At Jason’s request I’ve started this thread for further discussion on this book. The following was originally put in the thread where members share what they’ve been reading recently.
I just finished reading “Erasing Hell” by Chan. A friend gave it to me saying, tongue in cheek, that after reading it I’d be a “Flaming Infernalist”. He’s a good friend who has moved to being a hopeful universalist (though he is leary of that title).
Erasing Hell is Chan’s response to Love Wins. Because of such his primary assertion is that God’s ways are higher than our ways so it’s no use trying to figure out a logical reason for Hell; rather, we only need to accept it in faith. God’s sense of justice and love might be very different than ours. So though Hell makes no logical sense, we need to trust that it is ultimately good and just. As I said this is Chan’s response to Bell’s “Love Wins” for in “Love Wins” Bell points out several things about Hell that just does not make sense when one considers the character of God.
Overall, to be blunt, Eransing Hell came across to me as being disingenuous and even double minded. Concerning being disingenuous for example, in the body he states that Origen was condemned as a Heretic mater-of-factly. I thought, well, he’s just stating that in ignorance not taking into consideration the political motivation of that counsel or the exact wording of the denouncement. But in the notes at the end of the chapter he notes that one really can’t make much of that denunciation of Origen because the counsel that did so was evidently politically motivated by the Roman Emperor. So he knew that the denunciation of Origen being a Heretic was not worth it’s weight in sand, but stated in the body text that Origen was denounced as a heretic as a point made to dismiss UR.
Also, his review of the evidence in support of UR was clearly dismissive and even leaving out the strongest passages imo in support of UR, Rom.5.18 and Jn.12.42. And the others he mentions he dismisses off-handedly. Of course I realize that he doesn’t want to dwell too much on those scriptures because doing so would weaken his position.
Chan relies heavily on Enoch to establish the concept that ECT was a common Jewish belief and that Jesus’ warnings concerning Hinnom Valley (gehenna) flowed out of Enoch. He mentioned Jeremiah and Isaiah, but did not expound on them. But of course, Jeremiah’s and Isaiah’s use of Hinnom Valley doesn’t affirm ECT. Chan also in passing mentions that Enoch also pictures annihilation. He doesn’t bring out that Enoch is apocalyptic literature and thus not necessarily, even likely, meant to be taken literally, but figuratively, not systematically, but artistically. Of course Chan also doesn’t even mention that aionios which is translated eternal can be understood as “age-to-come” or other.
Concerning double-mindedness, it also seems to me that Chan can’t seem to make his mind up between Calvinism and Arminianism, between the sovereignty of God and the autonomy of man. He also states several times that most Christians do not really live as if they believe in Hell, even himself. He struggles with seeing others as going to hell forever, and feels like he must cover for God’s lack of love for people. I believe that people live according to what they actually believe, not what they profess to believe. Thus he and most Christians do not actually believe in Hell; If they did they would live differently.
Chan also seems to often flirt with works based salvation, because, correctly so, he notes that the judgment passages speak of works as the basis for judgment, especially the flock and the kids (sheep and goats) Mt.25 passage; and he notes that these passages are intended to be warnings for believers. So for him on one side he recognizes that judgment is based on how we actually live, and on the other side affirms salvation is by grace and faith. His conclusion seems to be that believers who have received salvation by grace through faith can loose salvation by works, or the lack thereof. It’s really a convoluted system of beliefs he presents, a hybrid Calvinism/Arminianism and hybrid Faith/Works based salvation. At least, that’s the way the book came across to me.
Please don’t misunderstand me, it’s evident that Chan loves the Lord and is doing his best to be faithful to what he believes to be true. The book just came across to me as, well, weak though it’s about as good as any I’ve read that affirm Infernalism.
As I mentioned before, my friend said, tongue in cheek, after reading this book I’d be a Flaming Infernalist. To which I responded very seriously, “I hope you are right because I’d love to get out of this fire that I’m in. I’d love to get back to being an accepted part of the fellowships I love. I’d love to once again be respected by those who use to respect me until I came to believe that Jesus really is the savior of all.” Sadly though, “Erasing Hell” has only served to further Erase Hell from my beliefs and convince me more than ever that God is good and loves all and will ultimately fulfill the good plan that He’s created us all for! Relationship with Him!
(Had to throw that observation in, Jason! Since I can’t within the relevant thread. Great job so far. Recommended it to a budding universalist whom heads up an apologetic Facebook group.)
).
