Last week I asked Christians who hold to universalist (“If you’re a Christian universalist, why?”) and pluralist (“If you’re a Christian pluralist, why?”) soteriologies to tell me about their beliefs. Today I am inviting those who understand themselves as annihilationist to comment. An annihilationist does not see the punishment of God as lasting forever. Rather, they see wicked humans as ceasing to exist at some point. This can take different forms. For some, the “Lake of Fire” consumes and destroys so that people do not burn forever. For others, the wicked human becomes something less than human, as C.S. Lewis and N.T. Wright seem to hint in their eschatologies.
I am asking for your input because one part of my upcoming oral defense requires that I explain the annihilationist perspective. So if you are an annihilationist please comment! If not, but you have something to add I’d like to hear from you as well, as long as it is constructive.
These are some things I’d like to know:
- What biblical passages cause you to affirm annihilationism?
- What do you do with passages that seem to speak of eternal torment?
- What are some of you theological/philosophical reasons?
- Who are your influences? Who articulates annihilationism best?
Thank you for thinking through this with me!
March 12, 2012 at 10:57 am
At first glance, I can see why a person might be attracted to such a theory! Have you explored the controversy involving John Stott and this issue. If I’m not mistaken, He addressed annihilationism at some point, I think it was referred to as “conditional immortality…”
March 12, 2012 at 11:22 am
Brian, I am, unlike Ken, an annihilationist. Stott does appear to embrace this position though it would not be the traditional Anglican position. Stott and others in my circles have traditionally referred to the doctrine as conditional immortality though the term resurrection theology is a bit more my preference these days. The most comprehensive work on the subject is by Edward Fudge titled, The Fire That Consumes. Fudge takes a historical and biblical look at the doctrine as far back as the church fathers. I would encourage you to pick up his work if you can. Can’t remember if I gave Josh Smith a copy or not. It was interesting to me that when reviewing your United Pentecostal doctrinal statement with Josh, even that hinted of it though as Josh said, that certainly isn’t the way it is preached. I don’t have time to fully address my position on the matter but if you need something beyond this book recommendation, please feel to contact me.
March 12, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Ken
I’ve been attracted to it for some time. I think there is a lot that needs to be reevaluated concerning our doctrine of hell. Like Stott, I see something wrong in my gut with eternal conscience torment, though I have never come to a solidified understanding of this matter.
Clayton
I have heard of Fudge’s work. Unfortunately, I am about nine days away from my oral defense, so I have time for refresher conversations at best. I should add that I am not connected to the UPCI and haven’t been since about 2004-2005.
March 12, 2012 at 12:57 pm
The problem is posed in the unbiblical idea that we are born immortal (a Greek idea, not a Hebrew concept). Once a person accepts the error that he is immortal by nature and not by God’s grace, he creates for himself the question of what to do with all the evil immortals who are unrepentant. If they are immortal, they cannot be destroyed (the false reasoning goes) so they must be immortally unhappy. That is the reasoning behind the concept of Hell-fire (which is also derived not from the Hebrews but from the Greek ‘Hades’).
I find that very many Bible texts that support conditional immortality – that refer not to everlasting torment but explicitly to the death or destruction or disappearance of the wicked are too easily hijacked by Hell-teachers without grounds and assumed to mean conscious torment. There are at least two different sets of texts – which is why there is controversy.
March 12, 2012 at 1:19 pm
This is a doctrine that I am also attracted to, and seems to make sense in my mind. I really want it to be truth as well. Its one reason that I struggle with it so much. Am I only reading this into the text because I am looking for it? Its hard to know.
March 12, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Hi, I regard myself as an annihilationist. I came from a ‘eternal torment’ background but eventually rejected it on weight of biblical evidence rather then any particular ethical issue.
Firstly, there are multiple words we lump together and use the word Hell for where there are different meanings. For example Hades, gehenna and tartaroo in the NT. I think this is important as not to confuse imagery.
In support are verse such as 2 Thess 1: 9 that speaks of ‘hell’ as eternal destruction, 1 Tim 6:15-16 that says that only God is immortal and Rom 2:7 that speaks of our immortality as a gift (i.e. not a natural attribute of a human soul)
I wrote a more in-depth blog about it a while ago. See here:
http://afittingname.blogspot.com/2009/11/out-of-theologlical-closet-i-am.html
I see the verses that are often interpreted in an eternal punishment manner as actually in support of annihilation. For example Mk 9: 47-48:
“And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where “‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’
However, if we look at the passage that Jesus quotes (Isaiah 66:24) we see that the people are described as dead and only the worms and fire as eternal as a sign to God’s judgement, rather then eternal punishment. This is also true of other passage such as Rev 14:9b-11 where the symbol is eternal, not the punishment.
I wrote a more in-depth blog about the ‘eternal torment’ passages. See here: http://afittingname.blogspot.com/2009/11/out-of-theological-closet-i-am.html
I personally do not have an issue in terms of eternal punishment making God unjust as I trust God as being just, however there is a question of how would God justify eternal torment as a punishment as there must be a point at which the punishment has met the crime, so to speak and therefore God would then become the criminal himself.
In terms of influences they are people such as John Stott who for the most part made the idea that I was always taught was heretical viable and therefore made me look further into it for myself.
Hope this helps,
Peter
March 12, 2012 at 2:43 pm
John
Very helpful, thank you. What do we do with the inevitable Hellenization of Judaism and therefore early Christianity? Does this blur the lines?
Josh
I’m with you. I don’t want my emotions to override biblical authority, but neither do I want to confuse tradition with biblical authority, especially if the tradition is weak and not central to the faith.
March 12, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Peter
Very helpful, thank you! I will make sure to read your blog post on the subject.
March 12, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Before answering your four questions, I should address this comment:
An annihilationist does not see the punishment of God as lasting forever.
This is absolutely not the case. Annihilationists affirm eternal punishment, they simply do not affirm that the punishment consists of torment.
What biblical passages cause you to affirm annihilationism?
There are far too many to mention here. All the passages that identify final punishment as death/destruction/perishing/consumption/etc. All the passages that attribute immortality only to the saved. All the passages that describe a redeemed creation completely free of sin and evil.
Some passages that come up often are Malachi 4:1-3, Matthew 10:28, Matthew 13:36-43 and Jude 7
What do you do with passages that seem to speak of eternal torment?
There are only two passages in all of Scripture that come close: Revelation 14:11 and Revelation 20:10. Plenty has been written on each, and I don’t want to flood the comments with extended exegesis. For now I’ll just say that it is generally a poor hermeneutic to take symbolic, apocalyptic visions at face value.
What are some of you theological/philosophical reasons?
There seems to me to be an obvious inconsistency between saying that God is perfectly loving and saying that he will keep people in existence forever in order to punish them. I generally don’t argue this way with evangelicals, however.
Who are your influences? Who articulates annihilationism best?
Contemporary:
Edward Fudge (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHUPpmbTOV4)
Glenn Peoples (http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/episode-005-its-one-hell-of-an-episode/)
Historical: Henry Constable (http://ia600704.us.archive.org/5/items/durationnatureof00cons/durationnatureof00cons.pdf)
March 12, 2012 at 3:30 pm
@John Anngeister: You make it seem like this is a settled issue, that Greek influence is responsible for the belief the soul is immortal, but you fail to mention there is no consensus about this. You also fail to mention that dead sea scroll studies confirm Josephus’ claim that the Essenes (a non-Greek sect) believed in the ‘immortality of the soul’, which lessens the likeyhood this notion is the result of Hellenisation.
That a controversy rages about whether or not those who deny the Hebrews believed in an immortal soul are mindful of context when they proof-cite scripture is another point your comment missed. Although it doen’t matter an iota how many believe something to be true or not, that the position you assert is not even the majority position, suggests you are being selective in your reading.
Even critics of the ‘eternal hell’ position concede that the theology of ‘hell’ is suggested by the Hebrew in verses such as [Dan 12:2] ( which says …. ‘And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.) This is so because verses such as these do not hinge on the meaning of ‘nephesh’, which is where much of the debate rages.
There are two sides this debate; and the one you deny is not as unreasonable as you are making it seem.
March 12, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Even critics of the ‘eternal hell’ position concede that the theology of ‘hell’ is suggested by the Hebrew in verses such as [Dan 12:2] ( which says …. ‘And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.)
Which specific critics of traditionalism do you have in mind?
How, exactly, does this passage suggest universal immortality, let alone everlasting torment?
March 12, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Hi, my name is Chris Date, host of the Theopologetics Podcast, and I recently “converted” to annihilationism. I recently defended it on Unbelievable? with Justin Brierley, in the March 3rd episode. I’ll answer your questions in a moment, but first a clarification: I DO see the punishment of God as lasting forever, I just think that punishment is death, a death of both body and soul rendering both utterly lifeless, the way a corpse is lifeless. With that out of the way, let me start by making clear that at no point during my “conversion” to annihilationism did I find annihilation any less terrifying or horrible than eternal torment, or any more compatible with the love and justice of God. To this day I think God would be just in causing the unredeemed to suffer for eternity, I just became convinced that that’s not what the Bible says He’ll do.
—
“What biblical passages cause you to affirm annihilationism?”
Jude 7 says the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah serves as a “specimen” of what awaits the wicked, having suffered the “punishment of eternal fire.” So what is the punishment by eternal fire awaiting the unsaved? Utter destruction.
Matthew 10:28 uses a word rendered “destroy” transitively, and whenever that word is used transitively in the synoptic gospels, it means to kill or slay. So Jesus says that whereas man can kill only the body in the first death, God will kill both body and soul in hell–calling it Gehenna, hearkening back to the place formerly called Topheth, later called a “place of slaughter” where God’s enemies were reduced to corpses upon which scavenging beasts and birds fed, and from which they could not be frightened away.
Mark 9:48′s undying worm and unquenchable fire are verbatim quotations from Isaiah 66:24, where God’s fiery judgment results in piles of stinking, rotting, lifeless corpses–unquenchable fire always a reference not to fire which never dies out, but fire which cannot be put out prematurely, and undying worms paralleling Topheth’s unfrightened scavengers.
Revelation 14′s smoke of torment rising forever hearkens to Isaiah 34′s smoke rising forever from the reduction of Edom to remains. Revelation 20 depicts the abstract entities death and Hades thrown into the lake of fire, entities which could not be thrown into a lake of fire, let alone tormented, thus communicating their utter end. The imagery of torment, as made clear from Rev. 14′s and 18′s-19′s allusion to Isaiah 34, is symbolism communicating destruction.
Matthew 25:41-46′s “eternal fire” is used in two other places to refer to a place of utter slaughter, not ongoing torment. It may also be what Revelation’s lake of fire refers to, which, again, is a place where things come to an end. And as even Jonathan Edwards pointed out, annihilation is an “everlasting punishment”–a death from which the unsaved will never rise.
I could go on, but those are some of the most compelling for me.
“What do you do with passages that seem to speak of eternal torment?”
There are only two in Revelation, which I actually think FAVOR my view, as explained above. “Eternal punishment” in Matthew 25 is not at all obviously a reference to eternal torment, nor is “everlasting destruction” in 2 Thessalonians 1:9. Jonathan Edwards called what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah “eternal destruction,” and that’s pretty much what I think awaits the unsaved when they rise to judgment.
“What are some of you [sic] theological/philosophical reasons?”
None. Well, except that the punishment Christ bore in place of the elect appears to have been death, not torment.
“Who are your influences? Who articulates annihilationism best?”
Professionally/Notably, Edward Fudge and Dr. Glenn Peoples. On a more lay-level, listeners of my show Joey Dear and Ronnie (who commented earlier in this thread).
—
Hope this helps!
March 12, 2012 at 4:12 pm
@Brian, I was careful to say ‘Hebrew’ and not ‘Jewish’ to imply ideas and writings before 600 BC. I think ‘Judaism’ is a term that ought to be reserved only for post-Babylonian, second-temple writings (including most of the Pentateuch by my calculations). In this sense all Judaism was subject to possible Greek influence, but not the Hebraic pre-exilic portions of the Prophets, Psalms, some Proverbs, etc.
Maybe that answers Andrew’s argument about the Essenes – it cannot be asserted that they knew nothing of Plato and others. But Andrew, you cannot be suggesting that a citation from Daniel is outside Greek influence.
March 12, 2012 at 4:30 pm
Like Chris above, I have to start by saying:
I affirm that the punishment of the wicked is eternal. I believe it is a punishment, not a punishing.
So.. briefly:
- What biblical passages cause you to affirm annihilationism?
Pretty much the same as Chris said, however, in Genesis 3, we are told that eternal life comes through “Eden” (right relationship with God), and that being removed from Eden means that there is no longer eternal life, EXCEPT through right relationship with God (I believe this is one of the main themes of Genesis – and the whole of Scripture.
I came across this while studying Genesis and this is what started me on the process of discovering annihilationism. “If this is true, then how do I understand….” and away you go.
- What do you do with passages that seem to speak of eternal torment?
