not.
I don't expect all Christian books to be scholarly. It wouldn't be a good thing if they were. However, I do find it alarming and depressing how shallow most evangelical writing is. This discussion is a perfect illustration. Here we have two of the most popular and dynamic pastors in American evangelicalism, neither of whom is apparently capable of discussing theology in any true depth. Chan even admits as much in the introduction and had to call in the help of a coauthor so he could achieve what depth is there. Even though I agree with his conclusions, I find that deeply troubling.
That's not to say the book is worthless. I'd gladly recommend it to someone who's been taken in by Bell's arguments, and that's enough to make me glad it exists. But it also leaves me worried for the future of evangelicalism. American evangelicalism has trumpeted anti intellectualism for a long time now and we're seeing the results. Unfortunately, I see little indication of it turning around. Eventually that lack of depth will drive people like me away from evangelicalism. There's only so much shallowness that can be endured
January 23, 2012
There are a few good things in this book. I think it's a great essay on what the Bible says about hell. And Chapter 5 is a great thesis on the things we miss as Christians (Jesus condemns those who attack each other with words, he condemns racism, and not helping the poor.) But it's hard to overlook the rest of it.
The point of the book seems to be to label Rob Bell as a Universalist (someone who thinks everyone goes to heaven no matter what) prove that he's wrong about what he wrote about Heaven and Hell Love Wins. The book suggests that Bell preaches that there is no Hell and everyone goes to Heaven.
But Rob Bell never says, "this is what I believe, and I want you to agree with me." And that's a habit our ears have a hard time breaking, because that's the spiritual writing we're so used to. Bell's writing says, "Maybe you need to challenge what you've been taught about this; maybe we should be asking questions about what we've always thought; maybe we should be discussing these things." Bell is all about "wrestling with the text."
Over and over, Chan talks about how he desperately wants to believe there is no hell, but just can't because God says there is. This gets extremely patronizing, because the words he's putting in Bell's mouth: that Bell takes what he wants from the scriptures and ignores the rest. And in a final challenge in chapter 6, Chan lifts up the straw man "Rob Bell doesn't like or believe what God says about hell" and strikes it down rather summarily.
Overall, pretty disappointing.
If you have any interest in a longer review, you can check it out here:
http://jkmanchester.blogspot.com/2012...
The point of the book seems to be to label Rob Bell as a Universalist (someone who thinks everyone goes to heaven no matter what) prove that he's wrong about what he wrote about Heaven and Hell Love Wins. The book suggests that Bell preaches that there is no Hell and everyone goes to Heaven.
But Rob Bell never says, "this is what I believe, and I want you to agree with me." And that's a habit our ears have a hard time breaking, because that's the spiritual writing we're so used to. Bell's writing says, "Maybe you need to challenge what you've been taught about this; maybe we should be asking questions about what we've always thought; maybe we should be discussing these things." Bell is all about "wrestling with the text."
Over and over, Chan talks about how he desperately wants to believe there is no hell, but just can't because God says there is. This gets extremely patronizing, because the words he's putting in Bell's mouth: that Bell takes what he wants from the scriptures and ignores the rest. And in a final challenge in chapter 6, Chan lifts up the straw man "Rob Bell doesn't like or believe what God says about hell" and strikes it down rather summarily.
Overall, pretty disappointing.
If you have any interest in a longer review, you can check it out here:
http://jkmanchester.blogspot.com/2012...
July 9, 2012
In 2011, Rob Bell made headlines and caused an uproar in the Christian community with the release of his book Love Wins where Bell (improperly) argued that everyone goes to heaven because hell doesn’t really exist and is not a Biblical concept; Erasing Hell is Chan’s cogent response. Chan counters Bell’s assertion by walking through the first century context of hell in Jewish theology; discussing the Scriptural references to hell; and examining the arguments made by Bell and other universalists. More importantly, Chan establishes a critical theological question that should underpin our examination of the concept of hell – does a sovereign God have the right to behave as He so chooses, and if so, what is our response to such a God? Throughout, Chan admits his difficulty with what he is presenting because the modern church wants to sugarcoat truth to make God more palatable to the masses. Instead, he admits his struggles, deals with them, and presents what he believes to be the clear position of Scripture. A thorough presentation of truth. Recommended to those who wonder about the concept of hell, and especially recommended for everyone who swallowed Bell’s heresy.
July 22, 2011
"I really believe it's time for some of us to stop apologizing for God and start apologizing to Him for being embarrassed by the ways He has chosen to reveal Himself" (102). Essentially, that's what Erasing Hell is all about; as the subtitle states, "What God has said about eternity, and the things we've made up."
This book was certainly written in response to Rob Bell's book, LOVE WINS. I thought that Francis and Sprinkle did a great job on tackling this issue by describing the biblical doctrine of hell through the writings of first century Jews, Jesus, and Jesus' followers. Such exposition was both academic and clear. As expected, Francis encourages to not just think of hell as doctrine, but to let it change us and cause us to love God and love others. He writes, "This is not just about doctrine; it's about destinies" (72).
The negative aspect of the book was that it is rather short. It is labeled as being 192 pages, but it is much shorter due to the large amounts of notes in some chapters (which could have been single-spaced in a smaller font), and the addition of a chapter at the end of the book from Forgotten God (about 20 pages).
The book is very easy to read, and it clearly communicates the biblical teaching of hell is a clear, academic, compassionate manner. This is a perfect book for someone to read who is interested in the topic of hell.
This book was certainly written in response to Rob Bell's book, LOVE WINS. I thought that Francis and Sprinkle did a great job on tackling this issue by describing the biblical doctrine of hell through the writings of first century Jews, Jesus, and Jesus' followers. Such exposition was both academic and clear. As expected, Francis encourages to not just think of hell as doctrine, but to let it change us and cause us to love God and love others. He writes, "This is not just about doctrine; it's about destinies" (72).
The negative aspect of the book was that it is rather short. It is labeled as being 192 pages, but it is much shorter due to the large amounts of notes in some chapters (which could have been single-spaced in a smaller font), and the addition of a chapter at the end of the book from Forgotten God (about 20 pages).
