> Undying Worm, Unquenchable Fire

> What is hell-eternal torment or annihilation? A look

> at the Evangelical Alliance’s The Nature of Hell.

>

> By Robert A. Peterson | posted 10/13/00

> It was six pages near the end of the book that

> exploded like a bombshell within evangelicalism. The

> book was Evangelical Essentials (InterVarsity) and the

> year was 1988. As the book’s subtitle announced, it

> was A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue between liberal

> Anglican David L. Edwards and evangelical Anglican

> John Stott. For 338 pages, Edwards and Stott ranged

> over many issues, including the gospel, biblical

> authority, miracles, ethics, and missions. But near

> the end, in those six pages, Stott tentatively

> defended annihilationism-the view that unbelievers are

> finally annihilated and thus do not experience torment

> that is eternal in duration (as traditionalists

> believe).

>

> Traditionalists, who make up most of evangelicalism,

> were shocked. Some, like John H. Gerstner, went so far

> as to question Stott’s salvation. Evangelicals have

> been debating the subject ever since, both sides

> producing books and articles defending their views and

> contesting the opposition.

>

> Out of England came another book this past April, but

> of a different order: The Nature of Hell: A Report by

> the Evangelical Alliance Commission of Unity and Truth

> Among Evangelicals. It is an evenhanded introduction

> to the historical, biblical, and theological issues

> that pertain to the evangelical debate over the nature

> and duration of hell. I have been studying these

> matters for seven years, have written two books on

> hell, and I regard this work as an outstanding

> resource for quickly accessing the issues. It is also

> a model of how evangelicals can agree to disagree.

>

> The hell debate

> With the publication of Stott’s views, evangelicals

> were spurred to study the issue more deeply and to

> respond. Perhaps emboldened by Stott’s example, others

> followed and declared their commitment to

> annihilationism: Philip E. Hughes resigned from

> Westminster Seminary and wrote The True Image: The

> Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ (Eerdmans, 1989),

> toward the end of which he took an annihilationist

> stance. A 1992 Baker collection of essays,

> Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell, included a

> piece by John W. Wenham, “The Case for Conditional

> Immortality.” Conditional immortality, or

> conditionalism for short, is the view that human

> beings are not naturally immortal. God, who alone is

> inherently immortal, grants the gift of immortality

> only to believers. Unbelievers, because they lack this

> gift, do not live forever. Although technically not

> identical with annihilationism, conditionalism has

> come to be used as a synonym for it.

>

> Through Wenham’s influence, a previous book by Edward

> Fudge was revised and issued in 1994 by Paternoster

> Press as The Fire That Consumes: The Biblical Case for

> Conditional Immortality.

>

> Plainly, the annihilationist side had taken up the

> debate, challenging the traditional view.

>

> Proponents of the traditional view of hell did not

> take this lying down. Some came with pistols flaring,

> such as Gerstner’s Repent or Perish (Soli Deo Gloria,

> 1990). Others were more reserved but no less opposed

> to annihilationism: Larry Dixon, The Other Side of the

> Good News: Confronting the Contemporary Challenges to

> Jesus’ Teaching on Hell (Victor, 1992) and my own Hell

> on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment

> (Presbyterian & Reformed, 1995). And in Universalism

> and the Doctrine of Hell (the same book in which

> Wenham attacked traditionalism), Kendall Harmon

> defended the traditional view in “The Case Against

> Conditionalism: A Response to Edward William Fudge.”

>

> Heavyweight traditionalists did not stay out of the

> fray. D. A. Carson devoted 22 pages of The Gagging of

> God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Zondervan,

> 1996) to an exegetical defense of the traditional

> view. J. I. Packer, a figure as revered by

> evangelicals as Stott, expressed his displeasure in

> Evangelical Affirmations (Academie, 1990) that Stott

> had advocated annihilationism.

>

> Plainly evangelical Anglicans were lining up on

> opposite sides of this issue: Stott, Hughes, Wenham

> and Michael Green on the side of conditionalism;

> Packer, Harmon, Gerald Bray, and Alec Motyer on the

> side of traditionalism.

>

> Into the fray stepped the Evangelical Alliance (EA).

> Also called World’s Evangelical Alliance, founded in

> 1846, EA is a Britain-based association of evangelical

> churches, parachurch organizations, and individuals.

