Jerry Walls is not the first to observe that the doctrine of hell seems to have slipped from contemporary Christian consciousness. Among theologians, the slide towards annihilationism or universalism (in one form or another) has not been confined to the liberals¹. And in the culture at large, ‘genuine concern about hell seems to be lost in our past, along with powdered wigs and witch trials’.

A detailed account of how this has happened is beyond the scope of Walls’ study. But the question of why belief in eternal punishment has been increasingly abandoned among the more orthodox has a fairly simple answer: the doctrine of hell is ‘widely regarded to be morally indefensible’. In fact, the famous philosopher Bertrand Russell had no qualms about finding fault with Jesus Christ Himself on this point, since nobody, Russell argued, “who is profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment”. For James Mill, a God who sent people to hell represented ‘the most perfect conception of wickedness’.

In the face of high-powered criticism, and with its negative impact upon an already difficult ‘problem of evil’, it is not surprising that many have been tempted to drop belief in eternal hell as a stumbling block that is inconsistent with a Christian conception of a loving God, and an intellectual encumbrance on the gospel.

Nevertheless, for many conservatives, the attractive reinterpretations of biblical teaching proffered by theologians rejecting this aspect of the Faith, whilst not without merit, are not entirely convincing. Walls for one believes that, on reflection, the doctrine of hell turns out to be more intimately interwoven with the heart of traditional Christian belief than may at first appear. If this is the case, he argues, then Christians face an unpleasant dilemma: if belief in hell is a basic part of Christianity, and if it is a moral defect to believe in hell, then one cannot be a Christian without being morally defective. In this book, Walls’ argues that the doctrine of eternal hell can be construed in ways that are neither immoral nor unintelligible. In what follows, I shall attempt to offer a brief synopsis of his argument.

1. Hell and Human Belief

Interestingly, as Walls relates, the actual phenomenon of belief in eternal hell has been used against the doctrine – and on both flanks. On the one side, it has been argued that Christians themselves do not really believe in it. And on the other, it has been observed that some Christians seem altogether too willing to believe in it! No one, of course, is claiming that hell’s existence is actually contingent upon the intentional state of people’s minds. The arguments from belief (or non-belief) are epistemological.

Some Christians have suggested that, when we honestly look into our hearts, we discover a universalist hope that cannot bear to think of anybody being lost, and that this presents us with a prima facie reason for thinking the traditional doctrine of hell to be untrue. People may accept the doctrine, but in their hearts they find they do not believe it, and the Christian heart is purportedly ‘shaped [in some measure] by the Spirit of God’. Further evidence that they do not believe it is that they do not act like it: we would immediately warn our unbelieving neighbour if his house was on fire, but we seem ‘strangely reconciled’ to his eternal fate. Walls takes these objections seriously, but ultimately rejects them. The burning house analogy, for instance, is flawed. ‘In the first place, if [our neighbour’s] house was on fire, he would certainly want to know about it. And second, he would surely consider it a real danger … However, these assumptions do not necessarily hold with respect to hell’. Nor can the seriousness of someone’s damnation be ‘instilled in a moment’. More troubling, however, is the thought that this sort of argument, if it went through, would place a good deal of Christian belief in question, besides the doctrine of hell. That few ‘seem to be appropriately moved… in the normal course of their daily routines’ by the extraordinary content of Christian teaching is interesting, and something we should reflect on, but not something we should accept as warrant for questioning the veracity of Christian doctrine. And there are shining counterexamples in the life and ministry of such saints as John Wesley. Regarding the evidence of Christian feelings, which ‘relies mainly on the testimony of contemporary Christians’, Walls contends that ‘the witness of the Christian heart is divided’. The same emotions may attend the state of ‘regretting the doctrine of eternal hell’ as well as the state of ‘hoping that is not true’, and Walls believes that many Christians fall in the former category. Moreover, ‘the compatibility of hoping for something while believing it is not very likely to happen blocks any direct argument from the existence of a widespread Christian hope that none will finally be lost to the conclusion that Christians “deep down” do not really believe in eternal hell’.

Logic on Fire: The Life and Legacy of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

Logic on Fire is a documentary film about the life and ministry of the greatest preacher of the twentieth century, Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981). I hope that all Christians, especially ministers, will view it. He was known by all as “the Doctor” because he was a physician before he entered the ministry. Following G. Campbell Morgan, he became the minister of Westminster Chapel (1938-1968). His close relationship with the renowned Lord Horder, the king’s physician, is given space in the film; it is essential to understanding the Doctor. Having learned to diagnose patients by going “from the general to the particular”– ruling out what would be a false diagnosis or illness, Dr. Lloyd-Jones approached Scripture in much the same way; he ruled out what a text could not mean and came to understand what it does mean. He became possibly the greatest Bible expositor of all time.