Better minds than mine have, I believe, explained them adequately. I think if we approach them with an open (or as open as possible) enquiring mind, we don’t have too many problems. For me, I believe there is enough evidence to show that most of these passages don’t necessarily support “ET”, so the “weight of conviction” comes from elsewhere.
- What are some of you theological/philosophical reasons?
Theological: I believe this is the best conclusion one can reach from the weight of evidence in Scripture. So call it a “biblically theological reason”.
Philosophical: I dont have any particularly. I was always taught ET, and I was taught Interpretive Method, and from there discovered what I believe to be the truth.
- Who are your influences?
Hmm.. probably William Osbourne, my OT lecturer – who (I cant be sure however) probably wasnt an annihilationist.
Dr Peoples; because prior to him becoming a Doctor, was (and still is) a friend, and he was able to point in the right direction in regards to resources to discover the truth for myself.
On top of that, any number of commentaries and theological books I have read, lol.
Who articulates annihilationism best?
).
The Bible?
Otherwise, probably Dr Peoples, Fudge, etc, although, I wouldn’t really know because most of my understanding comes from studying passages (at a technical level it does not matter what the author believes, because that becomes quite apparent and is easily weeded out to leave you with the basis of what a passage means – well.. in theory anyway
March 12, 2012 at 4:35 pm
By the way, Greek influence or no, I don’t see why anybody would claim it in support for eternal torment. Just look at the one other place the word rendered “contempt” appears.
March 12, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Daniel 12:2 that is.
March 12, 2012 at 4:38 pm
One point that I’ve considered on this is if someone holds to a substitution theory of the atonement, and Christ truly suffered the fate of all humanity in his atoning work—and if this same person holds to annihilation; then, wouldn’t it seem that in the atoning work Christ himself would have been annihilated, and thus negate the possibility for resurrection (since he would be annihilated)?
If humanity can be said to truly be created in the imago Dei, and recreated in the imago Christi; it follows that the being of humanity is always already and contingently grounded in the being of God in Christ. This, if the case, would never allow annihilation to get off the ground; i.e. because in order for annihilation to be so, we would first have to cut the tie between humanities’ being and God’s being in humanity in Christ. So humanities’ being cannot be quenched, unless the vicarious humanity of Christ can be quenched.
There are stronger resources to clarify my above point, but that’s my take. To me the choice can really only be between an Christian universalism and/or a Christian particularism; and not annihilation.
March 12, 2012 at 4:40 pm
Ronnie
Thank you for pointing out the mistake. My point was that it is not conscience torment forever. You are correct though, it is not universalism, punishment has eternal consequences. You’re observations are very helpful. I will take some time to read through those passages again.
Chris
Thank you for sharing the podcast and for the comment! You’ve done some good work on these passages. I will be examining them and thinking them through.
March 12, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Listen to my recent appearance on Unbelievable, Bobby. Annihilation faces no difficulty from penal substitution.
March 12, 2012 at 4:43 pm
Bobby
What if it could be said that the wicked are somehow “dehumanized”? This would allow for humans to become something less human so that in the atonement Christ’s work saves all those who would remain human?
March 12, 2012 at 5:03 pm
@Brian thanks for your kind words. You might listen to the opening argument I made in my recent debate which appears recently in my podcast feed. That might help with your oral case. As for “dehumanizing,” aside from seeing no evidence for that in Scripture, I don’t think it’s necessary for reconciling annihilation with penal substitution. If Christ’s human soul died (assuming dualism), the continuity objection is rendered groundless. If someone wants to believe that when an immaterial soul dies in this way it ceases to exist, and furthermore that that makes true resurrection impossible, well then they’re engaging in philosophical speculation. I’d rather stick with Scripture. Besides, the Bible says Christ was uniquely preserved; no Christian thinks the punishment Christ bore is identical to what awaits the unsaved.
March 12, 2012 at 5:13 pm
@Chris,
I don’t ultimately press penal substitution (and yet penal is not necessary for my point, substitution simpliciter is), but I thought I would just throw that first one out there. I do press the Christological points I sketched in my second paragraph though. I am Torrancean, and I follow what might be a called a ‘Depth Dimension’ hermeneutic of Scripture; or I follow a dialectically rich theological-exegetical approach to interpreting Scripture, with Christ understood as the inner-logic and ‘reality’ (res) of Scripture in an intensively principial way. So, we are going to trade in parallel universes, Chris. And our doctrines of God will need to be dealt with prior to engaging our disparate ontologies of Scripture, which then will lead to, what I perceive, our disparate hermeneutical models—which will then cause cleavage between you and I that won’t be repairable until we come back to God.
@Brian,
What you suggest is something that John Owen actually argued (see Suzanne McDonald’s engagement of Owen in her book Reimaging Election). But I hold that positively, God’s grace in Christ holds humanity in the eschatological purpose (telos) of humanity for and in Christ (which was to have relationship with God in Christ, with Christ and his humanity as the icon of God Col 1.15 as the ultimate purpose for creation in the first place; this is the point of my tagline at my blog “The world was made so that Christ might be born….” ~David Fergusson). We ought to follow the logic of the Incarnation and the Self-revelation of God therein, and allow that to be the control for how we work out anthropological questions (and harmartiological/soteriological) like this out. If we do we won’t be able to conceive of a dehumanized person; since personhood is ineluctably related in and through the humanity of Christ for us (and this would bring us back to the issue of image of God/Christ etc.). So for me your question becomes a non-starter
.
March 12, 2012 at 5:16 pm
@Bobby, annihilationism faces no challenge when it comes to Christology, either. See my comments to Brian above.
March 12, 2012 at 5:24 pm
@Chris,
I did, and again, we have bigger differences than annihilation—as I just noted! You seem to follow a classic mode of interpreting things. I guess we could say that I follow a radical mode; if TF Torrance doesn’t register with you, how about Karl Barth? So I follow an analogia fidei or analogy of faith (in the Barthian recasting of that), and even an analogy of relation/grace. Anyway, yes, Christology, if properly construed poses problems for annihilation (see my first comment here). Human being, Christologically cannot ultimately be snuffed out if you have to go through Christ’s vicarious human being for us (pro nobis) first. If you can figure out how to present this kind of rupture into the divine person of Christ, then you might have the Christological resources to argue for annihilation—but then you would only have something like a Nestorian Christology to work with.
March 12, 2012 at 5:27 pm
@Chris,
Here’s a quote from TF Torrance that might help you understand where I’m coming from further:
March 12, 2012 at 5:32 pm
@Bobby, I’m a simple layperson, so much of what you say is over my head. Nevertheless, your Christological objection is groundless, for it (a) assumes that when the human soul dies it ceases to exist, which is speculation, (b) assumes that if Christ’s human soul died in this way it must have ceased to exist, despite the biblical testimony that He was uniquely preserved, and (c) assumes that the experience of Christ must have been identical to the punishment awaiting the unsaved, despite that no Christian thinks so. No, annihilation simply faces no challenge from Christology.
March 12, 2012 at 5:32 pm
I am Torrancean, and I follow what might be a called a ‘Depth Dimension’ hermeneutic of Scripture; or I follow a dialectically rich theological-exegetical approach to interpreting Scripture, with Christ understood as the inner-logic and ‘reality’ (res) of Scripture in an intensively principial way. So, we are going to trade in parallel universes, Chris. And our doctrines of God will need to be dealt with prior to engaging our disparate ontologies of Scripture, which then will lead to, what I perceive, our disparate hermeneutical models—which will then cause cleavage between you and I that won’t be repairable until we come back to God
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/3781/wthmx.jpg
All in good humor and fun, Mr Grow.
Cheers
March 12, 2012 at 5:33 pm
@Bobby, nothing in that quote challenges annihilationism.
March 12, 2012 at 5:35 pm
@Chris,
Yes, but it should give you a better idea of where I’m coming from.
It was the comment prior that should.
March 12, 2012 at 5:36 pm
…unless you’re saying God’s love for even the damned precludes Him destroying them. Sounds like a certain Universalist I know…
March 12, 2012 at 5:37 pm
@Ronnie,
You can always check with ‘Google Translate’
.
March 12, 2012 at 5:38 pm
. . . only if you follow a logico-causal determinism, I don’t; so no.
March 12, 2012 at 5:40 pm
@Bobby, I explained above the (at least) three reasons your previous comment serves as no challenge to my view.
March 12, 2012 at 5:45 pm
@Chris,
I missed those reasons. But you didn’t directly deal with my point about the ground of humanity in Christ.
March 12, 2012 at 5:50 pm
@Bobby, if I missed something, it’s because I did not understand. If you’d like to try and articulate it in a way I can understand, you’re welcome to. In the meantime, since I’m not suggesting Jesus in any way ceased to exist, I fail to see the grounds for your objection.
March 12, 2012 at 5:50 pm
You can always check with ‘Google Translate’
http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/4711/growish.jpg
Ok, I should be studying
March 12, 2012 at 5:58 pm
@Chris,
I should not have ever opened my comments up here with that substitution point—strike that from the record.
My point seems rather simple—forget all my stuff on trying to give you a sense of where I’m coming from—just focus on Christ’s human being as the ground of all of humanities’ being created and recreated in the image of God (who according to Col. 1.15 is Christ i.e. the icon of God). If all of humanity and humanities’ being (like in the first Adam, analogously) is given being by Jesus’ being (as the image of God); then in order for human being (universally) to be annihilated, the archetypical humanity of Christ will have to somehow be said to be able to be annihilated as well. Since the humanity of Christ, and his being cannot be annihilated then neither can any human being simpliciter be annihilated since definitionally, human being is what it is only in relation and from the relation it has in the human being in Jesus Christ. Does that make sense? So ultimately human being, is Christologically conditioned, so to speak; you seem to assume that there is another kind of human being besides the human being that Jesus assumed in the Incarnation.
March 12, 2012 at 5:59 pm
@Ronnie,
Nice
!
Me too!!
March 12, 2012 at 6:08 pm
@Bobby, that makes a little more sense, philosophically speculative as it is. I don’t see any problem with the possibility that Christ’s human nature could have been annihilated, should God have chosen to do so. There’s certainly nothing in Scripture that requires otherwise. Besides, any supposed inability for Christ’s human nature to be annihilated could be contingent upon its union with the divine nature, to which unredeemed humanity is not united. Either way, I’m interested in Scripture, not speculation.
March 12, 2012 at 6:12 pm
FYI I will likely be away from the proverbial keyboard for several hours.
March 12, 2012 at 6:23 pm
To be clear, I recognize the challenge that would be faced if He WAS annihilated, surmountable as it might be. But His annihilate-ability, if you will, poses no problem, it seems to me.
March 12, 2012 at 6:25 pm
And in that last comment I’m using annihilated to mean ceased to exist.
March 12, 2012 at 7:04 pm
@Chris,
My approach is only speculative if one rejects theo-logic. And if one rejects theo-logic, then one must necessarily reject the doctrine of the Trinity. I am only reasoning from the implications of the homoousion person, Jesus. There isn’t anything philosophical about that; unless of course someone could posit something like the Incarnation in the first place. But since the Incarnation is a novum, or something totally unique—Revealed—and since there is no philosophical analogy for the Incarnation, my points clearly cannot be said to be philosophical; not anymore than the Trinity (just to reiterate). As Van Til summarizes Barth’s understanding here: “…One may freely use the language of any school of philosophy. But one must, as a theologian, be free from the control of all philosophy.” So no, to the contrary, I follow the via positiva or positive way; which by way of prolegomenon is methodologically counter-speculative and follows Revealed Theology, and holds that the justification for belief (epistemology) is Faith, not blind faith, but the faith of Christ (pistis Christou) in our stead as our high priest (think of the triplex munus).
I operate in the tradition of sola scriptura, not solo scriptura or scriptura de nuda; which up to this point, it seems that you do (that is you seem to appeal to scripture all by itself w/o the notion that you have an informing theological grid or a naked scripture, which isn’t ultimately possible).
All of humanity is in Christ, objectively—again, according to the implication of the Incarnation—of course not all of humanity is in Christ (subjectively). Why all of humanity does not receive the life that is theirs in Christ can only be (as Calvin did) attributed to the accidens of salvation history, or the inexplicable nature and mystery of evil (which is never explained in Scripture). But, Chris, you seem to be assuming more than is warranted in theological discourse; or, your points aren’t as self evident as you seem to think (they might be in a particular sub-culture within the Evangelical movement and parts of the Reformed trad [but not all parts since I am a Reformed thinker myself]).
March 12, 2012 at 7:36 pm
@Bobby, it is speculation, because we’re not talking about the annihilate-ability of the divine nature which is one substance with the Father and thus *might* arguably intrinsically exist; no, we’re talking about the human nature, and no “theo-logic” case can be made that the two natures are intrinsically and irrevocably united. Scripture says Jesus IS a man forever, not that He is incapable of being otherwise. Arguing for intrinsically eternal unity is speculation, since that unity could be contingent, upon God’s choice to preserve it eternally. What’s more, even if the unity is intrinsically irrevocable, that could be by virtue of the human nature’s unity with the divine nature, to which man is not united, at least not by nature. Even if Christ’s humanity could not be annihilated, that says nothing about the annihilate-ability of humanity in general. So there’s just no arguing against annihilationism on these grounds.