> It is the umbrella organization for evangelicals in

> the United Kingdom. Seeing the controversy on hell and

> other issues dividing evangelicals, EA established the

> Alliance Commission of Unity and Truth Among

> Evangelicals (ACUTE) in 1995 “to work for consensus on

> theological issues that test evangelical unity, and to

> provide, on behalf of evangelicals, a coordinated

> theological response to matters of wider public

> debate.” ACUTE comprises three evangelical bodies: the

> Evangelical Alliance, the British Evangelical Council,

> and the Evangelical Movement of Wales.

>

> One project of ACUTE is The Nature of Hell. It was

> written that evangelicals might stand united against

> universalism while disagreeing among themselves

> concerning the nature of hell.

>

> The study group, consisting of traditionalists and

> conditionalists, had the task of writing a report that

> would promote understanding and tolerance among member

> believers.

>

> Building a foundation

> After describing points of agreement among

> evangelicals, the report gives background regarding

> universalism (the idea that ultimately all will be

> saved), a recurring issue in English church history.

>

> The report concludes that universalism is not an

> option for evangelicals because it lacks biblical

> warrant. Nevertheless, the report adds, “In an

> increasingly multicultural, pluralist society, the

> universalism which now underlies most forms of liberal

> Christianity is likely to present an ever-greater

> challenge for evangelicals.”

>

> The report then identifies the key biblical texts in

> the debate on the nature of hell. In the Old

> Testament, the focus is on the present life, not on

> life after death. Sheol is a dark, dreary, silent

> underworld of half-existence. Only two Old Testament

> texts, Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2, refer to

> resurrection. The report then comments on the New

> Testament pictures of the afterlife, including Gehenna

> and Hades.

>

> Two conclusions stand out. First, the report notes

> that the synoptic Gospels, Jude, and Revelation speak

> of “Gehenna,” “Hades,” and “fire.” John, Paul, and the

> other epistles speak chiefly of “perishing,”

> “destruction,” and “death.”

>

> Second, the report recognizes that “this variation in

> biblical imagery stands behind much of the debate

> between traditionalists and conditionalists.”

>

> The Nature of Hell next traces the history of each

> point of view. Traditionalism sports an impressive

> pedigree: Tertullian, Lactantius, Basil of Caesarea,

> Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, Augustine,

> Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Whitefield, and

> Wesley all endorsed eternal punishment.

>

> Embryonic forms of conditionalism are found in Justin

> Martyr and Theophilus of Antioch. Arnobius (died c.

> 330) was the first to defend annihilationism

> explicitly. The Second Council of Constantinople (553)

> and later the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-17), though,

> condemned annihilationism.

>

> The meaning of burning sulfur

> After outlining key definitions (see “Coming to Terms:

> Five key phrases in the hell debate,” p. 34), the

> report examines five critical exegetical issues that

> each side debates.

>

> 1. Destruction and perishing. Conditionalists argue

> that biblical language about the lost perishing (e.g.,

> John 3:16) or being destroyed (e.g., Matt. 10:28)

> ought to be taken at face value to indicate extinction

> of being. Although the report almost always sets out

> the best arguments for both conditionalist and

> traditionalist sides of an issue, here it includes

> only a weak traditionalist response. A stronger one

> involves the “destruction” of the beast, foretold in

> Revelation 17:8, 11; he is later cast into the fiery

> lake of burning sulfur (19:10) and is “tormented day

> and night for ever and ever” (20:10).

>

> 2. The fire and the worm. Conditionalists maintain

> that the biblical imagery of hellfire indicates

> consumption and not the infliction of pain.

> Traditionalists respond that the fire and worm in Mark

> 9:48, a key text, are “undying” and “unquenchable,”

> respectively. Conditionalists counter by insisting,

> “Although both the worm and the fire themselves appear

> to be everlasting, the effect they have on any

> individual sinner may yet be terminal.”

>

> 3. Eternal punishment and “the age to come.”

> Traditionalists historically have pointed to Jesus’

> parallel between the two destinies in Matthew 25:46:

> eternal punishment and eternal life (italics mine).

> Conditionalists respond by saying the text does not

> define eternal, and it could be rendered qualitatively

> rather than quantitatively; hence “the punishment of

> the age to come” and “the life of the age to come.”

> Even if “eternal” punishment is the correct rendering,

> it could point to the everlasting effects of the

> punishment (conceived as destruction) rather than to

> everlasting suffering of the punishment.

