Six Reasons Why Bishop Carlton Pearson Was Right About Hell: A Biblical and Historical Perspective

The story of Bishop Carlton Pearson’s transformation from a prominent Pentecostal preacher to a vocal proponent of what he calls the “Gospel of Inclusion” is one that has stirred widespread debate in the Christian world. In the late 1990s, Pearson began to question the traditional doctrine of hell, suggesting that a loving God wouldn’t condemn people to eternal torment. His shift in theology, which led to his rejection of hell as traditionally understood, caused him to be ostracized by many in the Christian community. Yet, as we explore both the teachings of Jesus and the writings of the Apostle Paul, we find strong biblical and theological foundations that support Pearson’s perspective.

Here, we’ll examine why Bishop Carlton Pearson’s understanding of hell as a metaphor rather than a literal place of eternal punishment aligns closely with the teachings of Jesus and Paul, as well as with early Christian beliefs about justice, restoration, and God’s love.

1. Jesus’ Use of Gehenna and Hyperbole

To understand why the traditional concept of hell may be inconsistent with Jesus’ teachings, we need to consider his use of the term “Gehenna.” In many English translations of the Bible, Gehenna is translated as “hell,” but the term has a specific historical and cultural context. Gehenna (or “Ge-Hinnom”) was a real place—a valley outside Jerusalem associated with idolatry, child sacrifices, and, later, with a site for burning refuse. By Jesus’ time, it symbolized a place of judgment and purification rather than a literal realm of eternal torment.

When Jesus warned people about Gehenna, it’s likely he was using hyperbole, a common rhetorical technique in first-century Jewish teaching. Jesus often used vivid, exaggerated language to stress the seriousness of moral choices, but his intent wasn’t to endorse a place of everlasting punishment. For instance, when Jesus spoke about cutting off a hand or plucking out an eye to avoid Gehenna (Matthew 5:29-30), he was clearly using metaphorical language. This kind of hyperbole was meant to convey the urgency of ethical living and the serious consequences of unloving behavior—not to describe a literal place of eternal suffering.

Jesus often challenged the Pharisees and religious leaders of his time, who emphasized doctrines of purification and punishment as motivators for religious adherence. By referencing Gehenna, he could have been critiquing the fear-based approach that emphasized outward behavior over inner transformation. In this way, Jesus’ references to Gehenna align more closely with a call for present-life transformation and a warning against the natural consequences of unethical living, rather than a belief in post-mortem punishment.

2. The Apostle Paul’s Silence on Hell

Perhaps even more striking than Jesus’ use of Gehenna is the complete silence of the Apostle Paul on the topic of hell. Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament and is considered one of the foundational voices of early Christianity, never mentioned hell as a place of eternal torment. Instead, Paul’s writings focused on themes like grace, reconciliation, and the transformative power of the resurrection. His emphasis was on salvation as a present experience of living in unity with Christ, rather than a fear-driven avoidance of eternal punishment.

Paul often spoke about consequences for sin, but he framed these in terms of “death” or “destruction”—language that suggests separation from God rather than endless suffering. For example, in Romans 6:23, he writes, “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Here, Paul contrasts spiritual death with the promise of life, focusing on the gift of life in Christ rather than the threat of eternal punishment. Similarly, when Paul mentions “perishing” or “being cut off,” he uses these terms in a way that suggests a loss or cessation, not a never-ending hell.

Paul’s silence on hell supports Pearson’s view that the traditional doctrine may be a later development in Christian history, influenced more by medieval theology than by early Christian beliefs. The absence of hell in Paul’s teachings indicates that, for him, the core of the gospel was the hope of resurrection and the transformative power of God’s grace, not fear of eternal punishment.

3. Reconciliation, Grace, and a Restorative View of Justice

At the heart of Paul’s gospel is reconciliation—God’s act of restoring humanity into right relationship with Him. Throughout his letters, Paul emphasizes that God’s love is unconditional, an idea echoed in Jesus’ teachings. For both Jesus and Paul, God’s justice is restorative, focused on healing and transformation, rather than retributive, aimed at punishing sin forever.