Now, I’m the first to recognize that it’s not possible to come to Scripture without a bias. I’m also the first to argue against the “no creed but Christ” solo scriptura attitude you correctly decry. But when the Word is clear in what it says awaits the wicked, then it takes precedence over our biases–particularly ones as tenuous as what it seems like you’re arguing for.
March 12, 2012 at 7:42 pm
surely the answer is simply that for Bobby to be right, Jesus must also have pre-existed creation as a human?
March 12, 2012 at 7:44 pm
@Geoff, seems that way to me.
March 12, 2012 at 7:47 pm
@Geoff, or that His union of divine and human natures is shared by everyone.
March 12, 2012 at 7:49 pm
“After generations of confusion we must reaffirm that the Greek word anastasis and its cognates really do refer to a new bodily life given to a human body that had been dead. Anastasis was not a clever or metaphorical way of speaking of a ‘spiritual’ or ‘non-bodily’ survival of death. The ancient Greeks and Romans had plenty of ways of speaking of such a thing, and anastasis was not one of them.”
Convegno «Gesù nostro contemporaneo»
Roma 9-11 febbraio 2012
Conference of Italian Bishops
‘Jesus, Our Contemporary’
‘Christ is Risen from the Dead, the First Fruits of Those who have Died’
Right Reverend Professor N. T. Wright,
University of St Andrews
@Chris Yes about the shared natures. The trinity sure is confusing heh..
March 12, 2012 at 8:03 pm
@Bobby, what grounds can you offer that the life of Christ is objectively the unsaved’s?
March 12, 2012 at 8:07 pm
(I find it ironic, incidentally, that it’s the annihilationist who’s charged with focusing first and primarily on Scripture.)
March 12, 2012 at 9:02 pm
@Ronnie: I assume the “..everlasting life” bit is self-evident? (life from Hebrew חי chay H2416, from the Hebrew root חָיָה H2421, shows that Dan is speaking about an eternal process of being sustained) Therefore, I assume your question is about how “… everlasting contempt” suggests everlasting torment? If so, I’ll explain. The word translated as ‘contempt’ was the Hebrew word דראון dĕra’own H1860 whose sense means something closer to aversion (or abhor) than contempt.
To be ‘eternally’ averted (or abhorred) works as a continuous process. The use of this word is a nice juxtaposition against eternally sustenance [Dan 12:2]. So this issue isn’t between being eternally alive and eternally dead as you seem to believe. Rather, it is between being eternally sustained in God’s presence, and being eternally denied God’s presence (that is what ‘averted’ means). In both cases, both with chay H2416, and with dĕra’own H1860, there is still eternal existence.
So, does this support the idea ‘hell’ ends? Imagine for a second, that God only averted (dĕra’own H1860) his presence for a little while, and then that being exists no more; why would God continue abhorring (or averting) for all eternity once that being ceased to exist? Clearly, not! Daniel’s verse makes it clear this aversion is eternal! Either Daniel is incorrect, and the דראון dĕra’own is only for a little while, or this view imparts a defect to God!
So what about the magnitude of the ‘punishment’? Why would God dĕra’own H1860 for all eternity? Man’s default state is already separated and abhorred by God due to man’s choice (sin). Man has free will. If man chooses to separate himself for God, and rejects the infinite sacrifice of a perfect God, why would God ignore such a choice? Would he not honour it? The rejection of an infinitely good God is infinitely grave, and worthy of eternal separation, so the question is what does it mean to be separated from God?
We see from our own experience already, that separation from God is ‘hell’. God’s presence brings peace, love, joy, happiness; it is the source of all these things. Deny man God’s presence eternally, of course there will be eternal torment, eternal restlessness, eternal discontent.
Those who deny eternal hell wrongly believe that hell must consists of active torture (punishments being enacted), that God needs to be some type of eternal torturer. Hell needs be nothing more than eternally honouring man’s rejection of God by denying him, His presence; without God, that state will be more frightening, more cruel, than any place containing a torturer but will be a consequence of man’s choice, more than a cruel God.
March 12, 2012 at 9:09 pm
@Andrew, the only other place where that word is used is in Isaiah 66:24, where what is abhorred is dead bodies. This hardly works in your favor. Given the connection to Isaiah 66:24, Daniel 12:2 does, in fact, juxtapose eternally alive with dead forever. And the one killed needn’t exist forever, either; God can abhor the memory of something which long ago ceased to be.
As for honoring a person’s choice, not everyone agrees with you that “man has free will.” As a Calvinist, I don’t believe that. Besides, you’ve given us no reason to suspect that honoring that choice would be to remain eternally and consciously separated from God, rather than utterly and irrevocably destroyed. The Bible has far, FAR more to say about rejecting God deserving utterly death and destruction, not separation.
As for whether not eternal hell requires active torture, it’s beside the point. What matters is what Scripture says awaits the unsaved, and in my first comment way above I gave numerous biblical reasons to believe in annihilationism. The Bible simply knows nothing of eternal torment (with the exception of symbolic portrayal of eternal torment, imagery intended to communicate final destruction).
March 12, 2012 at 9:12 pm
@Chris,
Actually Scripture says 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
And Scripture says 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
And it also says 26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
We have theological concepts like Logos incarnandus and Logos incarnantus (The Word ‘to be flesh’ and The Word ‘in flesh’). We have the Logos asarkos and the Logos ensarkos. And then we have the order of Covenant, Creation, Redemption (V. your classic Calvinist Creation, Covenant, Redemption).
When we add all of the above together, we end up with a humanity who has their humanity from the archetypical humanity of Christ (which is where the image of God stuff comes in and the Covenant preceding creation). I don’t believe that Christ was always enfleshed (ensarkos), I hold to an asarkos Christology as well; but I hold to this by way of a Christ conditioned supralasarian election wherein there is a logical priority to the election of Christ’s humanity for us (the humanity that we are united to not by nature, like Christ, but by grace and adoption), such that there is a subject in distinction from who Christ has elected to become (humanity), and then the actualisation of that in the Incarnation (so I have a “theo-logical” mechanism that allows for me to make a distinction between God in Christ in se and ad extra—and thus avoid Geoff’s concern of Christ being eternally enfleshed or something).
Chris wrote: @Bobby, it is speculation, because we’re not talking about the annihilate-ability of the divine nature which is one substance with the Father and thus *might* arguably intrinsically exist; no, we’re talking about the human nature, and no “theo-logic” case can be made that the two natures are intrinsically and irrevocably united.
So then you hold to an adoptionistic Christology then? One that adopts a humanity whose identity is not given shape by the Divine person of the Son? Have you ever engaged the concepts of anhypostasis and enhypostasis, Chris? The humanity of the Jesus has no independent existence, but is given existence by the person, the eternal Logos, the Son … these are consubstantial, and this is orthodox Christology. What you are describing, like a naked humanity, independent of its reality in the Son’s humanity is foreign to Scripture and its inner “theo-logic,” Chris.
Anyway, I am out of time. It just seems to me, though, Chris, that you ought to spend more time with some Patristics; like the ones that Brian has been working through—which maybe you have, I don’t know. You should also, if you’re going to continue as an apologist, brush up on Karl Barth (if not Thomas Torrance); it seems like the concepts I have been trying to get across with you seem really foreign to you, and that shouldn’t be the case for an apologist who is seeking to defend classic Christianity against all comers. Barth and that whole dialectic theological landscape he has inspired is having a massive impact on much of Christendom; and I think it would behoove you and your podcast listeners to seek to engage some of this trend in theology.
pax Christi
PS I realize my comment here is very shotgun, but I just don’t have the proper time to engage this like I’d like.
March 12, 2012 at 9:18 pm
@Brian:
While they all hash that out, why don’t I chime in in response to your original question:
Like Chris and Ronnie and several others, I too am an annihilationist.
- What biblical passages cause you to affirm annihilationism?
A number of key passages have been brought up, so I’ll add some more (and elaborate on a couple).
2 Peter 2:6 – “and if He [God] condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter…”
God made Sodom and Gomorrah an example of what would happened to the lost. And what aspect of Sodom and Gomorrah does Pete emphasize? Their incineration. (I should also note that of all the judgment pictures Peter brings up, including angels being sent to Tartarus which would make a far better example for the traditional view, it was Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction that Peter singles out the example).
Malachi 4:1-3 – “For behold, the day is coming, burning like a furnace; and all the arrogant and every evildoer will be chaff; and the day that is coming will set them ablaze,” says the LORD of hosts, “so that it will leave them neither root nor branch.” “But for you who fear My name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings; and you will go forth and skip about like calves from the stall. You will tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day which I am preparing,” says the LORD of hosts.”
While the Old Testament is packed with warnings of death and destruction towards the wicked, few are clearly referring to final judgment the way that many New Testament passages do. This passage, however, when read in light of the previous chapter, is clearly speaking of the end of the world. Once that is established, how much more clearer could it be?
Destruction passages
A large number of New Testament passages explicitly say that the lost will be destroyed, or will suffer destruction (e.g. Matthew 7:13, Romans 9:22, Philippians 1:28, 2 Peter 3:7). Now, some will say that the destroying and destruction is not meant to be literal destruction, but simply ruin. That of course needs to be addressed. However, the burden is on the traditionalist to show that in all of these passages “destroy” and “destruction” is either a mistranslation or is figurative.
Death
Although many are quick to say that death just means separation, and therefore it is not like death unbelievers think of, that is not quite accurate.
Death is separation of body and spirit (James 2:26). However, as that passage itself says, the BODY is what dies. Separation CAUSES death. The body, separated from the spirit, dies. The spirit/soul doesn’t die at physical death, so it doesn’t matter if people are still conscious as immaterial beings after death. The body is what suffers death (the first time). The death we die on earth only affects the body, NOT the soul (Matthew 10:28). But that same verse says that God will do to body AND soul what men do to the body when they kill it. And what is a dead body like? What should we make of the second death, if it is death that afflicts body and soul, not just body?
- What do you do with passages that seem to speak of eternal torment?
There are certainly passages that sound like eternal torment, and some that really don’t but are still used that way. They include Revelation 14:9-11 and 20:10, Matthew 25:41 and 25:46, 2 Thessalonians 1:9 (although that passages is also appealed to by annihilationists, because it is eternal DESTRUCTION), Jude 7 (though when exegeted properly, it not only doesn’t prove eternal torment, but it is actually a huge help to annihilationists), and a sprinkling of other less common ones that pop up, like those that speak of “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
- What are some of you theological/philosophical reasons?
I tend not to go into those much, because we annihilationists tend to get raked over the coals if we do. And more importantly, they are largely irrelevant. The Bible says what the Bible says.
- Who are your influences? Who articulates annihilationism best?
I was influenced largely by just a few (I’ve read a lot more books arguing for eternal torment than for my belief).
I discovered the idea for the first time by stumbling on the Seventh-Day Adventist website helltruth.com (I am not SDA though). However, I got the most from the following two:
Edward Fudge, author of The Fire That Consumes (although his explanation of Revelation 20:10, possibly the most important verse used to support eternal torment, is weak, which is especially disheartening given how on the mark the rest of his book is, and given how he gts halfway to giving a good answer, which has helped me and others give ultimately satisfying responses).
Glenn Peoples; he’s not a professional theologian (though he does have a Th.M and Ph.D in philosophy), but nonetheless he was the one who had the most influence on me early on, especially with his podcast episodes on it:
Episode 5: http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/episode-005-its-one-hell-of-an-episode/
Episode 6: http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/episode-006-hell-part-2-tradition-strikes-back/
Episode 7:http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/episode-007-the-hell-series-crashes-and-burns-finally/
Written version of them (if you prefer the written word): http://www.beretta-online.com/articles/theology/annihilationist.pdf
I also recommend Chris and Ronnie’s stuff, which you can find by clicking the their names
OTHER:
Essenes
Someone brought up the Essenes, and how Josephus said that they believed in the immortal soul. Indeed, Josephus did say that. But since then, we have found the dead sea scrolls, which as far as I know are still believed to be largely the product of the Essenes. They, in many places speak of the final annihilation of the wicked.
C.S. Lewis
I would never consider C.S. Lewis an annihilationist. As far as I know of him, He believed that the person is still eternally conscious. It doesn’t matter if they’re just “conscious ashes”; they still are able to feel pain and suffer and for all intents and purposes, exist.
CONCLUSION
It’s not a simple debate at all, though I am confident that when the above eternal torment passages (and some others) looked at in their proper context, they aren’t as big of a problem for the annihilationist interpretation.
A number of the resources that go much more in depth that others have brought up here are certainly useful (especially the free ones lol).