>

> Traditionalists raise their eyebrows when

> conditionalists insist on a different meaning for the

> word eternal when it is used in two parallel phrases

> in the same sentence to describe the two destinies.

>

> 4. Jesus’ account of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke

> 16:19-31. Fire imagery here plainly speaks of pain and

> not consumption (vv. 23, 24, 25, 28). Some

> traditionalists say this account teaches that the lost

> will endure eternal torment. But conditionalists

> correctly point out that Jesus’ parable pertains to

> the intermediate rather than the final state.

>

> 5. Sulfur, smoke, and the “second death.” The meaning

> of Revelation 14:10-11 is contested: the wicked will

> be “tormented with burning sulfur” and “the smoke of

> their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no

> rest day or night” for them. Traditionalists assert

> that this text unambiguously teaches their view.

>

> Conditionalists appeal to Old Testament texts that

> describe God’s destruction of cities, “all of which

> are reduced to wastes of burning sulfur, but which

> themselves cease to exist as cities once they have

> been razed to the ground.” The rising smoke in

> Revelation 14:10 is a trace of the destruction wrought

> by the consuming fire. And the torment relates to the

> moment of their destruction rather than eternal

> suffering.

>

> But, traditionalists protest, the text speaks of “the

> smoke of their torment” going up “for ever and ever”

> and thereby connects the suffering of persons with

> eternal duration. Traditionalists also point to the

> sentence that follows-”There is no rest day or night”

> for the wicked-as evidence of eternal punishment.

> Conditionalists counter that this does not prove

> endless suffering but only suffering that lasts as

> long as the sufferers do.

>

> Traditionalists point to Revelation 20:10 as

> unequivocally teaching eternal punishment. After the

> devil is cast into the lake of fire, John reports that

> the devil, beast, and false prophet “will be tormented

> day and night for ever and ever.” Because “day and

> night” is further modified by “for ever and ever,”

> surely here the conditionalists must cry, “Uncle!”

>

> They refuse, however, and instead argue that this text

> says nothing about human beings suffering eternal

> torment. Indeed, the devil, beast, and false prophet

> function symbolically here to denote opposition to

> God. In fact, the meaning of the imagery of Revelation

> 20:10 considered in its totality, they argue, is

> annihilation. This is confirmed, conditionalists

> claim, by the fact that a few verses later the lake of

> fire is defined as “the second death,” a clear

> reference to cessation of being.

>

> Traditionalists remain unconvinced. The devil, at

> least, and probably his henchmen, are personal beings.

> Furthermore, Jesus in Matthew 25:41 assigns the

> “goats” to “the eternal fire prepared for the devil

> and his angels.” Traditionalists also reject

> conditionalists’ equating the lake of fire with

> annihilation, arguing instead that death signifies not

> extermination but separation. The second death,

> therefore, stands for eternal separation from God.

> Moreover, the lake of fire signifies eternal torment

> in Revelation 20:10; if conditionalists’

> interpretation were correct, shouldn’t John have

> indicated a change in its meaning five verses later

> when he speaks of humans being thrown into it?

>

> Two theological issues round out this discussion. The

> view that at least some of the unsaved receive a

> chance after death to believe in Christ is rejected by

> traditionalists and most conditionalists for the good

> reasons that “it is seriously lacking in exegetical

> foundation” and that it contradicts the solid biblical

> principle that “death represents a decisive and final

> step to final judgment.” The Nature of Hell affirms a

> wider hope for persons dying in infancy and for the

> mentally disabled, and acknowledges a case can be made

> that some who have never heard the gospel may be saved

> by implicit faith.

>

> From philosophy to blessedness

> The report notes that four main theological issues

> also figure in the debate.

>

> 1. The place of philosophy. Annihilationists claim

> that the church Fathers imbibed uncritically the Greek

> notion of the immortal soul and consequently were

> misled into the traditional doctrine of hell. If all

> human beings live forever, the argument runs, they

> must forever inhabit either heaven or hell.

> Traditionalists point out that, aside from the debated

> question of Platonic influence on the Fathers, the

> important thing is whether the Bible teaches

> immortality. Traditionalists take different paths

> here, some claiming Scripture affirms immortality,

> others saying Scripture implies it. Matthew 10:28

> (“Rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both

> soul and body in hell”) is hotly contested:

> conditionalists insist on the plain sense;

> traditionalists say destruction is a metaphor for

> terrible loss.