The traditional concept of hell as a place of eternal torment contradicts this understanding of God’s justice. If God’s justice is truly restorative, then the ultimate purpose of judgment would be correction and healing, not unending punishment. This aligns with Pearson’s belief that God’s love is too vast and merciful to consign anyone to eternal suffering. Pearson’s “Gospel of Inclusion” suggests that God’s grace is for all people, and that God’s desire is for every person to be reconciled to Him—a concept deeply rooted in Paul’s teachings on grace and the transformative power of God’s love.

4. Early Christian Views and the Development of Hell Doctrine

The doctrine of hell as eternal torment did not emerge until centuries after Jesus and Paul. In the early church, many Christians held a view called “universal reconciliation,” which suggested that all souls would ultimately be reconciled to God. Early theologians like Origen believed that even the most hardened sinners would undergo a period of purification before eventually being restored. It was only in the medieval period, with theologians like Augustine, that the notion of eternal, conscious torment became mainstream in Western Christianity.

This historical context suggests that the doctrine of hell as eternal punishment is not intrinsic to the gospel message but is a later addition, influenced by cultural and philosophical factors. In this light, Pearson’s rejection of hell aligns with an older and arguably more biblically consistent tradition within Christianity—one that sees God’s justice as fundamentally merciful and redemptive.

5. The Dangers of a Fear-Based Faith

One of Pearson’s primary criticisms of the traditional doctrine of hell is that it promotes a fear-based approach to faith. When people are motivated by fear of punishment, they may focus on external behaviors while neglecting the transformative inner life that Jesus taught. This fear-based approach can lead to a “performance” mentality, where faith becomes about following rules to avoid punishment, rather than about growing in love, compassion, and unity with God.

Jesus’ teachings emphasize love and relationship with God as the foundation of faith, not fear of retribution. Paul also highlights that it is “the kindness of God that leads to repentance” (Romans 2:4), suggesting that genuine transformation arises from experiencing God’s grace, not from terror. Pearson’s perspective resonates with this message, encouraging believers to embrace a loving and merciful view of God that fosters inner transformation rather than external conformity.

6. Hell as a Symbol for Natural Consequences and Present-Life Transformation

When Jesus spoke of Gehenna, he was likely using it as a symbol for the natural consequences of a life lived in opposition to God’s ways. Just as physical fire consumes waste, the metaphor of fire may illustrate the way selfish or harmful behaviors ultimately destroy or consume a person’s life, relationships, and spiritual health. In this sense, “hell” can be understood as the self-inflicted suffering and separation from God’s love that people experience when they reject divine love and grace.

Bishop Carlton Pearson’s view aligns with this interpretation, suggesting that hell represents the painful realities of life disconnected from God, rather than a literal place of torment. In this view, Jesus’ warnings about Gehenna were meant to provoke a change in this life, urging people to turn away from harmful ways and embrace God’s love.

Conclusion: Why Carlton Pearson Was Right

Bishop Carlton Pearson’s message that God’s love excludes no one and that hell is not a literal place of eternal torment is rooted in both biblical teaching and early Christian tradition. The hyperbolic nature of Jesus’ references to Gehenna, Paul’s complete silence on hell, and the restorative view of God’s justice all support Pearson’s belief that the traditional doctrine of hell does not align with the gospel’s core message of love, reconciliation, and transformation.

Pearson’s “Gospel of Inclusion” echoes the foundational Christian belief that God’s love and grace are truly for all people. Rather than promoting fear of punishment, his message calls believers to a deeper understanding of God’s character as endlessly merciful and compassionate. By rejecting hell as eternal torment, Pearson invites Christians to rediscover the good news of a loving God who desires to restore and heal, not condemn.

In embracing this perspective, Pearson aligns with a gospel that celebrates God’s grace and calls us to live lives of love, compassion, and transformation. He reminds us that God’s love is too vast to be limited by human notions of retribution, pointing instead to a divine justice that seeks the ultimate reconciliation and wholeness of all creation.