And I’ve written about about this too
http://3-ringbinder.weebly.com/uploads/1/9/1/0/1910989/the_bible_teaches_annihilationism.pdf
March 12, 2012 at 9:24 pm
Sure, the divine Word is the same yesterday and today and forever; He certainly was not a man in eternity past. And the divine Word is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. That certainly could not be His human nature, to which Genesis 1:26 refers, for the Father has no human nature. So the “our” image in which man was created could not be the Son’s (and only the Son’s) future human nature.
As for the rest of the patronizing comment, I said from the beginning that I am a layperson, and my education is ongoing; I certainly make no claim to grandeur. And I appreciate every recommendation and encouragement to continue my study. But the reality is, Scripture on one hand gives us reams and reams of text which indicate that the final punishment awaiting the unsaved is an utter destruction, a lifelessness of both body and soul like the lifelessness of a corpse in the first death, and on the other hand gives us no indication whatsoever that Christ’s human nature was intrinsically immortal, nor that such is the rest of mankind.
I understand the time constraint; I face it, too. And for the most part (the recent patronization notwithstanding), I concur with my friend Ronnie who said you come across as very nice. And so we can part proverbial ways amicably. But I will not back down from letting the Bible determine my theology and eschatology, rather than the other way around.
March 12, 2012 at 9:38 pm
Sure, the divine Word is the same yesterday and today and forever; He certainly was not a man in eternity past. And the divine Word is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. That certainly could not be His human nature, to which Genesis 1:26 refers, for the Father has no human nature. So the “our” image in which man was created could not be the Son’s (and only the Son’s) future human nature.
If the Son is the image of God, and we were created in the image of God, and we are human (by grace), then how can you say that the Son did not have the ‘human image’ as the image we were created in before we were created? Anyway, there is much more to develop; and I can’t at the moment (I have reams of stuff at my blog).
We have different theories of revelation. I see Scripture as witness to the Eternal Living Word, Jesus Christ. I don’t see Scripture as my epistemological source-bed (which is a philosophical construal of Scripture), but as God’s triune speech act given through Christ by the Spirit (so I see Scripture theologically placed in the realm of soteriology/sanctification etc.). I don’t think we can know Jesus apart from Scripture either, but that’s not to say that there isn’t a theological order to our doctrine of Scripture. We are simply in much different places, theologically, Chris.
I apologize for coming off patronizing, I know I do that some times; and its something I have been trying to work on!
Blessings brother,
Bobby
PS. I know I asked you another question here, but I won’t be able to engage you any further.
March 12, 2012 at 9:54 pm
If the Son is the image of God, and we were created in the image of God, it doesn’t follow that the image of God is human. I’m not so sure our theories of revelation are as different as you think. I fail to see how anything I’ve said suggests that I view Scripture as *merely* (there’s the seeming patronizing again; just helping you keep an eye out) “my epistemological source-bed.” I would wholeheartedly concur with everything else you said about, to the extent I understand what you said. That doesn’t mean it’s appropriate to interpret Scripture through tenuous presuppositions which find, it seems to me, no basis in Scripture. I think it’s telling that many traditionalists seem to prefer to talk about these kinds of tenuous presuppositions, rather than what the Scripture says awaits the unsaved.
I forgive you for the seeming patronization; I’m sure I’m frequently guilty of it as well, and no doubt will one day require your forgiveness, if I don’t already, or if not that of someone else.
March 12, 2012 at 10:14 pm
I’m not sure how “image” gets into the discussion. The Hebrew concept is one of “representation” as in a deputy, viceroy, governor or some such, and is used to refer to paintings, rocks, altars, statues and a number of things. I refer you to D J Clines articles, for example: http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_1968_19_03_Clines_ImageOfGodInMan.pdf
Jesus was/is both human and divine, and as such was/is the one TRUE “image” of God. It irrelevant though, because He does not cease to be image, because its a functional relational thing rather than a physical thing. President Clinton is still called President Clinton even though he is no longer President, and He still represents that office.
What we do know is that the punishment for sin is death (Romans says, right?). Then we know that Jesus took our punishment (death.. not eternal torment). Jesus is not currently being tormented in hell eternally for our sins.
I was going to make some condescending comment about something.. but really.. I dont understand what Bobby is on about and how it is relevant, and I am confused…
March 12, 2012 at 10:37 pm
Andrew,
I can’t see that you’ve come anywhere near demonstrating that “everlasting contempt” requires that the objects of contempt be alive forever. Aside from the point that Chris made (viz., that the only other occurrence of deraone is used explicitly in reference to corpses), I suggest that you see how Scripture elsewhere uses this kind of language, Jeremiah 20:11, Jeremiah 23:40 and Psalm 78:66 for instance. Concepts like “everlasting shame” are very much about how a person, family, or nation are remembered by others and in no way are intended to communicate that the objects of shame will live forever!
Daniel 12:2 in fact strongly implies the opposite; only one group will live forever. The other will only receive contempt that lasts forever. And yes, to experience shame and torment a person must be alive (and conspicuous attempts to evade this fact by using the word “existence” wont be successful). Traditionalists of the past were quite frank about affirming that all humans, saved and unsaved would live forever. Many contemporary traditionalists also use this language when they’re not being careful. I give a number of examples in the opening of my recent debate.
The rejection of an infinitely good God is infinitely grave, and worthy of eternal separation
Assertions such as these are not at all obvious and need to be argued for. It’s not even clear that a concept like “infinitely good” is even meaningful. God is perfectly good. To reject God is grave indeed, but on what grounds do you affirm that it is “infinitely grave?” What does that even mean?
Those who deny eternal hell wrongly believe that hell must consists of active torture (punishments being enacted), that God needs to be some type of eternal torturer.
I’m always fascinated when people who wish to affirm a more traditional view of “hell” shy away from the language of torment, when this is precisely the language used in the only plausible proof-texts for the view! Again, traditionalists of the past had no issue at all describing future punishment as the active infliction of torment. Pain, agony, suffering and even torture were words that were used freely and without embarrassment.
March 12, 2012 at 10:44 pm
Bobby, just to be clear, is it safe to assume that you object to the way that the vast majority of contemporary evangelical theologians/exegetes/biblical scholars approach Scripture?
March 12, 2012 at 11:47 pm
For a quick refresher (or overview at the front end) on annihilationism (specifically the “conditional immortality” version of it) and a summary, by the way, of my book THE FIRE THAT CONSUMES, have a look at my 69-minute lecture given September 24, 2011 in the Lanier Theological Library lecture series. The video is available free on line to watch – go to http://www.LanierTheologicalLibrary.org and click on “VIDEOS” then scroll down until you come to it. There is also much good material on my website at http://www.EdwardFudge.com/written/fire.html . If I can be of help,write me at edward@edwardfudge.com When you have time, have a look at movie trailer at http://www.hellandmrfudge.com (an independent feature film to be released sometime in 2012). I cooperated with the producers but had nothing else to do with this film’s creation or distribution. – Cordially, Edward.
March 13, 2012 at 12:19 am
There’s a bright side to conditional immortality that appeals to me.
The atheist rejecter of mercy gets exactly what he expects, which is nothing. But after all he told us he [was] happy with that. And the saved will be happy in the joy of their Lord. All happy and none unjustly punished. Except for those snooty saved who craved to see folks burn – they will have no souls to look down upon – nothing to see. I hope they can get over that.
March 13, 2012 at 12:37 am
John,
Interestingly Paul tells us that unbelievers know exactly what they deserve:
Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
They know that they deserve death, not endless life in torment. Attempts to make “death” and “perish” mean the exact opposite have always struck me as a bit desperate.
March 13, 2012 at 1:48 am
Brian -
One of the more known proponents for annhilationism and conditional immortality is Edward Fudge. His major work is The Fire That Consumes. I think some arguments and approaches could be strengthened from a more historical-narrative framework. Having said that, if you don’t want to read the book, but have 1 hour to give to a video teaching, you could always check our Fudge’s recent lecture here.
March 13, 2012 at 6:29 am
@Chris Date: Your argument is weak Chris. The other place this word is used [Isa 66.24] is also talking about those apart from the presence of God. Notice the bit about “the worm DOESN’T DIE” and “NEITHER SHALL THEIR FIRE BE QUENCHED”. This also re-enforces the point that this state of being denied the presence of God is eternal. It is in this state that they are ‘averted’. This doesn’t disprove my point, it proves it precisely! Hell it eternal; in both places this word is used in the bible, Hell is shown to be eternal (everlasting) with worms that don’t die and fire unquenched.
WRT to Calvinism and free will, yes understand Calvinism denies ‘free-will’. Calvinist theology has many such defects; denying the basis for moral accountability is only one such defect. Regardless, I gave at least two reasons to suspect that honouring man’s choice would lead to him remaining eternally and consciously separated from God. You rejected only one of those two reasons.
Even if you personally don’t believe in ‘free-will’, surely intellectual honesty warrants the concession THAT IF God has given mortal man free-will in the first place (sufficient to reject Him for a time), it is rational to hold that such a God’s character would be eternally consistent. Therefore if God is willing to tolerate His own rejection for a time, He is willing to tolerate it for ALL time, but man then has to live with the eternal consequence of his choice (since an consequence of man’s free-will choice to reject an infinitely perfect God’s is to remain apart from God). A property of God is that He is without shade or variation, not even a hint of change [James 1.17]. This is certainly a possible explanation for ‘hell’.
Even if one can’t attain this level of intellectual honest though, I also pointed out rejecting the saving grace of an infinitely perfect God could also be seen as an infinitely grave sin, whether or not ‘free-will’ exists. Surely you would not foolishly argue that man can offend an infinitely perfect God and then only be committing a finite sin? If man rejects an infinitely perfect God, he warrants an eternal consequence not a finite one.
To believe ‘hell’ ends you would have to show that man is capable of only mildly offending against God. Many believe the fallacy that if we only commit a finite number of sins the gravity if our sins is only finite, but clearly that doesn’t follow. It is the gravity of our sins, and not the number, that God justly rewards.
@Ronnie: I tried to avoid the idea that those in hell are ‘alive’ (in any sense we understand), though I am in no way an annihilationist. I think it’s fair to say that both eternal life, and eternal damnation are a type of existence we don’t yet have direct experience with. At most I would argue they exist and are concious. Even so, look at the [Isa 66.24] verse. The (conventional) dead are consumed by flame or worm for only a little while, and then the process is complete. Yet those in [Isa 66.24] never complete the process of being consumed.
Those eternally dying are clearly aware of this flame, incidentally. The flame biblically, in judgement and as a gift of the spirit, always and without exception implies heightened awareness of God’s will. Here the flame is an awareness of the consequence of sin. Isaiah’s Hebrew conveys a sense of ever dying, never finishing. (Though I admit, the idea of eternally dying is a difficult thing to conceive).
March 13, 2012 at 6:36 am
@John Anngeister: The bright side you see is true whether or not immortality is conditional. If one accepts God, one spends eternity with God. If one rejects God, one spends eternity without Him.
The difference between the two views is how we appreciate the consequence of rejecting God. It is possible that the atheist who rejects God expects to simply cease to exist, but if the rejection of God or His grace is an infinitely grave sin, the atheist may be surprised to find herself in an eternal state of being denied the same God’s peace we all currently take for granted.
March 13, 2012 at 7:09 am
@Andrew,
Isaiah 66:24 very clearly does not refer to people who are eternally dying. A corpse or carcass is not dying, it is dead. Thus your argument from both it and Daniel 12:2 is resoundly defeated. But let’s talk about undying worms and unquenchable fire, because like I did when I was still a traditionalist, and as ALL traditionalists must do in order to get around the obvious meaning of Isaiah 66:24, you are for whatever reason choosing not to look at what those phrases mean. You think “not be quenched” means “never stops burning,” even though that’s not what “quench” means, and you think “worm shall not die” means “worm shall never, ever die, under any circumstances, no matter what.” But that’s not what either phrase means.
To “quench” does not mean to “go out” in either English or the original biblical languages. It means to “put out” or “extinguish.” Take Jeremiah 17:27, for example, which says, “I will kindle a fire in its gates and it will devour the places of Jerusalem and not be quenched.” That word “devour” means to “consume,” and when “consume” describes what fire does, it means to burn down to nothing. That’s why Exodus 3:2 says the burning bush was burning with fire and yet was NOT consumed, because it kept burning without ever being reduced to ashes. Or take the language at the end of Isaiah chapter 1, where both the strong man and his work will burn together with none to quench them. For one thing, a man’s work cannot be burned forever and ever, and secondly, the text just got done saying that transgressors will come to an end like a garden that dies for lack of water. You see, what you’re for whatever reason choosing to ignore (again, I did this when I was a traditionalist) is what unquenchable fire means throughout Scripture, which is a fire which cannot be prevented from fully destroying. It has nothing to do with neverending burning.