>

> 2. God’s love and justice. How could God’s love and

> justice possibly be made known in the everlasting

> conscious torment of human beings? Indeed, the report

> notes, “This question is regularly cited by

> conditionalists as a starting point for their

> abandonment of the traditional position.” How is it

> just for God to punish for eternity sins committed in

> a finite lifetime? Some traditionalists have followed

> Aquinas in insisting that sins against an infinite God

> deserve infinite recompense. They have maintained that

> only a holy and just God (not sinful human beings) is

> qualified to determine the consequences of sin. They

> suspect that conditionalists “are succumbing to

> contemporary cultural representations of pain as the

> ultimate evil to be avoided, when sin against God is

> in fact a more heinous thing.” And traditionalists

> have affirmed that eternal conscious punishment will

> bring glory to God, the righteous Judge.

>

> 3. God’s triumph. According to conditionalists, the

> traditionalist picture of the end mars the biblical

> hope of God’s ultimate victory, for traditionalism

> pictures an eternal eschatological dualism between

> good and evil. Traditionalists reply that Revelation

> 21 and 22 paint a picture that includes the lake of

> fire as well as the new heavens and new earth. They

> insist that God will reign over heaven and hell and be

> glorified in both places.

>

> 4. The blessedness of the redeemed. Conditionalists

> argue that the joys of the saved in heaven would be

> diminished by their knowledge of the never-ending

> suffering of the lost in hell. The standard

> traditionalist response is that God will remove any

> pain that those in heaven might otherwise experience.

>

> The need for sensitive reflection

> The report next seeks to remedy the fact that

> evangelicals on both sides of the debate have produced

> little in the way of pastoral reflection. It calls all

> to hold solemn and sensitive attitudes toward hell.

> Evangelicals historically have understood hell as a

> spur to evangelism. Recently, however, some have

> debated how prominent a place hell should have in

> Christian witness.

>

> Traditionalists accuse conditionalists of

> underestimating the fate of the lost, and

> conditionalists criticize traditionalists for

> unnecessarily adding to the scandal of the gospel. The

> report calls for a truce and urges Christians to

> combine words of God’s justice and love when

> presenting the gospel.

>

> For example, on the issue of what believers are to say

> to terminally ill patients who do not know Christ:

> While demonstrating God’s love in their actions and

> avoiding exploitation, Christians are to speak of

> God’s judgment as background for sharing the good news

> of Christ. Concerning pastoral care of the bereaved,

> pastors should rejoice at the home-going of a

> believer, but it is inadvisable to pronounce that a

> specific person is in hell. Instead, pastors should

> preach the gospel to the living.

>

> Room at the evangelical table

> Though the report acknowledges that traditionalism is

> the majority view among evangelicals, it strives to

> maintain fellowship with conditionalists. Although a

> few traditionalists have questioned the right of

> conditionalists to be called evangelical Christians,

> the working group that drafted The Nature of Hell

> affirms that right.

>

> In terms of doctrine, the study confirmed that the

> main conditionalists show a high regard for the

> authority of Scripture and attempt to base their case

> chiefly on biblical exegesis. Historically speaking,

> though, conditionalism fares far worse than

> traditionalism.

>

> Although evangelicals are wary of appeals to tradition

> as compared to Scripture, the testimony of history, in

> which few major theologians have wavered from

> traditionalism, places a considerable burden of proof

> on conditionalists.

>

> Yet conditionalism seems to share an evangelical

> worldview or ethos with traditionalism. Furthermore,

> conditionalists bear a “family resemblance”; they are

> part of the same relational network. Indeed, “when it

> comes to those who have moved from traditionalism

> towards conditionalism, the familial ties remain

> strong,” the report notes.

>

> Conclusions and recommendations

> The Nature of Hell ends with 11 conclusions (each

> accompanied by biblical proofs) and 11

> recommendations. First, a summary of the conclusions:

>

> All human beings will die and will be resurrected to

> face God’s judgment, issuing either in eternal glory

> or condemnation to hell. Furthermore, “God has

> revealed no other way to salvation and eternal life

> apart from through Jesus Christ.” While rejecting

> universalism and postmortem repentance, the report

> affirms, “In his sovereignty, God might save some who

> have not explicitly professed faith in Jesus Christ,”

> although we are not to assume this in any specific

> case. Christians should therefore evangelize, assuming

> that it is through proclamation of the gospel that God

> saves people.