The book is very easy to read, and it clearly communicates the biblical teaching of hell is a clear, academic, compassionate manner. This is a perfect book for someone to read who is interested in the topic of hell.
September 18, 2017
Flimsy reactionary book written in response to Rob Bell's Love Wins.
September 30, 2012
So I finally got round to reading Erasing Hell by Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle this week. I have to say it was a good read. Chan and Sprinkle write in a persuasive and agreeable manner and I found myself being drawn towards their arguments. They begin apologetically, seemingly coming along side the reader and admitting how difficult the subject it. I like how they admit straight away (which hasn’t happened with people I’ve spoken with) the reality subject. There is the emphasis throughout that this topic cannot just be considered theologically, whatever the truth is there are certain ramifications for the billions who have lived, who are living and who will live.
Chan and Sprinkle left me with an ultimatum. The Bible clearly says that hell is real and that those who do not have their sins already paid for will go there. Therefore there are only two possible conclusions; either the Bible is not telling the truth and therefore it cannot be held as the Word of God or it is true, which means that no matter how I feel about it, hell will be the ultimate destination for some. The latter is obviously a difficult thing to believe and for weeks I have doubted.
This book is definitely catered for the Christian who is thinking deeply about the topic. This book stands in opposition particularly with the recent work of Rob Bell’s Love Wins. I read this a few months before Erasing Hell and although I thought the message was lovely, there was something not quite right about it. To me, the book did not comfort me in the slightest no matter how much I wish that everyone would go to heaven some day. I think that the Bible is so clear about the destination of those who do not believe that if it is believed that Bell is right, then it discredits its entirity. It seems to me that no Biblical contextual understanding would lead to that conclusion. Therefore the Bible is either telling the truth or not.
All in all, I think this book is an excellent introduction into the subject and well worth reading especially if you have doubts, or have just finished reading Love Wins.
As a extra note, I would recommend buying a physical copy as the Kindle edition makes it pretty tedious jumping back and forth to the endnotes which were very helpful.
Chan and Sprinkle left me with an ultimatum. The Bible clearly says that hell is real and that those who do not have their sins already paid for will go there. Therefore there are only two possible conclusions; either the Bible is not telling the truth and therefore it cannot be held as the Word of God or it is true, which means that no matter how I feel about it, hell will be the ultimate destination for some. The latter is obviously a difficult thing to believe and for weeks I have doubted.
This book is definitely catered for the Christian who is thinking deeply about the topic. This book stands in opposition particularly with the recent work of Rob Bell’s Love Wins. I read this a few months before Erasing Hell and although I thought the message was lovely, there was something not quite right about it. To me, the book did not comfort me in the slightest no matter how much I wish that everyone would go to heaven some day. I think that the Bible is so clear about the destination of those who do not believe that if it is believed that Bell is right, then it discredits its entirity. It seems to me that no Biblical contextual understanding would lead to that conclusion. Therefore the Bible is either telling the truth or not.
All in all, I think this book is an excellent introduction into the subject and well worth reading especially if you have doubts, or have just finished reading Love Wins.
As a extra note, I would recommend buying a physical copy as the Kindle edition makes it pretty tedious jumping back and forth to the endnotes which were very helpful.
April 6, 2012
After reading both Rob Bell's Love Wins and this book, perhaps both authors have achieved what they set out to do. I've spent more time thinking about Hell than I ever had before. I'm just sure if I've accomplished anything with that yet.
In the end Rob Bell's book is an easier read, theologically, because to me it outlined a Hell that is self-inflicted in which a person's rejection of God brings about their eternal fate while God is waiting with open, loving arms, only to be rejected by sinful individuals.
Francis Chan's book, however, portrays a vengeful, wrathful God whose authority is unquestionable and whose actions are just by their very nature, no matter how repugnant to us. We simply cannot understand his was but instead must submit to them, regardless. Chan's God is a much harder God to come to terms with. It is the type of message that is almost impossible to evangelize because it does not appear to come from a place of love but rather a place of fear. I don't believe that is what Chan ultimately believes or was trying to say, but the message is significantly harder to articulate to someone seeking God.
Can we reconcile Hell with love? I believe so. I believe there is mercy in God. Mercy comes from judgement as a result of love. So that leaves you with the question though, who does not receive mercy from God? That is the question I'm left wrestling with now. Maybe I'll find answers someday...
In the end Rob Bell's book is an easier read, theologically, because to me it outlined a Hell that is self-inflicted in which a person's rejection of God brings about their eternal fate while God is waiting with open, loving arms, only to be rejected by sinful individuals.
Francis Chan's book, however, portrays a vengeful, wrathful God whose authority is unquestionable and whose actions are just by their very nature, no matter how repugnant to us. We simply cannot understand his was but instead must submit to them, regardless. Chan's God is a much harder God to come to terms with. It is the type of message that is almost impossible to evangelize because it does not appear to come from a place of love but rather a place of fear. I don't believe that is what Chan ultimately believes or was trying to say, but the message is significantly harder to articulate to someone seeking God.
Can we reconcile Hell with love? I believe so. I believe there is mercy in God. Mercy comes from judgement as a result of love. So that leaves you with the question though, who does not receive mercy from God? That is the question I'm left wrestling with now. Maybe I'll find answers someday...
April 15, 2012
This book seemed to be a response to Rob Bell's "Love Wins" and the suggestion of universalism. As an annihilationist, I didn't need convincing against universalism, but the quick (and rather shallow) review of the biblical evidence against it was useful. The main thing that I liked about the book was the tone of sincerity and spiritual earnestness. Repeatedly they remind the reader that this topic is not merely fodder for theological debate---these are issues of eternal destinies for real people and that should affect the way we live.
In this book, by way of brief summary, Chan and Sprinkle are making three basic claims:
1) Universalism [the idea that eventually all people will be saved, that maybe there are second chances after death] is an attractive option, but totally and utterly false.
2) Hell is real and it's bad and it's probably never-ending torture, although it could be annihilation.
