Friday, July 18, 2025

Erasing Hell - Book Review by a Universalist

Introduction

Francis Chan is one of the most heartfelt and genuine preachers I have encountered over the years. His love for God and God’s people is infectious, daring us to embody Christ in every aspect of our lives. This book was recommended to me by a friend after we had some discussion on the nature of hell and eternity. As an Evangelical Universalist, I had infrequently come across what I thought were good arguments against Universalism from philosophical or Scriptural perspectives, and so with Francis being someone I respect who wrote a book (with Preston Sprinkle) that targeted Universalism, it piqued my interest. It was an easy read and covered a number of discussion points, namely: several selected Universalist Scriptures, a hell in Scripture survey, and a valuable discussion on the sovereignty of God. As we explore these topics, the creature/Creator distinction needs to be maintained in our discussions to keep us humble. Yet, while there were some intriguing/challenging points, the book demonstrates a current lack of argumentative rigor that doesn’t seem to readily deal with Universalist perspectives, for a Universalist anyway.

Evangelical Universalism is more or less the belief in the restoration of all people to God, only through Jesus, and doesn’t necessarily deny the existence of hell, just its eternality.

Valuable Points:

I will say first that I appreciated some challenging points that Chan made regarding the historical context of what Jesus and Paul was speaking into about “hell”. He claims that Jewish thinkers of the time clearly believed in an eternal place of punishment. If this is true, this is troubling, because Jesus and Paul did not clearly qualify what they meant by “eternal hell” in the Scriptures, and if they were preaching something different to the Jewish idea then they probably should have articulated very clearly the difference. However, we will see later on that the Hebrew word/concept, “olam”, and the Greek word, “aion”, often had a variety of meanings, and so may have the 1st Century Jews.

Another valuable point he had against Universalism was the depiction of the dead at the end of Isaiah which could be said to be the “end” judgement. Universalists have answers for this passage but answers to it is not in the scope of this review.

A valuable point in the positive for Universalism I learnt from the book is that some people claim the word for “punishment” is related to the concept of pruning. Chan argued to the contrary, but I need to explore more the times when fire is used as a purification device in Scripture, rather than destruction. This would potentially heavily influence the narrative around hell fire towards Universalism.  

 

“All Alive”

Chapter 1 is where he wrestles with 1 Corinthians 15:22, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive”, 2 Corinthians 5:19, Colossian 1:19-20, and 1 Timothy 2:4. I understand he may have been using these verses as primary representatives for the Universalist perspective, but these are not exhaustive. Mercy on All provides many instances of Universalism as a theme throughout Scripture - MercyOnAll.org. I find that Chan doesn’t apply the same “rigor” of textual criticism to the verse on “eternal” hell that he does on these Universalist verses. For example, he claims that it is obvious that the context of 1 Cor 15:22 refers to the believers at Jesus second coming. He says that Paul is not referring to literally “all” people in 15:22. I don’t see any necessary reason to come to this conclusion. A fuller context suggests that all things anti-God will be ended:

“20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”     

As you can see from this passage, Paul is not limiting salvation to just those who are believers (at His coming); Paul is simply talking about a staged process of gradual restoration with the “firstfruits; then, when He comes, those who belong to Him”. The rest of the passage reemphasises the totality of v22 “in Christ all will be made alive”, through God destroying ALL dominion, authority, and power. DEATH will be destroyed. Now, that is a strange thing to say when in an eternal conscious torment (ECT) perspective, death would reign in the dominion of hell under the authority of Satan for eternity. Chan also says that “all be made alive” in verse 22 doesn’t mean literally “all” and could mean “most”. True, but the immediate context of “in Adam all die” is a mirror image. But by the Christian doctrine of total depravity, it is likely to mean literally “all” in intent. Logically from this passage, it is equivocal for all to die in Adam AND all to be raised in Christ.

“Every Knee”

Chan also raises Isaiah 45 and posits that it doesn’t claim that every knee should bow in a salvific sense. He says that it is clear that some continue to resist God, though it seems to clearly state the opposite:

“Turn to me and be saved,

    all you ends of the earth;

    for I am God, and there is no other.

23 By myself I have sworn,

    my mouth has uttered in all integrity

    a word that will not be revoked:

Before me every knee will bow;

    by me every tongue will swear.

24 They will say of me, ‘In the Lord alone

    are deliverance and strength.’”

All who have raged against him

    will come to him and be put to shame.

25 But all the descendants of Israel

    will find deliverance in the Lord

    and will make their boast in him.   