>

> The gospel is chiefly good news but also includes the

> message of hell: “Hell is more than mere annihilation

> at the point of death. Rather death will lead on to

> resurrection and final judgment to either heaven or

> hell.” Hell involves separation from God, severe

> punishment, and is “a conscious experience of

> rejection and torment.”

>

> Furthermore, “There are degrees of punishment and

> suffering in hell.” Scripture describes hell as a

> realm of destruction, although evangelicals differ on

> whether this speaks of “the actual existence of

> individual sinners (eventual annihilation) or to the

> quality of their relationship with God (eternal

> conscious punishment).”

>

> “Evangelicals diverge on whether hell is eternal in

> duration or effect,” that is, on whether it consists

> of ceaseless conscious experience or irreversible

> annihilation. “God’s purpose extends beyond judgment

> to the redemption of the cosmos. Evangelicals diverge

> on whether a place is preserved for hell in this new

> order of things.”

>

> Then come the recommendations:

>

> Church leaders should not neglect teaching on hell but

> should teach it with “sensitivity and discernment.” At

> funerals it is proper to declare the heavenly

> inheritance of Christians but not the condemnation of

> those whose relationship to God is unclear.

> Theological colleges should give attention to hell in

> preparing church leaders for ministries, and Christian

> educators should not neglect final destinies in their

> teaching. Hell understood as eternal conscious

> punishment is the historic view of the church and is

> the mainstream evangelical position.

>

> Still, “Conditional immortality is a significant

> minority evangelical view. Furthermore, we believe

> that the traditionalist-conditionalist debate on hell

> should be regarded as a secondary rather than a

> primary issue for evangelical theology.”

>

> Furthermore, “We understand the current Evangelical

> Alliance Basis of Faith to allow both traditionalist

> and conditionalist interpretations of hell”;

> nonetheless it would be helpful to add a clause on

> eschatology that includes conditionalism. The

> evangelical traditionalist-conditionalist debate

> should continue with the parties maintaining

> “constructive dialogue and respectful relationships.”

>

> An American assessment

> The report is a model of how evangelicals can study

> together constructively, even when they must agree to

> disagree. The working group did its homework well, as

> the extensive bibliography and footnotes attest. A

> spirit of Christian fairness pervades the report.

> Traditionalist and conditionalist views are given on

> every debated point.

>

> Surely we can appreciate the way our brothers and

> sisters have gone about their business. Too often

> evangelicals have ended up with black eyes before the

> world by conducting their debates with acrimony and

> rancor.

>

> From the perspective of evangelical Anglicanism, the

> report must be deemed a success. It has a clear

> purpose: not to allow the

> traditionalist-conditionalist debate to further divide

> evangelicals in the United Kingdom. This is evident in

> the candor with which it describes the history of the

> debate, in the makeup of the working group (including

> scholars on both sides), in its design (the first and

> last two chapters form a literary inclusion that calls

> for theological inclusion), and in its conclusions and

> recommendations.

>

> Readers should not miss the point: the book is not a

> debate between traditionalists and conditionalists

> concerning the nature of hell. Instead, it is a

> summary of that debate written to bring

> traditionalists and conditionalists together. It is an

> attempt at damage control.

>

> As an American evangelical and a Reformed theologian,

> I have learned from The Nature of Hell. I have added

> to my bibliography, learned new ways conditionalists

> handle exegetical and theological problems, been

> brought up short a few times (the report cites my Hell

> on Trial frequently, usually favorably, but twice

> offers criticism), and appreciated the pastoral

> applications. I agree that the

> traditionalist-conditionalist debate does not extend

> to matters of salvation.

>

> Yet I do not agree that the

> traditionalist-conditionalist debate should be

> regarded as “secondary,” if that means a debatable

> matter as church government and eschatology are

> debatable. In my view conditionalism is a more serious

> error for three reasons.

>

> First, despite good intentions, the conditionalist

> exegesis of the key texts falls short. After studying

> the report’s presentation of the key exegetical

> debates, my conviction that traditionalism is the

> teaching of Scripture has been strengthened.

> Consequently, although I plan to assign the report as

> required seminary reading, I fear that it might

> confuse those who have not been trained to evaluate

> exegetical arguments. The report’s approach to debated

> texts is this: traditionalists say this but

> conditionalists say this; to which traditionalists

> respond thus, to which conditionalists respond thus;

> and so on. This works well in the classroom, but it

> could easily give lay readers the impression that the

> arguments must come to a standoff. That simply is not

> the case.