3) God is God, so whatever He does is just and loving, no matter how you feel about it.
In this book, by way of brief summary, Chan and Sprinkle are making three basic claims:
1) Universalism [the idea that eventually all people will be saved, that maybe there are second chances after death] is an attractive option, but totally and utterly false.
2) Hell is real and it's bad and it's probably never-ending torture, although it could be annihilation.
3) God is God, so whatever He does is just and loving, no matter how you feel about it.
January 9, 2018
this book is an excellent source for christians with questions about what the bible says about hell, great read.
February 17, 2022
Francis Chan could poop & I would still think highly of it - I love everything he does.
June 26, 2011
This is Rob Bell:
he says this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODUvw2...
francis chan thinks rob bell is an idiot... okay he never actually says that, but it's pretty clear he is if nothing else not a fan.
this is francis chan:
I was expecting him to be an old idiot crumugeon I'm not sure what to do with the fact he's actually not bad looking.
he says this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnrJVT...
I think he's an idiot. and a jack ass.
this book is an attempt to prove rob bell wrong.
there were some weird facts in this.
like the idea that the jewish majority in the time of jesus believed in hell. I have never met a jew who believed in hell so I went off and asked my religious jewish friends about that. they said that most jews had never believed in hell, but some believed in a year long purification then everyone would be in the same place... wait that's not at all what chan said he said the jews said burn forever. he said we can extrapolate the fact that jesus thought that cause everyone thought that therefore if he didn't agree he would have said so. I think this is one of those philosophical arguments that hangs itself.
He also says we don't know good and evil only god does... didn't we eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. then he says god was never wrong in the old testament... wait didn't people talk god out of doing things in the old testament. but then sometimes he must be wrong...
he says god wants vengence... really? he sends the people who've never heard the gospel to hell... really? he leaves all the prejesus people in hell... really?
he says that we are confused we ask do we want to believe in this god instead of could we believe in this god. I don't ever want to meet someone who could believe in this god.
another opinion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqquvh...
and a happy dance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w10LsG...
he says this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODUvw2...
francis chan thinks rob bell is an idiot... okay he never actually says that, but it's pretty clear he is if nothing else not a fan.
this is francis chan:
I was expecting him to be an old idiot crumugeon I'm not sure what to do with the fact he's actually not bad looking.
he says this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnrJVT...
I think he's an idiot. and a jack ass.
this book is an attempt to prove rob bell wrong.
there were some weird facts in this.
like the idea that the jewish majority in the time of jesus believed in hell. I have never met a jew who believed in hell so I went off and asked my religious jewish friends about that. they said that most jews had never believed in hell, but some believed in a year long purification then everyone would be in the same place... wait that's not at all what chan said he said the jews said burn forever. he said we can extrapolate the fact that jesus thought that cause everyone thought that therefore if he didn't agree he would have said so. I think this is one of those philosophical arguments that hangs itself.
He also says we don't know good and evil only god does... didn't we eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. then he says god was never wrong in the old testament... wait didn't people talk god out of doing things in the old testament. but then sometimes he must be wrong...
he says god wants vengence... really? he sends the people who've never heard the gospel to hell... really? he leaves all the prejesus people in hell... really?
he says that we are confused we ask do we want to believe in this god instead of could we believe in this god. I don't ever want to meet someone who could believe in this god.
another opinion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqquvh...
and a happy dance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w10LsG...
July 12, 2011
Chan responds to Rob Bell's recent "Love Wins." The quick turnaround shows. When you subtract the page breaks, double-spacing, chapter end-notes, appendix, and sample chapter from another book of his, this 208 page book is actually 50-75 pages of content.
What results is an all-too-simple engagement with the issues. This wouldn't be as annoying if Chan's tone of voice was similar to Bell's: allusive, pondering, reflective. Instead, Chan tries to settle most matters on hell. This backfires in different ways: superficial interpretation, sweeping statements about Jesus' Jewish context, internal logical inconsistencies. To give one example: on 147-8, he talks about being touched while singing: "Till on that cross as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied." 5 sentences later Chan writes, "this is the same wrath that ultimately will be satisfied, either in hell or on the cross." Which is it? Chan's commentary makes the song a lie. If he's right, the song at best praises God for temporarily holding his temper, counting to 10 or something. Satisfied for a second or two.
There is an appendix for frequently asked questions. It's only here at the end of the book that he discusses whether the fire imagery (for example) should be taken literally as fire that physically burns the damned forever. He claims this language is non-literal, which is fine, but I wonder why this wasn't deemed important enough for the main content of the book. A lot of his readers (if they make it to the appendix) would be surprised at this point at his non-literalist reading of fire. How can it not be important to discuss what KIND of hell Bell is supposedly erasing and what kind of hell is Chan himself not affirming? Especially considering how dominant is the pop-culture conception of hell as a real burning fire.
My main annoyance at the book (and now I show my Lutheran colors): Chan does not understand the comfort and blessed assurance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The entire book promotes tremendous uncertainty about our own salvation. Chan's Jesus does not put an end to the law so that there may be faith for all. Rather, his gospel introduces a new, greater, heavier burden on believers. Am I truly saved? Have I really earned it? Is my resume worthy enough?
Faith is much freer from the Lutheran recliner. I've already received my final judgment: guilty. A sinner, deserving of hell. But I don't boast in myself or claim my own righteousness, for I have an advocate - Jesus Christ. I'll boast in him at the last day.
I find it far easier to be fruitful for my neighbor's sake when I don't expend my spiritual energy (re)securing my own salvation.
What results is an all-too-simple engagement with the issues. This wouldn't be as annoying if Chan's tone of voice was similar to Bell's: allusive, pondering, reflective. Instead, Chan tries to settle most matters on hell. This backfires in different ways: superficial interpretation, sweeping statements about Jesus' Jewish context, internal logical inconsistencies. To give one example: on 147-8, he talks about being touched while singing: "Till on that cross as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied." 5 sentences later Chan writes, "this is the same wrath that ultimately will be satisfied, either in hell or on the cross." Which is it? Chan's commentary makes the song a lie. If he's right, the song at best praises God for temporarily holding his temper, counting to 10 or something. Satisfied for a second or two.