He might be referring to v 24, “All who have raged against him will come to him and be put to shame”, but this is past tense, not ongoing. Chan does bring up the end of the book of Isaiah and makes a more difficult case for Universalists with that passage. I think Chan would do better sticking to those passages that seem to support an ECT perspective rather than potentially discrediting himself by saying other passages like Isaiah 45 clearly state something when it doesn’t.

God’s Desires

Chan also claims that God has two wills - one being moral and the other decreed. This is fair considering that is one of the few ways, really, to answer 1 Timothy 2:4 (from an ECT perspective), which posits that God wants all to be saved. I find though that Chan’s love of the sovereignty of God limits itself here by suggesting that God doesn’t get what He wants all the time. For example, he seems to claim that God values freewill over saving all people because that would make us “puppets”. However, other widely held Christian doctrines do not seem to posit freewill as necessary for salvation. It is widely held by the church historically that children below the age of accountability, if they die, will be saved. This negates the whole necessary “freewill defense” of why God doesn’t save everyone. Wouldn’t it be far better if God took the life of every child here on earth to save them from a life of eternal conscious torment, or even encourage parents to not have children because few will find the narrow path and many won’t? Certainly not, and that is why God is likely to have a Universal restoration plan as claimed frequently in Scripture.

Heresy

Heresy is a big term that is widely used but not clearly defined. It is important to define it because people have died over this term in the past. I am a little confused on Chan’s use of the word. For example, he states clearly in the main pages of his book that Universalism is a heresy, however, when I read his footnotes, he states that it shouldn’t be historically considered a heresy due to it being addressed to one theologian – Origen – and part of a politically driven church council in 553 AD. I am glad he included this historical fact, but I think Chan needs to be clearer here what he means by heresy, and it would be helpful having a fuller historical explanation in the main pages, rather than reserving it for the footnotes.

Olam And Aion

The word in Greek, “aion”, or “eternal” in English, has a wide range of meanings. Chan admits this. However, interestingly he uses a similar argument that he uses against 1 Corinthians 15:22 that “all” only refers to those who believe in Christ, but a different “all” when talking about Adam. He claims that the mirroring of eternal hell and eternal life in different passages means that they must have the same meaning. The fear is that if eternal hell didn’t mean eternal, then by mirroring, eternal life cannot mean eternal either. I can’t help but feel that Chan is appealing to consequence here by trying to hold onto a literal “eternal life” as a consequence. But this is not necessary. From the studies I have done on “olam” and “aion”, the duration of the time is often connected to the context of its connection. From my understanding, olam (usually translated as “aion” in the Septuagint) is a Jewish word derived from a concept of seeing over a horizon (JewishRoots.net ). In other words, we don’t know the end, not that it is literally forever. It is an INDEFINITE period of time dictated by the immediate context the word is found in. We have reason based on many Scriptures to believe that hell is an indefinite period of time because of the promises of God restoring all things to Himself. On the contrary, we have no reason to think that eternal life will end. God never promises to end the righteous or destroy all His creation. Therefore, the best way to reconcile the verses on eternal hell, and the ones on universal reconciliation, is to adhere to the historical grammatical language our English is translated from.

Good Father

Chan frequently asserts that he wants all people to be saved, and I hope that he does, but I hope he takes a longer look at the arguments from Evangelical Universalists with more of an open mind. Chan writes a beautiful but limiting chapter on the sovereignty of God. He focuses on the famous/infamous Romans 9. He explains that God can do what He likes whether we like it or not – including eternal hell – and we should not question Him. However, admirable as this is, this is not a necessary conclusion. I agree that God’s ways are higher than our ways, and we will not always understand God’s actions (this is very helpful when it comes to bearing with suffering), however Jesus also expects us to have an understanding of what a “good” father might be. Luke 7:

“9 Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 So if you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets. God is frequently portrayed as our father in Scripture.   

The idea of a “good father” is comprehensible to us. A father who sends estranged sons to an eternal torture prison doesn’t really fit the bill. From our understanding (let me know if you disagree), a good Father will always be willing to accept His estranged children back, provided they are willing to live according to the ways of righteousness. This is the message of the parable of the “Prodigal Son”. No matter how far we have gone, God will welcome us with open arms as a good father would do, even into eternity.

Conclusion

Overall, the book was a helpful read, and I recommend it alongside other Universalist literature. It alerted me to key arguments against Universalism and gave me opportunity to test my own understanding of the topic. Some challenging points were made such as the end of Isaiah, and the historical Jewish understanding of “eternal hell”, however, most of the arguments were underdeveloped or didn’t address the main points of Universalism satisfactorily. As much as I believe that God expects us to understand how He is good, I acknowledge that He is God and we are mere creatures. If I am wrong and ECT is real, I hope God will be gracious and give us understanding.