Unlike the fire which won’t be quenched, there is no other example we can point to in which it is promised that worms won’t die before fully consuming dead bodies. However, in light of the parallel which is a fire that no one can extinguish before it fully consumes, it seems pretty clear that that’s all that’s intended by undying worms: worms which won’t die before fully consuming dead bodies. What’s more, consider the similar language of Jeremiah 7. There it says that what was in Jesus’ day called Gehenna–that is, the valley of the son of Hinnom–would be turned into a place of slaughter and corpses. And listen to verse 33: “The dead bodies of this people will be food for the birds of the sky and for the beasts of the earth; and no one will frighten them away.” Now was this, the fact that no one will frighten them away, intended to communicate that a wicked person will be tormented forever by being unceasingly nibbled on? Of course not. So if a fire which won’t be quenched means a fire which will not be put out prematurely and prevented from fully consuming dead bodies, and if beasts and birds which won’t be scared away communicates scavengers which will not be prevented from fully consuming dead bodies, it seems obvious to me that worms which won’t die means worms which will not be prevented from fully consuming dead bodies.
So your argument from Isaiah 66:24 and Daniel 12:2 is annihilated. In my next comment I’ll address this issue of free will…
March 13, 2012 at 7:23 am
@Andrew,
Your claim of consistency is utterly groundless and disingenuous, since even you don’t believe that in hell God is still giving men the opportunity to accept or reject Him, as He is now. No, you believe that while God gives man that opportunity now, in the hereafter man will no longer have that choice and will face the eternal consequences of what they chose in life. In the same way, I think man faces the eternal consequence of accepting or rejecting God in life, it’s just that whereas you argue groundlessly that that eternal consequence must be forever experienced while separated from God, I argue biblically that that eternal consequence is an utter death from which the unsaved will never die.
You see, your claim that my view presents a finite consequence, rather than an eternal one, is quite simply wrong. As the late, great Jonathan Edwards admitted, my view is an eternal punishment, and thus it is fitting for an infinitely heinous sin. You are apparently operating from the misapprehension that in annihilationism the final punishment for sin is the suffering expereinced while dying, but that’s not the case at all. In our view, the final punishment for sin is an utter death of both body and soul from which the sinner will never rise again. That’s no more finite than your view.
So Andrew, now that you see how the idioms of unquenchable fire and irresistibly consuming scavengers are used throughout Scripture, you can see why appealing to Isaiah 66:24 and Daniel 12:2 will never get you anywhere in this debate, and although you can continue to engage in philosophical speculation about what God must do to respect free will and whether or not annihilation is an eternal punishment, may I suggest that we discuss what the Bible actually says awaits the unsaved in other texts?
March 13, 2012 at 8:15 am
First, the idea that annihilationists don’t believe God’s punishment last forever is not quite true. Maybe that’s what some annihilationists believe, but not all. Many believe God’s punishment is forever and eternal, because the wicked die, forever. God doesn’t bring them back. Just because God is not tormenting people with a magnifying glass like ants forever doesn’t mean that he has not given them an eternal punishment. I think it’s kind of a perverted view of justice when people think if God chooses to not bestow eternal life on the wicked and let them die for all of eternity it is seen as not just.
Those who aren’t annihilationist come to this argument with the presupposition that the soul is immortal. For some reason people think the responsibility lies on the annihilationist to disprove this, but I think traditionalists should try to prove that the soul is immortal. That’s where I start. Ashes to ashes dust to dust. As we witness in nature, everything dies. I haven’t seen anything to contradict this. Jesus says those who believe in him have everlasting life, and those who don’t will perish. If it can be proven that someone can live forever without the miraculous life giving love and mercy of God, then I will believe that souls can be tormented forever.
The verses that refer to everlasting torment, never refer to those who commonly die unrepentant and unregenerate. Also these verses are from Revelation, so it’s tough to make any case about anything they say. It says the smoke of their torment rises forever, it does not say they are tormented forever. It says the beast and the false prophet are tormented forever, not all sinner.
March 13, 2012 at 9:07 am
Joey
Great contribution, thank you! I will take a look at those links and think through the passages you mentioned.
Edward
Thank you! I will make sure to watch your video.
Nick
Thank you for the clarification. Another comment above pointed out that annihilationist see judgment as permanent, which I didn’t intend to deny. I should have said something about conscience torment.
That is a very good point about the presupposition of the soul’s permanence.
March 13, 2012 at 9:24 am
I’m glad to have Dr. Fudge’s contribution to this thread. I haven’t listed my sources – they are mostly Nineteenth Century (when the matter was in fact covered in full).
Dr. Edward White (d. 1897) an English Congregationalist minister whose 1875 book, Life in Christ, covers the ground very well.
Dr. Emmanuel Petavel (d. 1910) of Switzerland, whose book, Le fin du mal, attempts to give a consistent Protestant view of the doctrine. Some of his work is in English translation.
Rev. George Storrs (d. 1879), an American ordained by the Methodists who in the 1840s left that denomination over the subjects of Bishop’s authority and conditional immortality. He wrote “Six Sermons” on the subject which are online.
Theologically, the doctrine offers a positive biblical and evangelistic alternative to Universalism – which I judge to be only another form of the error of Predestinationism. If it turns out that we are immortal by nature and not by grace, however, it seems like the more divine form of predestination.
By “evangelistic” I mean that the Conditionalist finds good reason to tell the good news of approach to God to all those who live under the widespread group-illusions of the materialists and atheists, since he cannot simply sit by when there remains a chance that some of these may be induced to seek God and by that simple faith attain to immortal life.
In my view it was the object of the Son’s incarnation to bestow upon the whole world the spiritual opportunity for immortality (which he did, not on the cross, but after his ascension, at Pentecost). This gift of the Spirit constitutes his Redemption of mankind. But man must avail himself of its help to be saved.
March 13, 2012 at 9:59 am
@Chris Date: Chris, I advise you to look more closely at the two verses in contention. In [Dan 12.2] they are NOT ‘corpses’ they are ‘sleeping’ (from the Hebrew ישן yashen (H3463)). In [Isa 66.24] they are ‘carcases’ or ‘casings’ (from the Hebrew פגר peger (H6297)). The Hebrew word peger (H6297) as casing, does not mean ‘devoid of concious’ necessarily, though sometimes it does.
For example, look at the prophetic language of [Eze 6:5-6]. The mountain of Israel (in other words everyone), the children of Israel are being addressed here. The carcases spoken of in [Eze 6.5] was everyone; the entire nation of Israel was punished because of the idolatry of the nation; the entire nation of Israel was punished; the entire nation of Israel was taken into captivity; The bones of the carcases were not the bone of individuals, but of the nation IAW [Eze 37.1-6] as we see from [Eze 37.11].
The verse says “And I will lay the dead carcases of the children of Israel before their idols; and I will scatter your bones round about your altars.” [Eze 6:5]
We see from verse [Eze 6:8] however that not all of those corpses scattered about the alter were dead. “Yet I will leave some of you alive …”
You assume to describe something as a carcase implies ‘devoid of life’. But the Ezekiel verses above are prophetic. Dan’s verse [Dan 12.2] is also prophetic, as is Isaiah’s verse [Isa 66.24]. What is the first principle of exegesis? We must take into consideration the Author’s intent (or the literary nature of the text of that which is being exegeted). You say you argue biblically, but your argument ignores the prophetic nature of the text, just as it ignores the fact that people can be described as dead (meaning spiritually) without actually being dead (devoid of life).
This observation can be taken further though. Where Isaiah says of those in hell “For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.” you also assume that the fire and worm must destroy (consume). Notice that the fire dioes not consume Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in [Dan 3.16], or the bush in [Exo 3.2].
Even if the idea of immorality in hell were a Greek idea (which I don’t grant), you then must address whether or not you believe the NT. Jesus Himself says “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” [Matt 25:46] Are you suggesting Jesus was mis-lead by Greek ideas? Also, [1 Cor 15.53] says all shall be changed, all dead shall rise. When it says the dead shall put on the imperishable, it does not distinguish between those destined for life and those contempt. According to verse 54 the perishable will put on the imperishable, and mortals (which is all of us whatever our standing with God) will put on immortality.
Verses such as [Dan 12.2][Isa 66:24] are plain and consistent with NT teaching. Your augment only works by ignoring the plain meaning of OT text or NT doctrine.
March 13, 2012 at 10:20 am
@Andrew,
In Daniel 12:2, the were corpses, and then they rise, some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. You’re simply assuming that they remain alive. As for Isaiah 66:24, every single translation renders the word as dead bodies or corpses: the ASV, the Amplified, the CEB, the CEV, the Darby translation, ERV, the ESV, God’s Word translation, the Good News translation, the Holman Christian Bible, the KJV and NKJV, the Message, the NASB, the NCV, the NIV and NIRV and TNIV, the NLV, the NLT, the Wycliffe Bible, and Young’s Literal translation. Verse 16 says “those slain by the LORD will be many,” and worms gnaw on corpses, not living bodies. Very clearly, no matter how desperately one might try to argue otherwise, what is in view in Isaiah 66 are lifeless corpses, and thus your entire argument from Isaiah 66:24 and Daniel 12:2 disappears like dissipating smoke.
You can’t argue that Ezekiel 6 depicts living corpses; that’s absurd. No, in this passage God leaves a remnant of people who AREN’T rendered lifeless corpses. Nor can you argue that Isaiah 66:24 is describing “spiritual death” (a concept which we’d have to discuss separately because I see no support in Scripture for such a notion) since it’s not the PERSON who’s called dead here, but their BODIES. They are corpses, not living dead people.
Still, if you want to try and argue that Isaiah 66:24 is using corpses as imagery not intended to be taken literally, that’s fine. You have no basis for claiming that I’m failing to recognize the prophetic nature of the text, however, since I’m not suggesting that we take it literally in every detail. But if you want to try and say that imagery of dead bodies–which is undeniably what it is–is intended to be taken as imagery depicting some other kind of death, fine. But you can’t argue that from this passage or from Daniel 12:2, or from Mark 9:48, since the language simply describes dead bodies, and is never elaborated upon making it clear that it is imagery of dead bodies symbolic of eternal torment. No, you have to argue this from other passages, which you have hithertoo seemed reluctant to address. I’m glad, however, that at the end you bring up Matthew 25:46 and 1 Corinthians 15. I’ll address that in my next comment.
No, I don’t assume that the fire and worm must consume; did you even read my previous comments? I wrote,
“Take Jeremiah 17:27, for example, which says, “I will kindle a fire in its gates and it will devour the places of Jerusalem and not be quenched.” That word “devour” means to “consume,” and when “consume” describes what fire does, it means to burn down to nothing. That’s why Exodus 3:2 says the burning bush was burning with fire and yet was NOT consumed, because it kept burning without ever being reduced to ashes.”
I absolutely recognize that fire doesn’t by necessity consume, but my point was that when fire IS said to consume, then it consumes–and yet is simultaneously called unquenchable! Your presupposed understanding of unquenchable fire makes Jeremiah 17:27 and Isaiah 1 nonsensical and contradictory. And that’s my point: you can’t argue for your doctrine from this passage’s use of unquenchable fire; it only works against you.
As for worms, again, you presuppose an understanding of that idiom, and yet what I’ve demonstrated is that there is a precedent in Scripture for speaking of scavengers as unable to be prevented from fully consuming rotting, stinking corpses, and since this undying worm is the parallel to unquenchable fire–which does NOT refer to a fire that forever burns, but always refers to a fire which can’t be resisted–there’s no good reason, whatsoever, for understanding the worm here in the way you do. But we do have biblical precedent for understanding it the way we annihilationists do.
In my next comment, I’m excited to finally discuss other passages which actually might, on the surface, appear to support your view (since Daniel 12:2 and Isaiah 66:24 do not). Coming shortly…
March 13, 2012 at 10:35 am
@Andrew,
As for Matthew 25:41-46, this passage is far better support for my view than for yours.
For one, the phrase “eternal fire” is used in only two other places. In Jude 7, Jude says Sodom and Gomorrah serve as a “specimen” of what awaits the wicked, having suffered the punishment of “eternal fire.” So what is the punishment of eternal fire? Being reduced to lifeless remains. Jonathan Edwards even recongizes that this is what eternal fire did to Sodom and Gomorrah, calling it an eternal destruction (which, by the way, is how I understand 2 Thess. 1:9). The second place “eternal fire” appears is in Matthew 18:8, whose parallel in Matthew 5:30 hearkens to Gehenna which became “the valley of Slaughter” where scavengers could not be frightened away from fully consuming rotting, lifeless corpses, and whose other parallel in Matthew 9:43-48 which, again, quotes verbatim Isaiah’s language of rotting, lifeless corpses.
For two, if the reference to the fire prepared for the devil and his angels is what’s referred to in the apocalyptic imagery of Revelation 20, then since the imagery of torment is elsewhere used by John (chapter 14, chapters 17-19, all hearkening back to Isaiah 34) to symbolize final destruction–and not literal eternal conscious torment–and since the abstract entities death and Hades are also thrown into the fire–entities which cannot experience torment at all, obviously communicating the utter end of both–then this reference, too, demonstrates how much better Matthew 25:41-46 fits my view than it does yours.