There is an appendix for frequently asked questions. It's only here at the end of the book that he discusses whether the fire imagery (for example) should be taken literally as fire that physically burns the damned forever. He claims this language is non-literal, which is fine, but I wonder why this wasn't deemed important enough for the main content of the book. A lot of his readers (if they make it to the appendix) would be surprised at this point at his non-literalist reading of fire. How can it not be important to discuss what KIND of hell Bell is supposedly erasing and what kind of hell is Chan himself not affirming? Especially considering how dominant is the pop-culture conception of hell as a real burning fire.
My main annoyance at the book (and now I show my Lutheran colors): Chan does not understand the comfort and blessed assurance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The entire book promotes tremendous uncertainty about our own salvation. Chan's Jesus does not put an end to the law so that there may be faith for all. Rather, his gospel introduces a new, greater, heavier burden on believers. Am I truly saved? Have I really earned it? Is my resume worthy enough?
Faith is much freer from the Lutheran recliner. I've already received my final judgment: guilty. A sinner, deserving of hell. But I don't boast in myself or claim my own righteousness, for I have an advocate - Jesus Christ. I'll boast in him at the last day.
I find it far easier to be fruitful for my neighbor's sake when I don't expend my spiritual energy (re)securing my own salvation.
July 31, 2011
It's hard to give five stars to a book on Hell.
This is clearly not the kind of inspiring and challenging book that has made Francis Chan so well known, but it is an important book because of all those who want to explain away Hell. In his characteristic way, Chan goes open-handed to Scripture and asks what God reveals about it there.
It is a short book, mercifully. The main book is only about 140 short pages. In the first four chapters Chan unpacks what Scripture says about Hell. This portion is clear, if difficult to read. Then in chapter 5-7 he turns to how Christians should respond to this teaching. Here we see Chan's gift for challenging our thinking with the truths of Scripture. It is worth the payoff.
Perhaps the best summary can be found in this quote from page 148:
"While hell can be a paralyzing doctrine, it can also be an energizing one, for it magnifies the beauty of the cross.
Hell is the backdrop that reveals the profound and unbelievable grace of the cross. It brings to light the enormity of our sin and therefore portrays the undeserved favor of God in full color."
Whether or not recent conversations have left you confused about Hell, gird up and read this book.
This is clearly not the kind of inspiring and challenging book that has made Francis Chan so well known, but it is an important book because of all those who want to explain away Hell. In his characteristic way, Chan goes open-handed to Scripture and asks what God reveals about it there.
It is a short book, mercifully. The main book is only about 140 short pages. In the first four chapters Chan unpacks what Scripture says about Hell. This portion is clear, if difficult to read. Then in chapter 5-7 he turns to how Christians should respond to this teaching. Here we see Chan's gift for challenging our thinking with the truths of Scripture. It is worth the payoff.
Perhaps the best summary can be found in this quote from page 148:
"While hell can be a paralyzing doctrine, it can also be an energizing one, for it magnifies the beauty of the cross.
Hell is the backdrop that reveals the profound and unbelievable grace of the cross. It brings to light the enormity of our sin and therefore portrays the undeserved favor of God in full color."
Whether or not recent conversations have left you confused about Hell, gird up and read this book.
September 10, 2019
This was surprisingly disappointing. For such a weighty topic—whether there is a literal, eternal hell—the book was really, really “lite.” I haven’t read Rob Bell’s book, which Chan’s book is basically a response to. I don’t need to write more about this, because I see a number of 2-star and 3-star reviews here that already express everything that frustrated me with this book. If you can recommend a book on this topic, but with more depth of cultural and historical analysis, please let me know in the comments. Thanks!
April 15, 2012
OK, I picked this up over Easter weekend when three of Chan's books were available for free in Kindle editions. And because I've been in several conversations recently about the doctrine of Hell--I decided to read this, mostly in airports and on planes flying home yesterday. And I finished the book during that time--so it is a quick read.
Chan, with the assistance of researcher Preston Sprinkle, takes on the difficult question of is there a hell, what is it like and why should we believe in a God who sends people there. At the outset (and with occasionally annoying frequency), Chan states that this is one of those beliefs he wishes he could jettison, and in fact has often avoided in his preaching. Yet in the light of Rob Bell's Love Wins, he felt he needed to go back to the scriptures and address these questions in his own writing.
Chan both surveys the relevant scriptural references and also studies the Jewish background literature of the era immediately prior to the New Testament. That background revealed a belief in a hell that was a place of judgment for the wicked after death and that is spoken of with images of both fire and darkness. He then goes on to demonstrate that basically, the New Testament speaks of hell in similar terms and that Jesus himself doesn't controvert this imagery. Along the way, he deals with the notion of gehenna as Jerusalem's garbage dump, arguing that the only evidence for this is a twelfth century Jewish writing and that no archaelogical evidence confirms this. Rather, the valley of Hinnom was the site in the OT where children were offered to Moloch and that it carries with it the idea of the site of a fiery judgment.
What I do wish were a stronger piece of this book was a discussion of the justness of God's judgments. Chan does explore this but I still get the impression that Chan is trying to explain why God judges basically good people who fail to believe in Christ. He contends that we must let God be God. While I agree with this, I do think that the case can be made more strongly of how the line of good and evil is not one that separates "us" from "them" but rather runs through all of our lives--and that the wonder is not why God sends some to hell but rather why God would make life in his kingdom possible for all who believe. But perhaps Chan was trying to write a briefer and more focused treatment where he only touches on these matters.
The book concludes with a section of FAQs on the subject that are helpful, crisp responses to common questions. The book is fully footnoted and includes a bibliography of sources.
Chan, with the assistance of researcher Preston Sprinkle, takes on the difficult question of is there a hell, what is it like and why should we believe in a God who sends people there. At the outset (and with occasionally annoying frequency), Chan states that this is one of those beliefs he wishes he could jettison, and in fact has often avoided in his preaching. Yet in the light of Rob Bell's Love Wins, he felt he needed to go back to the scriptures and address these questions in his own writing.