>

> Second, conditionalism frequently leads to systemic

> error, adversely affecting other doctrines. So it is

> in the case of Edward Fudge, perhaps the

> conditionalist most cited in The Nature of Hell.

>

> Fudge and I recently coauthored Two Views of Hell: A

> Biblical and Theological Debate (InterVarsity, 2000).

> Fudge argues that Jesus was “destroyed” when he died

> on the cross. I inquire whether he means that Jesus’

> whole person was destroyed or just his human nature.

> Either answer has disastrous implications for

> Christology: either God is “destroyed” or Jesus’ two

> natures are separable in a way that Chalcedon would

> have condemned. Edward becomes agitated in response,

> signaling, I think, that he recognizes the theological

> problem.

>

> Third, I fear that conditionalism might have a

> negative effect on evangelism and missions. If

> traditionalism is correct, then conditionalism

> seriously underestimates the pains of hell.

>

> Indeed, the lost would rather be annihilated because

> their suffering would be over.

>

> D. A. Carson speaks a hard but necessary truth:

>

> Despite the sincerity of their motives, one wonders

> more than a little to what extent the growing

> popularity of various forms of annihilationism and

> conditional immortality are a reflection of this age

> of pluralism. It is getting harder and harder to be

> faithful to the “hard lines” of Scripture. And in this

> way, evangelicalism itself may contribute to the

> gagging of God by silencing the severity of his

> warnings and by minimizing the awfulness of the

> punishment that justly awaits those untouched by his

> redeeming grace.

>

> Robert A. Peterson is professor of systematic theology

> at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis. He is

> the author of Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal

> Punishment (P&R) and, with Edward Fudge, Two Views of

> Hell: A Biblical & Theological Dialogue (IVP).

> Related Elsewhere

>

> Be sure to read the related stories to this article,

> “Rightly Dividing the Hell Debate | Key Advocates and

> Writings” and “Coming to Terms | Key Phrases in the

> Hell Debate.”

>

> The Evangelical Alliance’s press release about its

> report is available on the organization’s Web site.

>

> Media coverage of The Nature of Hell includes:

>

> Is there a Hell? Yes, experts say, and it’s awful-The

> Age (Apr. 3, 2000)

>

> So Hell is a real place after all. Thank heavens for

> that.-The Independent (Apr. 3, 2000)

>

> Children ‘should be told of hell’ | Liberals twitch as

> evangelicals turn to fire and brimstone-The Guardian

> (Apr. 15, 2000)

>

> Unless Jesus Says Otherwise, Hell Exists, Asserts

> Evangelical Report | British group acknowledges

> differences on annihilationism, but says doctrine of

> hell must be preached again.-Christianity Today (Apr.

> 18, 2000)

>

> Hell Is There and “Occupied” | The UK’s Evangelical

> Alliance reaffirms the reality of hell in a report to

> be published next week.-Religion News

> Service/Beliefnet

>

> British evangelicals emphasize Hell-Evangelical

> Press/B.C. Christian News (May 2000)

>

> Hell is back in business | Trends come and go, so

> don’t be surprised when you hear the latest: Hades is

> hot, angels are not.-Salon.com (June 12, 2000

>

> Read Robert A. Peterson’s meditation on “Christ Our

> Kinsman-Redeemer.”

>

> Previous Christianity Today articles on hell include:

>

> ‘Hell Took a Body, and Discovered God’ | One of the

> oldest and best Easter sermons, now 1,600 years old,

> is still preached today. (April 24, 2000)

>

> Unless Jesus Says Otherwise, Hell Exists, Asserts

> Evangelical Report | British group acknowledges

> differences on Annihilationism, but says doctrine of

> hell must be preached again. (April 18, 2000)

>

> Is Hell Forever? | Annihilationists anticipate one

> ultimate destiny for the wicked, an undifferentiated

> nonexistence. (Oct. 5, 1998)

>

> Can We Be Good Without Hell? | (June 16, 1997)

>

> October 23, 2000, Vol. 44, No. 12, Page 30

Related Articles:

• THE NEW EVANGELICALS: HOW CHRISTIANS ARE RETHINKING ABORTION AND GAY MARRIAGE
• Theologians, like parents, are invited to be humble as well as (frequently) ignorant…
• The Jesus Driven Life
• INCARNATION
• Virgin Birth: ‘God degraded Mary?’