Thirdly, when “eternal” (Greek aionios) describes nominalized transitive verbs in Scripture, it far more often than not refers to the duration of the RESULT of an action taken in time, rather than the duration of that action’s expression. “Eternal redemption” and “eternal salvation” in the book of Hebrews do not indicate that Christ is forever saving, forever redeeming; no, even as my recent debate opponent on Unbelievable? with Justin Brierley admitted with his co-authors in their book on penal substitution, Christ’s saving work was done for a finite period of time, but its results–the salvation/redemption that results from His work–are eternal. Therefore, not only do you have no grounds for arguing against my view based on “eternal punishment”–since it just as likely is referring to the everlasting death that is the result of the verb “punish”–but my view is more consistent with how biblical authors use “eternal” with nominalized transitive verbs.
So Matthew 25:41-46 is more consistent with my view than with yours.
As for 1 Corinthians 15:53, it never ceases to amaze me when traditionalists try and apply this language to the bodies of the risen unredeemed. I think it’s borderline heretical. I’m almost left speechless by the absurdity of it. Andrew, come on, brother, WHY does this mortal put on immortal, this perishable put on the imperishable? Because mortal “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” You’re arguing for universalism!!! No, the ones who will be made imperishable are the “we,” the “us” to whom God gives victory through Jesus Christ. The ones who will be made immortal are the saved, since from verse 20 Paul is talking about the resurrection bodies of those who are “in Christ.”
Andrew, we can certainly discuss what other passages have to say, but please, I beg of you, do not continue to make this egregious error from 1 Corinthians 15.
March 13, 2012 at 10:38 am
@Andrew,
By the way, if you want to continue to argue from the phrase “eternal punishment,” I would encourage you to give Jonathan Edwards a phone call. In CONCERNING THE ENDLESS PUNISHMENT OF THOSE WILL DIE IMPENITENT, chapter 2 paragraph 31, Jonathan Edwards wrote of the fate of the unredeemed that “Scripture expressions denote a punishment that is properly eternal,” but speaking of MY view he wrote, “it answers the scripture expressions as well, to suppose that they shall be annihilated immediately, without any long pains, provided the annihilation be everlasting.”
John Blanchard, too, in Whatever Happened to Hell, also acknowledged that annihilation is an eternal punishment. In Contending for the Faith, Reymond Robert acknowledges it, too. So does traditionalist blogger David Anderson.
You’re just not going to get anywhere with this passage, Andrew.
March 13, 2012 at 10:53 am
@Chris Date: I forgot to add, I don’t object to discussing what the Bible actually says awaits the unsaved in other texts? Even so, although I appreciate your counter-argument about the meaning of ‘quench’, it is not my understanding of the meaning of ‘quench’ that is defective here, but a lack of appreciation on your part we’re taking prophetic figurative language, and not some physical process bound by fuel supply. If God eternally scorns a sinner (with an unquenched flame), the physical reality that fuel is eventually expended is not the issue. If a flame is an undying flame, and is unquenched – it WILL burn forever.
Your argument about the worm is likewise disappointingly weak. The text does not mean (as you suggest), ‘the worm will not die before consuming the body’. It says, and means, the worm shall NOT die (ever), implying this process of being eaten by the worm is an ever-lasting process. The Hebrew language is comparing it implicitly these ever-lasting process to our every-day experience where fires extinguish and worms consume, then be done with it. It is precisely because these processes are cited in opposition to our experience [Dan 12.2] and [Isa 66.24] have such prophetic weight. Add to this, the NT doctrine that the sown perishable will be raise imperishable [1 Cor 15.42,52-53] and that all will be raised [John 5:28-29] and we have fairly conclusive biblical evidence that our mortal lives (our choices for those who believe in free-will) have eternal moral significance. Everything mentioned WRT God’s judgement in [Rom 2.3-4] is everlasting, be it eternal life [Rom 2.7] or wrath and fury [Rom 2.8]. God’s partiality means the application of His grace and His wrath are eternally true, and of equal measure (not like God will reward for ever, but only punish for a little, especially if the gravity of a man’s sin is infinitely worthy of punishment).
If man chooses God, let man be eternally with Him. If man rejects God, let man be eternally without Him. I’m sorry, but I refuse to give up sound exegesis and plain meaning, in favour of the folly of human error. I refuse to see God’s right to withhold his grace eternally, as wrong, simply because the defective sense of man sees it as excessive and cruel.
March 13, 2012 at 10:55 am
Andrew,
Notice that the fire dioes not consume Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in [Dan 3.16], or the bush in [Exo 3.2].
That’s right. But Scripture is explicit that those who reject God will be consumed: For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.
I implore you take texts such as these seriously and not, by reflex as it were, try to find a way around them. If I’m wrong about this forgive me, but my impression is that your current mindset is to defend your view at all costs, hence the willingness to make some outrageous and ad hoc claims (such as arguing that the corpses of Isaiah 66:24 are not really corpses).
March 13, 2012 at 11:05 am
@Andrew,
I explained above why your objection to my understanding, based on the allegation that I fail to understand prophetic imagery, is groundless. And since you are the one who brought up the unquenchable fire language from Isaiah 66:24, clearly it IS your flawed understanding of what unquenchable fire means that is the problem here, or at least it WAS, until you saw the error you were making. But you’re right, that in and of itself, unquenchable fire COULD BE neverending burning, but my point is you can’t argue that.
As for worms, it is you who is assuming without justification that the text implies that the worm will never die. You are reading your presumed meaning of the idiom into the text, and have no basis for arguing for your presupposition. I, on the other hand, supplied you with another biblical text which refers to irresistibly consuming scavengers, which when considered alongside the parallel between the unquenchable fire which irresistibly destroys–reducing to lifeless corpses, as clearly pictured in Isaiah 66:24–makes clear that a worm which does not die does, indeed, refer to a worm which cannot be prevented from fully consuming rotting, stinking corpses.
I also responded to your saddening appeal to 1 Corinthians 15; it breaks my heart when traditionalists appeal to this passage. I sincerely hope you will reconsider that horrible argument–which inexorably leads to universalism–since doing so would not endanger your position on hell. And as for John 5:28-29, it says nothing about the mortality of the resurrection bodies of the unsaved. So appealing to it is useless.
As for your continued appeal to the word “eternal,” it, too, is useless. As I explained above, even giants of traditionalism like Jonathan Edwards recognize the infinitude and eternality of the punishment we annihilationists propose awaits the unsaved.
Finally, in regards to your last paragraph, your unsubstantiated (thus far) claims of “sound exegesis” and “plain meaning” aside, I’m left wondering why in the world you end it with the implication that I base my understanding of hell on a “defective sense of man [seeing final punishment] as excessive as cruel.” Ask my fellow annihilationists like Ronnie: I am not at all persuaded by the somewhat common annihilationist appeal to the alleged cruelty and injustice of eternal torment. No, as I’ve said in two debates on the subject, and as I repeatedly tell my traditionalist friends, I never found annihilationism more emotionally palatable, or more just, than eternal torment, and I don’t to this day. I think God would be perfectly just in causing the wicked to suffer eternally. I just see no evidence for that in Scripture, and I’ve given reams of exegetical reasons to think otherwise.
March 13, 2012 at 11:05 am
@Chris Date: I’m beginning to sense from your arguments that the heart of your rejection of eternal punishment is not sound exegesis, but theological. So lets try something different to explore our controversy. Would you mind answer:
1. Do you believe man can sin an infinitely grave sin?
2. Do you believe the net sum of a man’s sin is only ever finite?
3. Is God the perfect judge?
4. Does the weight of God’s grace equal the weight of His wrath?
5. If man is capable of sinning some infinitely grave sin, and God is a just God, would such a case not warrant an infinite state of condemnation?
6. Do you hold only one type of eternal existence? (call it ‘heaven’)
7. Is not ‘non-existance’ an act of mercy?
March 13, 2012 at 11:10 am
BTW I would appreciate it if you would not ‘pigeon hole’ me by calling me a traditionalist. On this point I may adhere a ‘traditional’ position, but you don’t know the extent of my theological belief, and you would not argue that I am a traditionalist if you did; that and I’m offended by pigeon-holes.
The rules of play should be that we disagree with each other’s positions without limit, but doing so respectfully.
March 13, 2012 at 11:11 am
@Andrew,
I don’t reject eternal punishment, as I’ve repeatedly indicated. As for your “sense,” I’m dumbfounded since I’ve given no theological reasons–or any other reasons, apart from exegesis–for rejecting the traditional view of hell. To answer your questions:
1. Yes (although some annihilationists would disagree, perhaps justifiably).
2. No. I believe the sum of a man’s sins is infinite, and warrants an eternal punishment.
3. Yes.
4. Yes. Punishment is as eternal as glory.
5. Yes (again, see #1).
6. Yes, since Scripture teaches only one eternal existence: that of the saved.
7. No.
When Jesus said in Matthew 10:28 that what humans can do only to the body (kill it), God will do to both body and soul in hell, and there’s no indication that this is an act of mercy. The word “destroy” there, whenever it’s used transitively in the synoptic gospels, always refers to “slaying” or “killing” someone. Jesus says God will render the soul as lifeless as the body is rendered in the first death. When Jude says Sodom and Gomorrah suffered the punishment of eternal fire by being reduced to nothing but lifeless remains, there’s no indication that this was mercy, and this is called by Jude a “specimen” of what awaits the wicked.
March 13, 2012 at 11:13 am
@Andrew,
I’ll happily try and find another way to refer to your view. All I intend to communicate when I call someone a “traditionalist,” or their view “traditionalism,” is the traditional view of hell as eternal conscious punishing of some sort.
March 13, 2012 at 11:23 am
For the record, “traditionalism” the accepted description used by both opponents and adherents of the view, and is found in most of the contemporary literature. Nobody is using it to “pigeon hole” anybody.
March 13, 2012 at 2:59 pm
@Chris,
I don’t think saying epistemological source bed is being patronizing; it is identifying what someone as noteworthy as Richard Muller has said about his own classic Reformed view of Scripture. No, our views of revelation, I think, are substantially different (I’ve read your beliefs page at your blog). Can you endorse a Barthian view of revelation and scripture?
As far as “image”, you are missing my point; and that, I would attribute to the fact that I don’t think you have ever read any TF Torrance and/or Karl Barth; right?
@Geoff,
Don’t write something off just because you might be being confronted with something that you have never heard of before.
@Ronnie,
Of course not. The sweep of Evangelical exegesis in our day and age is much broader than the Literal Grammatical Historical approach; which I think you’re referring to.
March 13, 2012 at 3:27 pm
@Bobby,
I tried to indicate by means of the placement of parentheses that it was not the “sorce-bed” comment that came across as patronizing, but rather the implication that that is ALL Scripture is to me. I already indicated that I am uneducated and still learning, and thus no, I have not read Barth pr Torrance. If http://dave-chang.blogspot.com/2006/12/barth-revelation.html is an accurate summary of Barth’s view of Scripture, what I would object to is the implicit denial of inerrancy; I am definitely an inerrantist
Still, that hardly categorizes my view of Scripture as merely an epistemological source-bed. If it’s inerrancy, then, that separates us, fine, but neither that nor anything else about revelation makes your view of hell more accurate than mine, it seems to me. As for “image,” I’ll see what I can find from those authors; in the meantime, you’ve offered nothing that substantially challenges my view of hell. Again, I wish we could discuss what revelation actually has to say about hell, and I find it telling that you’re reluctant to do so, regardless of your stated reasons.
March 13, 2012 at 3:53 pm
@Bobby,
You’ll have to forgive me, but I’d ask you to link me to something that explains Barth’s and Torrance’s view of the image of God and connects it with your objection to my view of hell. What I’ve been able to find thus far gets me no closer to understanding your objection. http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/the-image-of-god, for example, seems to discuss Barth’s view, and yet I find nothing that by any stretch of the imagination could be construed as a substantive challenge to my view, that man is capable of being rendered utterly lifeless in every imaginable way in hell, leaving behind only lifeless remains.
March 13, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Bobby,
Of course not. The sweep of Evangelical exegesis in our day and age is much broader than the Literal Grammatical Historical approach
I’m assuming that you took exception with the “vast” in my “vast majority” assumption? I would be shocked by the claim that a sizable percentage of evangelical scholars don’t follow the historical-grammatical method. Heck, I’d be surprised is evangelicals themselves would consider scholars who don’t adhere to that method evangelical to begin with.
Be that as it may, can you name some contemporary evangelical (self-styled or otherwise) scholars who approach Scripture in a way that you think is appropriate?
March 13, 2012 at 5:09 pm
@Ronnie,
I’m curious, are you following how either Bobby’s understanding of the image of God, or his view of Scripture, serves as a challenge to our view of hell?
March 13, 2012 at 8:05 pm
@Chris,
I have many many articles at my blog that deal with this (and scripture too). Piper won’t help you with Barth. So I don’t intrude anymore than I have already on Brian’s thread; do you have an email address I can send the links to from my blog?
On Scripture; no, it’s not inerrancy which is the primary difference; I’ll send you a couple of links on this too.
@Ronnie,
Then you ought to be surprised
. The historico-grammatical method is certainly acceptable, but the way that has morphed into the LGH or Literal Grammatical Historical method is problematic.