Chan both surveys the relevant scriptural references and also studies the Jewish background literature of the era immediately prior to the New Testament. That background revealed a belief in a hell that was a place of judgment for the wicked after death and that is spoken of with images of both fire and darkness. He then goes on to demonstrate that basically, the New Testament speaks of hell in similar terms and that Jesus himself doesn't controvert this imagery. Along the way, he deals with the notion of gehenna as Jerusalem's garbage dump, arguing that the only evidence for this is a twelfth century Jewish writing and that no archaelogical evidence confirms this. Rather, the valley of Hinnom was the site in the OT where children were offered to Moloch and that it carries with it the idea of the site of a fiery judgment.
What I do wish were a stronger piece of this book was a discussion of the justness of God's judgments. Chan does explore this but I still get the impression that Chan is trying to explain why God judges basically good people who fail to believe in Christ. He contends that we must let God be God. While I agree with this, I do think that the case can be made more strongly of how the line of good and evil is not one that separates "us" from "them" but rather runs through all of our lives--and that the wonder is not why God sends some to hell but rather why God would make life in his kingdom possible for all who believe. But perhaps Chan was trying to write a briefer and more focused treatment where he only touches on these matters.
The book concludes with a section of FAQs on the subject that are helpful, crisp responses to common questions. The book is fully footnoted and includes a bibliography of sources.
October 7, 2011
The voice that stick out in Chan's books consistently is a voice of humility. Chan writes from a humble perspective recognizing that he is not going to have all the answers. He also hands this response to Bell (though Chan wouldn't call it that) very carefully. He starts off the book talking about the many people involved in editing and correcting the theology of the book. Chan's most poignant refutation against Bell is when he pointed out that a historical "fact" that Bell used was misdated about a few hundred years. This fact was regarding Gehenna and it being a location for the city dump. Chan pointed out that this was not known as a dump until a few hundred years after Jesus walked the earth. This puts a whole in Bell's argument because Bell used this information to show that Hell may be what we experience here on earth, in the "Hells" we create for ourselves.
Chan also pointed out the importance of getting Hell right. If it is only temporal, and everyone will end up in eternity with God given enough opportunities to repent, then we do not need to worry too much about warning people about this place. If Hell doesn't even exist, then we will be preaching an unnecessary stumbling block if we talk about the existence of Hell. If Hell does exist, and we don't teach about it, then we will be doing a disservice to those who are destined to perish without repentance and faith in the gospel.
Chan also pointed out the importance of getting Hell right. If it is only temporal, and everyone will end up in eternity with God given enough opportunities to repent, then we do not need to worry too much about warning people about this place. If Hell doesn't even exist, then we will be preaching an unnecessary stumbling block if we talk about the existence of Hell. If Hell does exist, and we don't teach about it, then we will be doing a disservice to those who are destined to perish without repentance and faith in the gospel.
May 4, 2012
I'm giving this book 5 stars, not because it is all-encompassing or because every page is strong in both intellectual and writing (although, the book is strong in both of these). Rather, I'm giving it a 5 because Chan has take a difficult subject - namely, the existicence of hell - and fused it with a deep commitment to Scripture, a historical perspective on the church, a hermeneutical healthy practice of looking at the context of the writers, and a deep, deep call to action, humility and gratefulness in light of both hell and the cross.
Chan really does a wonderful job - in a short book - addressing the topic of what the Word of God says on hell. And that the reality of hell ought to - as it did Paul - spur us as believers on to a life of evangelism and a deeper, sacrifical love to share the Good News of the Gospel with others.
Chan really does a wonderful job - in a short book - addressing the topic of what the Word of God says on hell. And that the reality of hell ought to - as it did Paul - spur us as believers on to a life of evangelism and a deeper, sacrifical love to share the Good News of the Gospel with others.
July 21, 2011
Francis Chan takes on the suddenly "popular" topic of hell with a huge dose of humility and careful investigation. His tone plus Preston Sprinkle's research make for a thoughtful yet simple read on a tough issue. Without a doubt, Chan shows from the Bible that there is a literal hell and people are going.
The complaints against the book are expected: a sometimes shallow pop treatment of the subject, long endnotes, and a disconnect between believing there is a hell and being "okay" with it. While the criticisms aren't without merit, this book is a needed accessible work for those in search of a biblical view of this doctrine. The book speaks truth because it is unapologetic about what the Bible says. Chan is diligent and sincerely desperate in his integrity.
The complaints against the book are expected: a sometimes shallow pop treatment of the subject, long endnotes, and a disconnect between believing there is a hell and being "okay" with it. While the criticisms aren't without merit, this book is a needed accessible work for those in search of a biblical view of this doctrine. The book speaks truth because it is unapologetic about what the Bible says. Chan is diligent and sincerely desperate in his integrity.
July 14, 2013
Reactionary polemic written in response to Love Wins. Not much serious interaction with Christian Universalism, tradition, modern theology, etc. Makes some interesting points, but for the most part this is a predictable defense of the traditional doctrine of hell as eternal conscious torment using the Bible.
Was unsure whether to give it 2 or 3 stars, so I erred generously. :)
Was unsure whether to give it 2 or 3 stars, so I erred generously. :)
June 1, 2012
This is a popular level rebuttal of Rob Bell's Love Wins. Chan (and Sprinkle) are humble and conversational and tone and review a number of texts. I don't think they are right about everything, but I don't think Rob Bell is either.
March 8, 2021
In Erasing Hell, Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle respond to the cultural drift toward de-emphasizing hell and universalism. The book is written as a response to Rob Bell’s Love Wins, which has an implicit universalism and an encouragement for Christians to stop getting so hung up on hell. Chan and Sprinkle disagree. While hell may be a difficult doctrine, they urge us to hold fast to the doctrine of hell.