Thursday, May 22, 2025

Alex O'Connor's Contradiction (On Suffering)

Introduction

Are you one of those crazy people who just love sitting down and watching a 3 hour debate on some theological discussion, or in the case of Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson (with his word salads) - a full 8 hours? Well, I am. From the philosophical debates about the existence of God and the problem of evil, I see that there has been a change of the guard since I was a teen and the level of public discussion has definitely increased in complexity and also sincerity. There have been many great debates - Sam Harris v Jordan Peterson, William Lane Craig v Sam Harris, Trent Horn v Alex O'Connor etc. Trent Horn is definitely a significant force on the theist side and Alex O'Connor on the atheist side. Both are improving on or at least articulating old arguments in new ways that I find intriguing. For example, Trent is improving on the Kalam Cosmological argument (an infinite materialistic past is impossible), and Alex is giving credit where due - that human suffering isn't so much of an issue due to its allowance of higher order values, but he instead focuses on animal suffering (more on this later). I am not so convinced Alex is the "non-resistant, non-believer" he claims to be. 

Alex

Alex has a fantastic accent, sharp wit, and depending on the interview, he has a charming and genuine feel about his discussions. He purports to be a "non-resistant, non-believer" which gives the impression he is very open to believing in God. He even stated in one interview that the main idea that is keeping him from believing in God is the problem of unnecessary animal suffering. While holding this in mind, I do find it suspicious that he finds himself debating frequently against the resurrection of Jesus, the divine command for the Canaanite "genocide", and whether Jesus even claimed to be God. For someone who is non-resistant and has only one mentioned reason for not believing in God, he certainly is very actively opposing Him. There might be more to his story than he lets on. Alex seems to rely on a rather literalistic approach to what I call "lemon picking" which throws a lot of Christians off in debate. Lemon picking is a way of deliberately missing a point and looking at the negative. For example, many Christians use Galatians 3:28 to end slavery - "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus". Alex doesn't believe we can use this passage because it would mean denying the literal existence of male and female. Alex clearly misunderstands the significance of this passage - that slaves and non slaves are equal in the eyes of God. Many of the reasons for slavery throughout history is that slaves are seen as worth less than free people. Galatians alternatively claims otherwise.  

This leads me to the main topic of this blog post... Alex's contradiction. 

Unnecessary Animal Suffering

Alex's main gripe is that he can't understand how a good God could allow unnecessary animal suffering. This is a fair point and shows that Alex has some keen sense of morals. It is a significant Biblical idea that we as imago dei are meant to have dominion and tend God's creations from early times. This means caring for animals is a deep God-given moral compass He has given us. I am glad Alex is using it. Alex likes to weaponize it in his debates. The Knechtles unfortunately appeared to have a rough time chatting with Alex in this short half-hour discussion - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbtajMlNcnw&t=7s. In it at 1:25 Alex says to Cliff that if Alex pushed a button turning Cliff into a random wild animal, Cliff would kill himself immediately because of how miserable his life would be. Essentially, Alex is claiming that there is no value in living the life of an animal. 

Colonising Planets

Is Alex consistent with this proposition? Let's find out. In a debate with a rather worthy opponent - Catholic apologist Trent Horn, Horn pressed Alex on his rhetoric around this issue. He posited to Alex to imagine that all humanity left earth to colonise another planet. Alex has the opportunity to wipe out all nature on earth after we leave with the pressing of a button. Alex essentially gets his wish. He can end all unnecessary suffering. Alex responded basically that he didn't think he would push the button but would rather choose a button that reduced suffering. He provided no metric for deciding at what point is too much suffering - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PF1JgXOKDQ. Trent clearly drives this point home and moves onto why Alex cannot find that metric. Alex's utilitarianism gets in the way. 

Although Alex's concerns weren't really sufficient for determining how much suffering is too much, he did raise an interesting analogy about a deer being caught under a log and starving to death, even without knowledge by humans of this ever happening. This situation of suffering seems pointless to us. I do not pretend to have all the answers, but I think there are possible areas that could be explored further regarding where justified suffering could be found within the experience of animals.

Pain Is Good

First, at a silly level, we might consider us living life without pain receptors in order to minimise suffering (much like zombies or lepers). Clearly, this would be an unpleasant experience. The feeling of a hard day's work is a genuinely good feeling even if I had risked injuring myself doing so (or I had to plan my day so that I wasn't carelessly smashing into everything). This seems like a frightful dream to consider the feeling of having no pain receptors. 