Some scholars (not self styled) who are Evangelical, and who might interpret scripture more toward a way I can appreciate are: John Webster (Aberdeen University), Kevin Vanhoozer (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School), and Daniel Trierer (Wheaton College) [see his book: Introducing Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Recovering a Christian Practice http://www.amazon.com/Introducing-Theological-Interpretation-Scripture-Recovering/dp/0801031788%5D. And best of all see Thomas F. Torrance’s Divine Meaning:Studies In Patristic Hermeneutics. There are more folk available, but there is a movement amongst some Evangelical scholars toward what is called theological-exegesis. In the history John Calvin and his commentaries might be the best example of how this might work itself out.
To both: I haven’t really stated my theory of revelation; an excellent book on the matter is John Webster’s Holy Scripture:A Dogmatic Sketch—his little book articulates exactly my view of revelation and scripture.
If the human being is only a participationist human being, and this participation takes place in the human being for us in Christ’s humanity (from all eternity); then the human being cannot, theo-logically, be annihilated. I don’t know why this is so hard to understand; you guys have me puzzled. I certainly did not invent this kind of thinking; and “Growish” is a learned language from theologians and biblical exegetes from within the history of interpretation within the Christian Church (both historic and contemporary). So my challenge to both of you—not trying to be patronizing—is to read outside of your comfort zones and become familiar with maybe some Karl Barth (start be reading The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth edited by John Webster). There is an order to things, theologically, that’s why my approach always seems so round about; we can’t just cherry pick topics—like annihilation etc—w/o understanding the web of informing theological beliefs which give these “down the line” foci (from a doctrine of God or Theology Proper) their proper context for development.
March 13, 2012 at 8:32 pm
@Bobby,
My email address is posted clearly on my podcast homepage; feel free to send me anything you like. I appreciate your “challenge,” but quite frankly I’m more interested in what Scripture says than what Karl Barth has to say, who I’m certain God did not intend to be a prerequisite to understanding His Word. And God’s Word is clear when it comes to the fate awaiting the wicked, and it knows nothing of the intrinsic immortality of the bodies or souls of men, nor the contingent immortality of the bodies or souls of the unsaved, nor any form of ongoing, eternal consciousness of the unredeemed. Scripture trumps Barth any day of the week.
March 13, 2012 at 8:41 pm
“If the human being is only a participationist human being, and this participation takes place in the human being for us in Christ’s humanity (from all eternity); then the human being cannot, theo-logically, be annihilated.”
I think I’m beginning to develop a glimmer of understanding of this poor argument. It’s dependent entirely upon the presupposition that Christ’s humanity is in some sense eternal–which is nowhere found in the pages of Scripture–and furthermore depends upon the assumption that Christ’s particular experience of eternal human being is something shared by all human beings, which neither follows nor is found anywhere in Scripture.
March 13, 2012 at 9:29 pm
@Chris,
If you’re interested in the history of interpretation, then you ought to check out Barth. I’m not Barthian, either; I just think he is a teacher that must be dealt with. You must have teachers that you think offer credible interpretations of scripture.
No. I don’t believe in the eternal humanity of scripture, that’s what my Christ conditioned supralapsarianism is for. Christ elects our humanity for himself, and in so doing takes our reprobation for himself (II Cor 5.21; II Cor. 8:9)—in the history of interpretation this has been called the mirifica commutatio or wonderful exchange. You are a 5 point Calvinist; you understand that this is grounded on substance metaphysics and Aristotelian categories for conceiving of God, right? By the way, I agree, Scripture does trump Barth any day of the week (Barth thinks so too, see his “Theology of the Reformed Confessions”). You make some lofty claims, Chris, about the conditional immortality of the soul; something that the history of interpretation and the Christian Tradition knows nothing of, that at least should cause you more pause than you have been exhibiting thus far.
I don’t believe God has always been Creator, but he has always been Father of the Son by the communion of the Spirit. It is out of this kind of Covenant life of grace that God became creator; because of his life of gracious love which is defined by subject-in-being and self-giveneness (other focused). It is this life of God that shapes his creating activity, Chris. And it is in the image of the Son who was oriented, before the foundation of the world (as the Lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world) to be incarnate (incarnandus). My view is explicitly scriptural, and no amount of glossing over that by you has defeated it thus far, Chris.
March 13, 2012 at 9:30 pm
*eternal humanity of Christ …
blush
March 13, 2012 at 9:34 pm
@bobby, once more for the record. You think that prior to Jesus being born, or even, he pre-existed as a human being (ie, prior to creating humanity, Jesus existed as a human..)?
March 13, 2012 at 9:57 pm
Actually, Bobby, the earliest Fathers did, in fact, teach conditional immortality. That was one of the most encouraging things for me when I became aware of what Scripture actually teaches about the fate of the unsaved. If you like, I’ll demonstrate this.
As for the alleged slaying of the Lamb before the foundation of the world, that’s one tenuous rendering of the original text in question; the other, which is consistent with the other place where nearly identical language is used, has nothing to do with the Lamb having been slain before the foundation of the world. Rather, it was the writing of the names of the elect in the book of life of the Lamb which took place before the foundation of the world. So yet again, we see that what you’re arguing has no demonstrable foundation in Scripture.
Finally, I definitely agree that the Father has eternally been the Father of the Son, etc. None of this in any way challenges what the Bible says about the final, utter slaying of body and soul which Jesus says awaits the unredeemed.
March 13, 2012 at 10:08 pm
Bobby, I’ve enjoyed the back-and-forth, but quite frankly I’m uninterested in an ongoing discussion so divorced from what the text of Scripture actually says awaits the unsaved. I understand that for some reason–though I fail, yet, to understand what that reason is–you think we need to work out these tenuous, speculative theological details before we look at the numerous texts which actually say what the fate of the unsaved will be, and if that’s an impasse preventing further dialogue between us, I’ll understand. But clearly either I haven’t the education or intelligence to make sense of what you’re arguing, or what you’re arguing is unintelligible (I suspect it’s some combination of both), and thus I think I’ll let the more intelligent followers of this thread discuss them with you. On the other hand, if you’d like to talk specific texts, I’d enjoy that.
March 14, 2012 at 2:26 am
Chris asked:
Ronnie, I’m curious, are you following how either Bobby’s understanding of the image of God, or his view of Scripture, serves as a challenge to our view of hell?
There’s a lot to say here, especially in light of some of Bobby’s recent comments. I apologize in advance if any of this comes off as curmudgeonly
As far Bobby’s imago dei/imago Christi argument, this is simply a nuanced version of a very old argument for the unconditional and universal immortality of human beings. But Scripture is fairly explicit in a number of places that immortality is neither unconditional nor universal. If Bobby wants to lay out his case as a deductively valid argument (including all of the suppressed premises—and there are likely many), in addition to addressing the Scriptural case for conditional immortality then I suppose I’d be more interested.
Now, I haven’t done more than skim most of Bobby’s comments because I frankly find his theological prose opaque and, consequently, uninteresting. I care little if his manner of communicating is a “learned language” from some tradition within Christian thought; I like clear writing. If I think someone is being deliberately obtuse, I lose interest. My academic background is philosophy, so this is like a reflex to me. I automatically just assume that the person is either engaging in obfuscation or some kind of intellectual bullying. In my experience, these are imminently reasonable assumptions, but I’m open to correction, and in this case certainly willing to give Bobby the benefit of the doubt.
There’s a major exception to the above, by the way. If the person I’m reading has an established reputation for being brilliantly insightful and/or is exceptionally influential, then I’ll take the time to wade through writing that is not immediately clear. If I read a paragraph of Kant and think “I have no clue what that means” I’ll likely study it until it clicks.
Bobby, as far as methodology goes, I think that you are simply wrong when you make claims such as:
we can’t just cherry pick topics—like annihilation etc—w/o understanding the web of informing theological beliefs which give these “down the line” foci (from a doctrine of God or Theology Proper) their proper context for development.
If you are right, you certainly have provided no reasons for thinking so. Practically speaking, a comment like that serves as little more than a conversation stopper. But your early comment about trading in parallel universes was felicitous, and perceiving that, I did not feel the need to engage you further on the actual issues which are the subject of this blog post. The only comment I made to you was poking fun at that paragraph of “Growish.” If you are genuinely puzzled that I found it hard to understand then may I suggest that it is you who needs to get outside of his circle!
But I’ve let myself run very far afield of the topic here, so I’ll stop there.
March 14, 2012 at 2:53 am
Brian, looks like you have stirred the pot with this one. I should have kept pace with the conversation. I find myself pressed for time but wanting to make a couple of comments not knowing if the ground has been plowed before. Unlike many of those who have responded, I was raised in a denomination that taught the ultimate extinction of people in hell. Since some of my Biblical education was at a university which taught that the question was “where are you going to spend eternity” I have been challenged along the way. The question of eternal punishment vs. eternal punishing is for me set in the context of the question: what is the punishment for sin? Paul’s answer in Romans – the wages (consequence) of sin is death. Paul’s simple statement is set within the context of the Eden story and God’s warning that “if you eat of the fruit of the tree you will die.” If some of my friends are correct in their understanding of the immortal nature of all souls, I find myself wondering whether God, who is omnipresent, will be present in hell. I also wonder how a new heavens and a new earth in which dwells righteousness will also include a place for hell. If hell with conscious sinners continues to exist, sin will be constrained but not destroyed finally and forever.
March 14, 2012 at 5:11 am
@Ronnie, tell us how you REALLY feel!
March 14, 2012 at 5:24 am
@Ronnie, can you link me to any articles that explain the “very old” immortality argument in a way I might be able to understand?
March 14, 2012 at 11:46 am
see Calvin’s Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 15
Pingback: Is pneumatological inclusivism orthodox? « Near Emmaus
March 14, 2012 at 1:30 pm
@Chris
I had a selection of quotes from the Church Fathers (notably Justin Martyr and a few others) in which they argue for annihilation and/or conditional immortality (pretty much the same thing really – man.. I hate labels).
I found them in Gonzales first volume of “A History of Christian Thought”. I seem to have lost the document I typed them in, but if I can find it, I’ll post it here.
March 14, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Ronnie wrote:
My academic background is philosophy,
This is clear for all who have eyes to see and ears to hear. The analytic tradition you all represent in your own ways is obvious, and one that is at odds with dialectic theology (tradition); which is where I’m situated.
I have no problems using modal logic to get at something, but when my interlocutors, like you guys, seem to think that all truth is reducible to logical-deductive schemata, then I quickly become aware of the kind of “rationalist” modes of thought that you all are committed to. This is one of the primary reasons I reject your conclusions about annihilation, because I know what kind of hermeneutic you have used (logical-deductive) to arrive at your conclusion (and it also tips me off to the substance metaphysics you employ in your doctrine of God). The fact that you can’t connect the dots relative to the impact that noetic structure has relative to a web of beliefs (and you’re a philosophy guy?!), is somewhat shocking.
Anyway, I caught your insults, in your comment, just as you intended, Ronnie. No worries though …
Chris wrote:
But clearly either I haven’t the education or intelligence to make sense of what you’re arguing, or what you’re arguing is unintelligible (I suspect it’s some combination of both), …
Nice, you and Ronnie were obviously meant for each other; you both do insult well, and in the guise of genuine reflection. Again, no worries …
Geoff,
I stand corrected on the historicity of annihilation; did you know Justin Martyr believed that Moses read Plato
. Anyway, there were many heretical beliefs floating around in the early Church; that’s how we got orthodoxy.
March 14, 2012 at 6:12 pm
@Bobby,
Yes, I have studied the history of the Church and Christian thought.. I’m by no means an expert however (and I mean “by no means”).
I do know, however, that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul was adopted by a later bunch of Christian thinkers, who tried to make christianity more palatable to the platonists. They felt they could justify it from the texts, but in reality it was an abuse of the text. They did this because the Hellenists were just laughing them out of the town square, so in order to dialogue they adapted. Now.. we suffer.
March 14, 2012 at 8:50 pm
Geoff,
I have as well. I’m just not as interested, at all, in annihilationism, obviously, as you guys; so that fact about Justin didn’t really stick in my mind too much. Anyway, Christian Universalism has just as much of a pedigree; and I am more prone to this, for sure, than annihilationism (you should read Gregory MacDonald’s aka Robin Parry The Evangelical Universalist to understand the exegetical case for this approach in contrast to yours).
March 14, 2012 at 8:52 pm
@Bobby,
Just wanted to say I’m sorry for insulting you. Sincerely. I’m a work in progress…
March 14, 2012 at 10:15 pm
Bobby,
This will be my last comment on this “ad hominemy” tangent.
This is one of the primary reasons I reject your conclusions about annihilation, because I know what kind of hermeneutic you have used (logical-deductive) to arrive at your conclusion
You reject a conclusion because you don’t like the methodology you assume was used to reach it? That’s an incredible thing to say! Is this is the type of reasoning you prefer?