Chan and Sprinkle confess that the doctrine of hell isn’t a doctrine they necessarily want to believe and it’s not a doctrine they hold to because of their tradition. Furthermore, they urge the reader not to try to parachute in to rescue God from difficult doctrines. While the doctrine of hell might be a challenge to our faith. Many have said that they won’t believe in a God who sends people to eternal punishment. And yet, such feelings ought not dictate the truth of hell. “God has the right to do WHATEVER He pleases,” they remind the reader.
Chan and Sprinkle navigate the historical conversation of the church around universalism from Origen onward. They do a great job of simplifying and clarifying the biblical arguments for and against. They confess that, “Dee down, we all have a tendency to recreate Jesus in our own image... We do the same thing with hell.”
Chan and Sprinkle then turn their attention to what the first-century Jewish conception of hell was. This might seem a surprising turn, but it turns out to be a very useful exercise as it helps frame the conversation partners of Jesus and the early church. Chan and Sprinkle clarify that the for the Jews of Jesus’ day, “1. Hell is a place of punishment after judgment. 2. Hell is described in imagery of fire and darkness, where people lament. 3. Hell is a place of annihilation or never-ending punishment.” They challenge the believe that Gehenna “was derived from the burning garbage in the Hinnom Valley.” Instead, the term points to “the place where some Israelites engaged in idolatrous worship of the Canaanite gods Molech and Baal. It was here, in fact, where they sacrificed their children to these gods making them ‘pass through the fire.’”
Chan and Sprinkle then turn their attention to Jesus and they assert that, just as with the Jews of his time, for Jesus, “1. Hell is a place of punishment after judgment. 2. Hell is described in imagery of fire and darkness, where people lament. 3. Hell is a place of annihilation or never-ending punishment.” On that final point, Chan and Sprinkle spend a fair amount of time considering whether Jesus leans toward annihilation or never-ending punishment. They suggest that the evidence leans toward the latter, but there are certainly texts that are strong arguments for annihilationism.
Chan and Sprinkle then spend time with the rest of the New Testament authors and they make it clear that the New Testament witness supports Jesus’ teachings. They emphasize just how prevalent teachings of hell are throughout the New Testament.
They then turn to the believer and ask how this doctrine relates to us. They encourage us that, “While hell can be a paralyzing doctrine, it can also be an energizing one, for it magnifies the beauty of the cross. Hell is the backdrop that reveals the profound and unbelievable grace of the cross.”
The final section considers a series of frequently asked questions including “Are the images of fire, darkness, and worms to be understood literally?” “Are there degrees of punishment in hell,” “What about the person who has never heard the gospel?” and finally, “How can God be loving and still send people to hell?”
I heartily commend Erasing Hell to you. The questions that Chan and Sprinkle deal with are handled thoughtfully and graciously. I am sure that you will benefit from leaning into this hard conversation with such helpful guides.
For more reviews see www.thebeehive.live.
Chan and Sprinkle confess that the doctrine of hell isn’t a doctrine they necessarily want to believe and it’s not a doctrine they hold to because of their tradition. Furthermore, they urge the reader not to try to parachute in to rescue God from difficult doctrines. While the doctrine of hell might be a challenge to our faith. Many have said that they won’t believe in a God who sends people to eternal punishment. And yet, such feelings ought not dictate the truth of hell. “God has the right to do WHATEVER He pleases,” they remind the reader.
Chan and Sprinkle navigate the historical conversation of the church around universalism from Origen onward. They do a great job of simplifying and clarifying the biblical arguments for and against. They confess that, “Dee down, we all have a tendency to recreate Jesus in our own image... We do the same thing with hell.”
Chan and Sprinkle then turn their attention to what the first-century Jewish conception of hell was. This might seem a surprising turn, but it turns out to be a very useful exercise as it helps frame the conversation partners of Jesus and the early church. Chan and Sprinkle clarify that the for the Jews of Jesus’ day, “1. Hell is a place of punishment after judgment. 2. Hell is described in imagery of fire and darkness, where people lament. 3. Hell is a place of annihilation or never-ending punishment.” They challenge the believe that Gehenna “was derived from the burning garbage in the Hinnom Valley.” Instead, the term points to “the place where some Israelites engaged in idolatrous worship of the Canaanite gods Molech and Baal. It was here, in fact, where they sacrificed their children to these gods making them ‘pass through the fire.’”
Chan and Sprinkle then turn their attention to Jesus and they assert that, just as with the Jews of his time, for Jesus, “1. Hell is a place of punishment after judgment. 2. Hell is described in imagery of fire and darkness, where people lament. 3. Hell is a place of annihilation or never-ending punishment.” On that final point, Chan and Sprinkle spend a fair amount of time considering whether Jesus leans toward annihilation or never-ending punishment. They suggest that the evidence leans toward the latter, but there are certainly texts that are strong arguments for annihilationism.
Chan and Sprinkle then spend time with the rest of the New Testament authors and they make it clear that the New Testament witness supports Jesus’ teachings. They emphasize just how prevalent teachings of hell are throughout the New Testament.
They then turn to the believer and ask how this doctrine relates to us. They encourage us that, “While hell can be a paralyzing doctrine, it can also be an energizing one, for it magnifies the beauty of the cross. Hell is the backdrop that reveals the profound and unbelievable grace of the cross.”
The final section considers a series of frequently asked questions including “Are the images of fire, darkness, and worms to be understood literally?” “Are there degrees of punishment in hell,” “What about the person who has never heard the gospel?” and finally, “How can God be loving and still send people to hell?”
I heartily commend Erasing Hell to you. The questions that Chan and Sprinkle deal with are handled thoughtfully and graciously. I am sure that you will benefit from leaning into this hard conversation with such helpful guides.
For more reviews see www.thebeehive.live.
August 10, 2011
I have to start by asking that if this book is a response to Rob Bell's Love Wins, why does the cover look similar to Rob Bell's Jesus Wants to Save Christians?
Bell's book and Chan's book were written for different audiences. Bell says his book is for anyone who have heard some version of the story of Jesus that completely turned them off. In other words, people who are told that their friends or family who happen to have the wrong beliefs are going to be tortured for all eternity; those who have been told Jesus loves them enough to die for them but if they do not believe that Jesus also loves them enough to torture them for all eternity.