 

Matt 16:6-12, Acts 20:28-30, And 2Thess 2:3-12 Describes the same event

In the context of tying together the warnings about the "leaven of the Pharisees" (Luke 12:1; Matthew 16:6), Paul's concerns about wolves entering the flock (Acts 20:28-30), and the "strong delusion" in 2 Thessalonians 2:11, we can explore an alternative interpretation: that what later became known as Christian orthodoxy itself represents the strong delusion Paul warned about.

The Leaven of the Pharisees: The Seeds of Religious Control

When Jesus warned His disciples to "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees," He was speaking about the hypocrisy and legalism of the religious leaders of His day. These leaders emphasized outward religious observance, ritualistic law-keeping, and rigid control over the spiritual lives of the people. They misrepresented the heart of God's law, replacing mercy, justice, and love with a burdensome system that suffocated genuine spirituality.

In this context, the leaven of the Pharisees can be viewed as the seeds of a controlling, institutionalized religion. This leaven, while subtle at first, would eventually permeate and corrupt the spiritual message of Jesus. What began as small compromises and power grabs within religious leadership later grew into a system of orthodoxy that emphasized external conformity over internal transformation. The leaven represents the early stages of this false religious system taking root.

Acts 20:28-30: The Rise of Institutionalized Power

Paul’s warning in Acts 20:28-30 about wolves entering the flock connects to the theme of religious control and distortion of truth. Paul speaks to the Ephesian elders, warning that "savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock." More tellingly, Paul says that even from among the leadership itself, people will arise "to draw away disciples after them" by distorting the truth.

These wolves represent not only external heresies but also the internal forces of institutionalized power within the church. As the early Christian movement began to grow, there were increasing pressures from leaders within the church to establish a unified, authoritative version of Christian belief. This led to the formation of what would later become orthodoxy—a set of beliefs enforced by ecclesiastical authority, with anyone deviating from it labeled a heretic.

In this view, the wolves are not just false teachers in the traditional sense but also the leaders who sought to consolidate power and impose their own interpretations of the gospel on others. These efforts culminated in the councils of the early church, where debates about the nature of Christ, the Trinity, and scripture were decided by a select group of leaders. Over time, the fluid, diverse expression of early Christianity was replaced by a rigid orthodoxy that demanded absolute conformity.

2 Thessalonians 2: The Strong Delusion as Orthodoxy

In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul describes a "strong delusion" sent by God to those who "refused to love the truth." This delusion causes them to believe a lie, ultimately leading to their destruction. Traditionally, this passage is interpreted as referring to the deception of the Antichrist in the last days. However, viewed through the lens of the development of orthodoxy, the strong delusion can be seen as the institutionalization of Christian belief that took place in the late first and early second centuries.

The "strong delusion" here could be interpreted as the formalization of Christian doctrine into a rigid orthodoxy that claims to be the ultimate truth but, in reality, distorts the gospel message. The church councils, beginning with the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, imposed strict definitions of Christian belief, such as the nature of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. These councils, backed by the Roman Empire, declared their interpretations to be the only valid expressions of Christianity. Anyone who did not conform was branded a heretic and often persecuted.

The "strong delusion" was not merely a theological disagreement; it was the beginning of a system that sought to control the spiritual lives of believers through fear, coercion, and dogma. By institutionalizing faith and creating a strict orthodoxy, the early church leaders laid the groundwork for a religious system that placed external conformity above the transformative inner life that Jesus and Paul emphasized. In this sense, the orthodoxy that emerged was the very delusion Paul warned about—one that led people away from the true gospel and into a system of control and fear.

The Unified Event of Deception

When we tie these three warnings together—Jesus' warning about the leaven, Paul's warning about wolves, and the strong delusion of 2 Thessalonians—we can see them as different perspectives on the same event: the rise of Christian orthodoxy. What began as subtle distortions of religious truth (the leaven of the Pharisees) grew into a system where leaders (the wolves) consolidated power, and ultimately, through the formation of orthodoxy, a strong delusion took hold of the church.

The "strong delusion" of 2 Thessalonians can be understood as the creation of a rigid orthodoxy that diverted people from the true gospel of grace, love, and internal transformation. Instead of allowing for diverse expressions of Christian spirituality and encouraging believers to grow in personal relationship with God, the emerging orthodoxy enforced uniformity and submission to church authorities. This delusion caused people to believe that adherence to institutional dogma was the path to salvation, rather than the radical freedom and transformative power offered by Jesus Christ.