Pain Is Necessary

Moving to another level, it is often said that suffering is necessary for higher order goods such as love, kindness, mercy, and compassion. I emphasise the "necessary". Jesus said that there is no greater love than one who lays down his life for his friends (John 15:13). If God wants to express Himself (as Creator) as the greatest expression of good, then this may be why God allowed/caused evil to enter the world in the first place - so that the greatest expressions of love could become a potential reality. God expressed this through His Son Jesus Christ on the cross. There is a certain beauty with higher order goods that you do not get without suffering. I am glad that Alex acknowledges this in multiple interviews. However, one could imagine that suffering might be reduced so much that all unnecessary suffering ceases to exist and therefore maximising the good ratio. Though, I am not sure that this is possible.

If we wanted to witness the "greatest love" of someone giving their life for a friend, I suppose we could minimise suffering so that only one person needed to experience this, almost like a single exemplar of suffering for us all to observe and feel pity for. Maybe, there is an exemplar "murder" story we all "know" about. Although this scenario allows us to maybe understand or empathise to a small degree with the exemplar/s of suffering for each scenario, there feels like a certain travesty and arbitrariness about it that is difficult to explain. I would argue that the exemplars alone are not enough to qualify as producing that "higher good" within us. Much like merely seeing someone garden and consequently getting a sore back and limbs is not enough for us to enjoy the relief of putting their feet up and resting after the fact. Having the ability to participate or the potential to participate in a higher good holds its own value. It must follow that if we have this potential to experience a higher good then we must also have the potential to experience suffering.

The very existence of suffering just being around the corner (as horrifying as it may be at times) provides within us a feeling of a need to band together and to help each other that in itself is valuable. We don't know when suffering will impact us, but through compassion, mercy, and love, we can experience pleasure of being in unity with others in the face of  real potential of suffering. This is infinitely more valuable than minimising suffering to a mere exemplar and addresses the real difficulty of deciding what unnecessary suffering actually is. Minimising suffering doesn't produce a ratio of more good.

Pain Is "Good/Necessary" For Animals Too

If this idea can work for people, then why could this not work for animals too? Alex frequently uses the deer being eaten by a lion as an example of unnecessary designed suffering in nature. I cannot speak as completely understanding (if at all) what the life of a deer may be. For a start, as many philosophers claim, there is a certain extra level of suffering a human can experience than an animal. An animal might experience suffering, but not the despairing self-awareness kind of suffering that true consciousness brings. They might feel pain, but not necessarily think, "I am in existential pain, and this is unfair". Animals don't have the ability to suffer as much as people, or at least they experience a different kind of pain to us. 

I wonder if a similar concept of the value of life and the real potential of suffering could be applied with deer as with people. Even though being hunted down and eaten by a lion is truly terrifying, could it be valuable for a deer to experience the safety of a herd instinct or comradery, even in the face of real dangers? A lion likewise, experiencing its own unique version of the herd instinct as they hunt together? These positive experiences of animal behaviour may be worth the suffering involved. This is the reason why when we step back, it would be difficult to push the button that exterminates all non-human life on a planet because there is something inherently valuable about nature and its own experiences. Many ultimate Sci fi movie villains attempt minimising suffering through extermination... we all know this is wrong and is actually destroying all that is good with it.

Higher Goods Within People

If animals may garnish some form of good through the real risk of wide spread suffering as people do, people can also experience higher order goods from animal suffering. Many people such as the SPCA here in New Zealand exist so that they can exercise a higher order good of caring for at risk animals. They cannot reach and save every animal from every situation, but the very knowledge that suffering is happening outside of their perceived control motivates them to creatively act to minimise "unnecessary" suffering. In a way that makes the unnecessary suffering a necessary part of motivating the greater good of SPCA's mission. Without the sense of a natural world run by natural laws where real risks and the potential of suffering exists, we can never experience these higher order goods.

This argument can be placed into a polly syllogism:

  1. If God embodies the highest form of goodness, then His nature necessitates self-expression through creation.
  2. In creating the world, God actualised the potential for widespread animal suffering as a means to manifest essential goods.
  3. The existence of widespread animal suffering is necessary for cultivating higher-order virtues in humanity, such as compassion, mercy, and concern.
  4. Additionally, this suffering plays a role in fostering lower-order goods in animals, such as the herd instinct, which contributes to survival and social cohesion.
  5. Therefore, the actualization of widespread animal suffering within creation is justified as a means of producing both higher and lower-order goods.
Conclusion

In the end, it is difficult to separate the necessity of suffering from higher and lower order goods. In Scripture, God went into a long monologue with Job challenging Job to understand his own limitations of insight. Job was humbled by this monologue. Ultimately, we cannot see all the necessities of any single event, but because God is good, we can trust that He has a greater plan for good that sometimes only He is aware of. This is infinitely more reassuring than the purposelessness of an atheistic view on suffering. We can speculate, but ultimately it is His prerogative to run this universe as He sees fit.