Chan's audience seems to be the traditional Christian who is having a belief challenged. Thus, one of Chan's main points is "God has the right to do WHATEVER He pleases". This comes up often throughout the book. I suppose this means that if God wants to create people just for the purpose of torturing them for all eternity...well, God is God, so deal with it.
This sounds quite negative so far. I most admire Chan's tone: he is serious, humble and passionate. It is obvious that he desires to purse the truth and do what God calls him to do, and he wants all Christians to do the same. This book comes across as kind and respectful to Bell which is the sort of friendly interchange Christians should have when debating such topics.
Chan argues that Bell's interpretation of Gehenna as just a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem lacks support. Chan argues there is no evidence this was so until 1200 AD. Interestingly, Chan also cites Andrew Perriman of making the same mistake. I frequently read Perriman's blog and he replies to this: http://www.postost.net/2011/08/was-ge...
"I would argue, therefore, that when Jesus speaks of unrighteous Jews being thrown into the “Gehenna of fire”, what he has in mind is not eternal punishment in a post mortem “hell”, as traditionally understood, but judgment on Israel in the manner presupposed by Isaiah and Jeremiah and described by the historian Josephus. Whether the city’s rubbish was burnt in the Valley of Hinnom is not greatly significant: the allusion is literary, not topographical" (Perriman).
It seems that Bell was somewhat sloppy in his interpretation of Gehenna, but Chan does not do much better. Bell's focus on the garbage dump makes for good writing, but is not historically supported. Yet Chan misses the links to the Old Testament.
On that note, Chan mentions annihilation in hell as a possibility, but dismisses it rather quickly. But a lot of the texts from scripture that he cites appear to more naturally speak of annihilation than eternal conscious torment. At one point I thought Chan was unintentionally convincing me of annihilationism. But when he does address it specifically, he seems to take the one or two passages that most clearly point to eternal conscious torment as trumping the many that point to annihilation.
Chapter five was the most challenging, as Chan writes: "Racism, greed, misplaced assurance, false teaching, misuse of wealth, and degrading words to a fellow human being - these are the things that damn people to hell? According to Scripture, the answer is yes." I wish Chan had focused more here than on simply "God can do whatever God wants". Saying God can do whatever God wants sounds like saying "might makes right". And this sort of overwhelming power does not jive with the person of Jesus Christ, who is our clearest revelation of God.
On one page Chan seems to say a person goes to hell because God can do whatever God wants and on a later page said person goes to hell because of things like greed and racism. There is no attempt to reconcile these two points. The problem is that many people assume that God is a sort of diabolical mad-scientist who sends people to hell just for the fun of it. So people are going to hell all the while calling out for God's mercy, as if they would have lived differently with more information. This portrayal of a big-meany-God is what Bell is opposing. At some points Chan seems to defend this sort of God.
But I think the truth is deeper, and the deeper is what Chan hints at in chapter 5. If someone ends up in hell (whether hell is eternal or annihilation) it is because of their rejection of God, not just in their head but in their actions and life. God does not unilaterally send people to hell simply for wrong beliefs. People freely choose to live against God in all sorts of ways: greed, racism, putting their own life first, pride, etc. To live this way is to choose hell now. Left to their own free will, they end up in hell in the future. They end up there not just because God is a big meany, but because they have rejected God in how they live. In the words of CS Lewis, to those who reject God, God says, "thy will be done" (okay, that was a rough paraphrase of Lewis).
Chapter six, focused on Romans, is all about how God does whatever God wants. So if God, the potter, wants to create people to torture for all eternity in heaven, who are we to question God? I am not a Reformed Calvinist and this chapter (if not the whole book) leaned that direction, which may be why I struggled with it. There seemed to be an over-emphasis on the transcendent, powerful God of the book of Job and not enough emphasis on the immanent God seen in Jesus who condescends to walk among us.
In the final chapter Chan says, "Yet God is not licking his chops looking for any poor soul He can send to hell". I agree. But based on the previous chapter, God kind of is looking for that. Maybe it is not that God is looking for that, instead God has created people just for the purpose of sending them to hell, so he knows who and where they are.
Overall, if you are interested in this topic, or have read Love Wins and want a response, check this book out. Chan's heart for Jesus and for other people shines through. It is a challenging and stimulating read. And at least he had footnotes, which Bell's book was sorely lacking!
I am not sure whose position I am more in agreement with: Bell or Chan. Probably neither, as when I read scripture it seems they both are right in some places and wrong in others. I suppose if Chan's book sent me back to scripture for further study, he achieved his goal.
As a postscript, I found the reviews by Jeff Cook on JesusCreed blog to be very good, here is the third one (from which I stole the whole "might makes right" analogy): http://www.patheos.com/community/jesu...
PPS. I thought this video was pretty good - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqquvh...
Bell's book and Chan's book were written for different audiences. Bell says his book is for anyone who have heard some version of the story of Jesus that completely turned them off. In other words, people who are told that their friends or family who happen to have the wrong beliefs are going to be tortured for all eternity; those who have been told Jesus loves them enough to die for them but if they do not believe that Jesus also loves them enough to torture them for all eternity.
Chan's audience seems to be the traditional Christian who is having a belief challenged. Thus, one of Chan's main points is "God has the right to do WHATEVER He pleases". This comes up often throughout the book. I suppose this means that if God wants to create people just for the purpose of torturing them for all eternity...well, God is God, so deal with it.
This sounds quite negative so far. I most admire Chan's tone: he is serious, humble and passionate. It is obvious that he desires to purse the truth and do what God calls him to do, and he wants all Christians to do the same. This book comes across as kind and respectful to Bell which is the sort of friendly interchange Christians should have when debating such topics.
Chan argues that Bell's interpretation of Gehenna as just a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem lacks support. Chan argues there is no evidence this was so until 1200 AD. Interestingly, Chan also cites Andrew Perriman of making the same mistake. I frequently read Perriman's blog and he replies to this: http://www.postost.net/2011/08/was-ge...