In the late first and early second centuries, as Christian orthodoxy was solidified through the decisions of councils and the consolidation of church power, many early Christian communities that embraced diverse interpretations were labeled as heretical and silenced. The strong delusion, therefore, is not merely a distant end-times event but something that occurred as the church increasingly moved away from the teachings of Jesus and Paul and toward a system of religious control.

Conclusion: Orthodoxy as the Strong Delusion

In this interpretation, Christian orthodoxy itself is the strong delusion. It represents the culmination of a long process of deception, starting with the leaven of the Pharisees and growing into the wolves that preyed on the flock. As the church developed into an institution of power, it imposed doctrines that distorted the gospel, leading many believers away from the truth of grace and spiritual freedom. The strong delusion is the belief that adherence to this orthodoxy is the only path to salvation, when in reality, it has replaced the transformative message of Christ with a system of control.

This interpretation challenges the traditional view of orthodoxy and invites believers to reexamine their faith in light of the gospel’s message of grace, love, and inner transformation, rather than external conformity to a system that may have, in fact, been the very delusion warned about in scripture.

 

Top of Form

 

Bottom of Form

 

Jesus on the World, the Way, and the Father

 In John’s Gospel, chapters 14-17, when Jesus speaks of “the world,” it is important to understand the specific cultural and religious context in which he lived. Jesus was addressing his disciples within the Jewish world, which had its own distinct religious systems, societal norms, and expectations. The “world” Jesus refers to is not the entire globe or humanity at large, but rather the religious and political structures of his immediate environment—the Jewish religious leaders, the Pharisaic traditions, and the expectations of the Messiah. His critique of “the world” focuses on how this religious system had often become spiritually blind, ritualistic, and distant from the heart of God’s message.

For example, when Jesus says in John 15:19, "If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you," he is speaking to how his teachings and the lifestyle of his followers challenge the prevailing norms of the Jewish religious leaders. This “world” rejected Jesus because he revealed a way to God that transcended religious law and focused on love, grace, and the true nature of God as a compassionate Parent. Jesus challenges the exclusivity of the religious system of his time, which had become oppressive for many.

In John 14:6, Jesus famously says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” This verse is often interpreted as Jesus declaring himself the exclusive means of salvation for all people, implying that no one can approach God unless they explicitly believe in him. However, within the context of John’s Gospel and Jesus’ mission, a different interpretation emerges. Jesus is speaking specifically to his Jewish disciples, not making a blanket statement for all humanity. His claim that he is “the way” is rooted in his teaching about the nature of God, whom he presents as the divine Parent.

The key to understanding John 14:6 lies in how Jesus defines his relationship with God. Jesus is not saying that belief in him as a person is the only way to reach God. Instead, he is teaching that his understanding of God—as a loving, nurturing, and familial figure—is the only way to truly know and experience God. Jesus reveals God not as a distant lawgiver but as a Father (or Parent), emphasizing love, grace, and relational intimacy. His path or “way” is the way of understanding God through this lens of relational, familial love. In that sense, Jesus is providing a new understanding of divine connection, contrasting the rigid and distant views of God that many in his religious community held.

Therefore, when Jesus says, “No one comes to the Father except through me,” he is not implying that people from other cultures, religions, or paths are excluded from God’s presence. Rather, he is teaching that the way he models—one of deep relationship with God as Parent, based on love and trust—is the clearest way to truly see and understand God’s nature. This is why Jesus often spoke of God as “Father,” emphasizing the intimate, personal relationship that God desires to have with humanity. In essence, Jesus' message is that it is through his teachings, example, and way of living that people can come to see and experience God as this divine Parent who desires a close, familial bond with all people.

This perspective opens up a broader understanding of the gospel, moving away from an exclusive interpretation and inviting a deeper exploration of how Jesus' life and teachings help us see God in a more compassionate and relational way. His emphasis is on awakening people to the reality of God’s love and inviting them into a transformative relationship that reflects God's parental care, rather than a message of religious exclusivity