What struck me most about watching this film – which gripped me from the start – is how they emphasized the importance and urgency of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is the main reason every person under the sun should view it. If viewers are unconverted or unconcerned about their souls and final destiny before they watch this they will be changed afterwards. For the Doctor was chiefly an evangelist. One of the most striking statements in this video was made by Christopher Catherwood, one of Dr. Lloyd-Jones’s grandsons, explaining that the Doctor’s ministry was not only “not seeker friendly”; it was in fact “seeker unfriendly”. Really? Yes, because an unsaved person should be uncomfortable not comfortable in church! If people would leave in anger after hearing the Doctor he would observe that it is “a good sign” that God is dealing with them. People like this usually return sooner or later in tears and repentance.

Therefore the great benefit of watching his video is that one will gain a fresh grasp of the Gospel and, almost certainly, imbibe a lot of good theology without realizing it. This video has the potential of changing lives like the Doctor’s books have done.

One of the best things about this video is that the viewer can get a glimpse of Martyn Lloyd-Jones the man. We are taken through his medical training, we see him in his first pastorate in Wales and then what it was like at Westminster Chapel during World War II. It is not long before you realize that the Doctor had an extraordinary mind, the kind that perhaps comes along once in a century. The video contains several interviews with people, some of whom knew him. One must admit that the doctor was a bit eccentric. You never saw him except in a three-piece suit, even when he went to the beach with his family! Andrew Davies noted that many preachers tried to imitate his ways and some even wore a suit when going to the beach!

Much space is rightly given to Iain Murray, the doctor’s biographer. I played and replayed some of his cogent comments. And yet the most heart-warming part of the documentary is interviews with his two daughters Elizabeth Catherwood and Ann Beatt. I could go on listening to them for hours. You become immediately aware also of the rare quality of their minds. Each one of the six grandchildren is interviewed. I was moved by his grandson Jonathan Catherwood; he recounts how the Doctor was so patient with him during his teenage years when he was off the rails. From Jonathan we also learn that the Doctor loved to watch wrestling, a fact that used to shock some of the more proper saints at Westminster Chapel!

Reviewed by R. T. Kendall

Visit www.LogicOnFire.org for trailers and exclusive behind-the-scenes content.

Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/LogicOnFireFilm

Listen to and download 1,600 sermons, without cost, by Dr. Lloyd-Jones at the Martyn Lloyd-Jones Trust.

James R. Peters, The Logic of the Heart: Augustine, Pascal, and the Rationality of Faith. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 300 pages.

This book is not for the faint of heart or the non-academic reader of philosophy. James R. Peters wraps his thesis around abstract conceptualizations, while he weaves loquacious arguments throughout his book. The text is thickly worded and the reader is urged to keep a dictionary nearby. Essentially, Peters posits a philosophical middle way that balances rationality and mysticism. He proposes that the rationality of the heart must become entangled neither in the objectivity of Modernity, nor in the subjectivity of post-Modernity. In doing so, Peters engages the foundational rationalists (Descartes and Hume) of Modernity conversationally with the mysticism of Augustine and Pascal.

There are two principle difficulties with this book. First, it is elitist in its use of language and written exclusively to the academic community. In doing so, its genre is generally inaccessible to the layperson. Indeed, it is so unapproachable that it may characterize the elitist genre whereby no academic dares to proclaim that the emperor has no clothes, for if one has the courage to confess that Peters is incomprehensible, then one risks the accusation of being dull of mind. Second, Peters has two simultaneous conversations that compete for the reader’s attention. One is in the body of the text and the other is in the footnotes. As a reviewer of this book, it is a noteworthy distraction and one would prefer to see the two conversations merged and the footnotes reserved for reference citations.

How then can someone untrained comprehend this book? We offer three suggestions: First, read the ending first so that you will see the target that the author is aiming at. Second, read the concluding segment of each chapter so that you will discern the logical steps that the author has taken to achieve his goal. Finally, read the introduction to each chapter. Once the reader has a basic understanding of Peters’ theme for the book, then one can begin to explore the depths of his argument. To approach the book with the mindset of reading it front-to-back will undoubtedly find the reader lost before the end of the first chapter.

Reviewed by John R. Miller

Preview The Logic of the Heart: books.google.com/books?id=USJFI8wgQRwC