"I would argue, therefore, that when Jesus speaks of unrighteous Jews being thrown into the “Gehenna of fire”, what he has in mind is not eternal punishment in a post mortem “hell”, as traditionally understood, but judgment on Israel in the manner presupposed by Isaiah and Jeremiah and described by the historian Josephus. Whether the city’s rubbish was burnt in the Valley of Hinnom is not greatly significant: the allusion is literary, not topographical" (Perriman).
It seems that Bell was somewhat sloppy in his interpretation of Gehenna, but Chan does not do much better. Bell's focus on the garbage dump makes for good writing, but is not historically supported. Yet Chan misses the links to the Old Testament.
On that note, Chan mentions annihilation in hell as a possibility, but dismisses it rather quickly. But a lot of the texts from scripture that he cites appear to more naturally speak of annihilation than eternal conscious torment. At one point I thought Chan was unintentionally convincing me of annihilationism. But when he does address it specifically, he seems to take the one or two passages that most clearly point to eternal conscious torment as trumping the many that point to annihilation.
Chapter five was the most challenging, as Chan writes: "Racism, greed, misplaced assurance, false teaching, misuse of wealth, and degrading words to a fellow human being - these are the things that damn people to hell? According to Scripture, the answer is yes." I wish Chan had focused more here than on simply "God can do whatever God wants". Saying God can do whatever God wants sounds like saying "might makes right". And this sort of overwhelming power does not jive with the person of Jesus Christ, who is our clearest revelation of God.
On one page Chan seems to say a person goes to hell because God can do whatever God wants and on a later page said person goes to hell because of things like greed and racism. There is no attempt to reconcile these two points. The problem is that many people assume that God is a sort of diabolical mad-scientist who sends people to hell just for the fun of it. So people are going to hell all the while calling out for God's mercy, as if they would have lived differently with more information. This portrayal of a big-meany-God is what Bell is opposing. At some points Chan seems to defend this sort of God.
But I think the truth is deeper, and the deeper is what Chan hints at in chapter 5. If someone ends up in hell (whether hell is eternal or annihilation) it is because of their rejection of God, not just in their head but in their actions and life. God does not unilaterally send people to hell simply for wrong beliefs. People freely choose to live against God in all sorts of ways: greed, racism, putting their own life first, pride, etc. To live this way is to choose hell now. Left to their own free will, they end up in hell in the future. They end up there not just because God is a big meany, but because they have rejected God in how they live. In the words of CS Lewis, to those who reject God, God says, "thy will be done" (okay, that was a rough paraphrase of Lewis).
Chapter six, focused on Romans, is all about how God does whatever God wants. So if God, the potter, wants to create people to torture for all eternity in heaven, who are we to question God? I am not a Reformed Calvinist and this chapter (if not the whole book) leaned that direction, which may be why I struggled with it. There seemed to be an over-emphasis on the transcendent, powerful God of the book of Job and not enough emphasis on the immanent God seen in Jesus who condescends to walk among us.
In the final chapter Chan says, "Yet God is not licking his chops looking for any poor soul He can send to hell". I agree. But based on the previous chapter, God kind of is looking for that. Maybe it is not that God is looking for that, instead God has created people just for the purpose of sending them to hell, so he knows who and where they are.
Overall, if you are interested in this topic, or have read Love Wins and want a response, check this book out. Chan's heart for Jesus and for other people shines through. It is a challenging and stimulating read. And at least he had footnotes, which Bell's book was sorely lacking!
I am not sure whose position I am more in agreement with: Bell or Chan. Probably neither, as when I read scripture it seems they both are right in some places and wrong in others. I suppose if Chan's book sent me back to scripture for further study, he achieved his goal.
As a postscript, I found the reviews by Jeff Cook on JesusCreed blog to be very good, here is the third one (from which I stole the whole "might makes right" analogy): http://www.patheos.com/community/jesu...
PPS. I thought this video was pretty good - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqquvh...
January 5, 2023
Feeling pretty underwhelmed by this book. I suppose it serves as a halfway decent jumping off point if you want to study this topic, but it’s really only that. It gives you the briefest of introductions to the different views on hell and the relevant Bible passages, then asks you to sit and reflect on what God’s Word says.
That’s not a bad formula, and I certainly appreciate the authors’ devotion to Scripture, as unpleasant as its teachings may be at times, but their exegesis was just very shallow (not that I disagree with it necessarily) and they seemed to raise more questions than they answered. Also, the title seems misleading, since they end up affirming the traditional doctrine of hell.
If you’re looking for a quick read to dabble your toes in the deep waters of this topic, this is for you. Otherwise, I’d recommend something else.
That’s not a bad formula, and I certainly appreciate the authors’ devotion to Scripture, as unpleasant as its teachings may be at times, but their exegesis was just very shallow (not that I disagree with it necessarily) and they seemed to raise more questions than they answered. Also, the title seems misleading, since they end up affirming the traditional doctrine of hell.
If you’re looking for a quick read to dabble your toes in the deep waters of this topic, this is for you. Otherwise, I’d recommend something else.
March 17, 2022
Oh boy. This book was so heavy, interesting, enlightening and convicting all in one. Francis Chan is definitely one of my favorite authors, and together him and Preston Sprinkle tackled an incredibly difficult subject matter with intention and grace. I loved how Chan didn’t just dive into all of the theological and educational arguments for or against hell. While he discussed these, he always brought it back to the deeply emotional and heart-wrenching reality of real people. I learned a lot and I felt a lot. Chan and Sprinkle answered hard questions, and were transparent in areas they were uncertain about. I really appreciated this book and highly recommend it!
February 25, 2023
Interesting & fast read, not what I was expecting. Basically a theological overview of the main passages of scripture that discuss hell & God’s wrath. I appreciated Chan’s commitment to sticking with what scripture says and not ignoring parts of the Bible OR adding to it. However, I feel like the book didn’t really “land anywhere” beyond just saying that hell is definitely real.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 933 reviews