I’m not sure what I wrote that you found to be underhanded insults. I don’t like the way you write/think about theology and I explained why. Interestingly, your last comment to me was perfectly reasonable and lucid. I see this a lot. Someone will be completely intelligible, but as soon he starts doing theology or “philosophy” he’ll begin to speak in riddles! I don’t know what motivated you to write a lot of the comments here, but my hunch is that the aforementioned paragraph of “Growish,” (for instance) was not written for our benefit. And that’s too bad because you probably have a lot to offer the readers here and elsewhere.
Your quip to Chris doesn’t warrant any response from me. On the other hand, your comment implying that annihilationism is “heretical” is pretty disappointing. Annihilationism is, by the standards of historic orthodoxy, heterodox. But because you feel insulted by a few strangers on a message board, all of a sudden it’s heresy? That’s petty and way beneath you, Bobby.
Anyway, I have nothing against you personally and when I said that I give you the benefit of the doubt, that was genuine, and it still holds true. I’m always open to correction. Nobody likes feeling condescended to, which is probably what is driving most of the heat here.
“Pride gets no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man.” -CS Lewis
That’s about me, by the way.
Cheers.
March 14, 2012 at 11:22 pm
@bobby,
Perhaps you should be more interested, because it is directly connected to a correct theological understanding of the nature of humanity, from the beginning of Genesis right through to Revelation. If your conclusion is faulty, chances are your starting point is also faulty.
But then, from comments you’ve made, you dont appear to be so interested in that, rather in tradition.
As for universalism.. well, that stems from a faulty understanding of the same passages (namely gen 1-11), and having studied it, find no support for it, or at least, nothing convincing. I doubt Mr MacDonald can contribute anything new (and in fact, I doubt he even deals with these passages at all). If I see a copy somewhere, though, I’ll pick it up and have a read.
March 16, 2012 at 1:55 am
I posted this a bit earlier, but my comment is no visible. This will be my last try:
Bobby says: “If humanity can be said to truly be created in the imago Dei, and recreated in the imago Christi; it follows that the being of humanity is always already and contingently grounded in the being of God in Christ.”
I can only assume that by “follows” here Bobby doesn’t have “logically follows” in mind, but some other sense of “follows.” Because this certainly does not follow. If humanity is created in the image of God and capable of being recreated in the image of Christ (no need for the Latin phrases among us plebs), it doesn’t follow at all that the being of humanity is grounded in any sense in the being of God in Christ. Perhaps an attempt to logically demonstrate this would have helped Bobby to see that it doesn’t follow. All it suggests is that being recreated in the image of Christ is contingent on God in Christ, and also contingent on first being created in the image of God. And quite naturally, the annihilationist has no problem at all with this, because it is fully compatible with annihilationism.
it’s all very well to be grounded in dialectic theology, Bobby, but there isn’t anything about dialectic theology per se that should set a person against annihilationism. True, some theologians who embrace dialectic theology may have a problem with it, but that’s another matter. In the same way, science is not anti-God, even if some scientists are. Take Barth for example. You draw on him as though his thought is clearly contrary to that of the annihilationists. Barth is sometimes misrepresented as a universalist, But as has been argued elsewhere (e.g. http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1563195) Barth makes a fine annihilationist.
Of course we could talk for a very long time about which traditions support which view, and which theologians have made what arguments. I think Athanasius’ work on the Incarnation, for example, makes a truly formidable case for annihilationism (whether the author wrote it for that purpose or not), for example.
But my ultimate motivate is that Annihilationism is taught so clearly and repeatedly in Scripture – which for Barth is still the ultimate locus of the encounter with the word of God. At best tradition can amplify this, and at worst tradition can obscure and subvert this, but no tradition should be allowed to take the place of Scripture, I hope you agree.
The Scripture from start to finish tells an unfolding story in which death is the reward of sin, where death is an undoing of creation and the loss of fellowship with God and hence the loss of the ground of being itself (this point is driven home beautifully and fearfully by Athanasius). Then through the Scripture a silver thread develops, slowly at first and then coming to fullness in the NT: The promise of immortality, but only in Christ. A second theme develops alongside this, the undoing of evil in creation – there will be a time when evil is literally no more, Thirdly, a large number of biblical writers converge on an increasingly clear and awful message of the final destruction of the lost in the judgement.
These three things considered together make a powerful case the biblical portrait of the fate of the lost is annihilation. As for eternal torment, the proof texts that are called on in support of that doctrine are clearly few by comparison (those texts that can be seriously construed in this direction can be counted on one hand), and the case for Universalism by the likes of Greg MacDonald, I think, consist of exegetical flights of fancy and wishful thinking.
Blessings
Glenn
March 16, 2012 at 6:19 am
@Glenn: *FBlike*
March 16, 2012 at 8:07 am
@Glenn,
Thanks for your input. I wish I could say I was any closer to understanding what it is Bobby *thinks* follows from being created in the image of God, etc., but I’m not :S I’ll take Ronnie’s advice and check out Calvin.
April 18, 2012 at 2:34 pm
I’m from a traditionalist background, but I’ve been considering annihilationism for a little while now. I’ve found some annihilationist arguments compelling, but I’m not fully convinced yet. I am wondering if anyone knows of a church/denomination that embraces conditional immortality but would otherwise fall within a Baptist-type doctrine. The closest that I’ve seen are maybe the Seventh-day Adventists, many Anglicans, or the churches of God, but I’m afraid that where I might end up sharing common ground with these on the point of conditional immortality, I would possibly differ on other significant points. Any suggestions or advice?
Sorry I’m late to the conversation.
April 18, 2012 at 2:39 pm
Does anyone know of a church/denomination that embraces annihilationism, and yet would fall in line with an otherwise conservative Baptist-type belief set? I’ve been considering annihilationism (still undecided) but am wary of joining with Anglicans, Seventh-Day Adventists, a Church of God denomination, etc.
April 18, 2012 at 2:47 pm
I am a member of the Advent Christian denomination which comes from the same Millerite movement as Seventh Day Adventists but split at the beginning over Sabbath issues, etc. The denomination holds to the position of inferred immortality (eternal life is a gift received at spiritual birth rather than at physical birth which makes annihilationism a natural theological position as to the final state of the unbeliever.
April 18, 2012 at 3:00 pm
I dont think you can find a “denomination” that will hold to this belief. However, it is fairly common understanding in reformed Churches, and even Episcopalian Churches (for example, John Stott is an Annihilationist IIRC)
April 18, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Thank you for your quick replies. Clayton, in what other way(s) would your denomination differ from a typical conservative Baptist statement of faith? And Geoff, I’m not really aware of the reformed churches to which you’re referring. Could you provide a few examples? Thanks.
April 18, 2012 at 3:27 pm
Never having seen a Conservative Baptist statement of faith I am not certain. We are members of the National Association of Evangelicals and would sign off on their statement of faith since their position on the final state of the wicked uses the term “eternal death’ rather than eternal conscious punishment. We are congregational in government and practice baptism by immersion. We are more moderate than fundamentalist. Though I don’t tell everyone I attended Bob Jones University for two years but found that brand of fundamentalism too constricting for me. Most of the fellows who pastor from my generation and younger are Reformed in their theology. We have a chair at Gordon-Conwell Seminary (the only denomination to have one). I was going to send you our church’s “This we believe” statement but am having problems with my InDesign software. I would be happy to answer specific questions. Probably the best book on the subject of the nature of final punishment is written by Ed Fudge titled, The Fire that Consumes.
April 18, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Could you tell me where you are from? Because we are small we don’t have congregations everywhere but perhaps you might be close to one of our congregations. Our denomination office is in Charlotte, NC
April 18, 2012 at 3:44 pm
I’m actually right down the road from BJU (maybe a seven minute drive), although I’ve never been a student there myself. They would reflect where I’m at on a lot of things though, but not necessarily all. I’ve been reading an older book right now by H. Constable, but I’m aware of Fudge. I’ve read a decent amount online and checked a number of books out from the library, but didn’t get around to getting into them a lot before they were due (besides the Constable one I have now). To be honest, the subject is so weighty to me, both in its obvious eternal implications and in its implications for possible life decisions, that it’s hard for me to delve into the subject for extended periods of time.
April 18, 2012 at 5:50 pm
Since this may involve some ongoing and extended conversations, perhaps we could exchange email addresses. I would also like to have a first name so our conversations could be a bit more personal. BJU is in my family tradition. My Uncle Roy was the Chief Financial Officer there for decades and still goes to work two or three days a week into his 80s. So I am very familiar with their belief systems. (Though I must admit that it is a much more open place than it was 40 years ago when I was there as a student.)
You are right about the far reaching implications of this doctrine. I remember a prof at BJU urging me to abandon my position on hell because “it would seriously impact my evangelistic message.” For me the harder part has been to be treated as a heretic or a less than thoughtful Christian by those who disagree with me. The doctrine at least has become a bit more acceptance in evangelical circles thanks to John Stott’s late in life writing on the subject.
A friend 90 mile from me has finally taken the step of planting a new church because after 30 years of serving his local Baptist Church as a deacon a new pastor has come in with the intent of “purifying” the church. He has been excluded from further leadership and the straw that broke the camel’s back was that he was told that he could not substitute teach his grandson’s 3&4th grade CE class.
I also have an extra copy of Fudge’s book that I would be happy to send you so that you would not have to worry about meeting a library deadline in terms of reading it.
Clayton
April 18, 2012 at 6:16 pm
Reformed Church denominations are those such as Baptist, Presbyterian, Anglican (episcopalian) (although some might disagree, they did spring from the reformation).
To be honest, you should probably worry less about finding a Church that teaches what you want, but more about studying the subject objectively until you are clear one way or another. Then it doesnt matter what any one else teaches.
May 20, 2012 at 8:12 pm
Man wasn’t made originally with immortal life (or his soul) but can only get it from God.
“And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:” – Genesis 3:22
Notice that God says, “lest he take also of the Tree of Life and live for ever.” So God is saying that eating from the Tree of Life would make man live for ever. A few verses further we see that God prevented Adam from eating of the Tree of Life BECAUSE GOD KNEW THAT MAN WOULD LIVE FOREVER IF HE ATE IT. So what did He do? He prevented man from eating it, which means that man does not have immortal life (or his soul either). So man will die. Death is the absence of life, and you are conscious when you are alive, so when you are dead, you are UNconscious.
What is man made of? Here’s one simple verse that will tell you:
“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” – Genesis 2:7
Now let’s take this verse at face value. God is forming a man by: the dust of the ground, and breathing into his nostrils the breath/spirit of life from Himself. That’s all God does. Nothing else. And what does God get? A soul. The man made from the dust of the ground and breath/spirit of life from God BECAME A SOUL. Man does not “possess” or “have” a soul, he IS a soul. In Hebrew the word for soul is nephesh. It usually means something that breathes, which is why animals are also souls, or nephesh, as you can see in Genesis 1 by where nephesh is translated “living creatures”.
So what happens when we die? God himself says that, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” – Genesis 3:19
Here we see that our bodies will go back to the ground where we came from. What about our breath/spirit of life from God?
“Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.” – Psalms 104:29
“Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” – Ecclesiastes 12:7
Notice in the second verse it says our spirit returns to God who gave it.
“His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.” – Psalms 146:4
“For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.” – Ecclesiastes 9:5
In the first verse we see that when we die our thoughts perish, and the second verse says the dead knows no thing.
In Genesis 2 God tells Adam not to eat the tree of knowledge of good and evil or he will surely die (literally in Hebrew: dying you shall die). God says that Adam will die while dying as a punishment if he disobeys God. But the serpent said they would NOT die if they ate of the tree. Most Christians today believe the lie the serpent says that we don’t die, and reject what God says that we will die while dying. If you haven’t already noticed, nowhere in the Old Testament is there anything about torture after you die or about going to paradise when you die. In books such as Job, Ecclesiastes, and Psalms, they say that Sheol is a dark and SILENT place where EVERYONE goes to, both “righteous” and wicked. Actually you don’t “go” anywhere, its just a figurative place for where you go when you die and descend into the earth.
Don’t you find it odd that NOWHERE did God warn anybody of a place called hell where you are tormented forever? He didn’t tell Adam and Eve about anyplace of torture. What did God do when Cain commited the first murder in the world? He drove him out of Eden, but God didn’t say ANYTHING about any eternal torment. Now about the New Testament.
Some people who believe in an eternal hell will quote verses like Matthew 25:46:
“And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”
They say that “everlasting punishment” means that you will be tortured eternally. But what does punishment mean, anyway?
1.The infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense.
2.The penalty inflicted.
So punishment means an inflicted penalty. Nothing to do with torture. For example: Say someone robs someone and then goes to court. The judge says 1 month of prison (or whatever). That is a punishment. The judge inflicted a penalty on that robber. So what the verse is saying is that those who don’t receive eternal life go to a punishment that is everlasting. And no it doesn’t mean torture/torment.
Probably one of the two most quoted verses in support for eternal torment is Luke 16:19-31 and Revelation 14:10. I’ll start with Lazarus and the Rich Man. Now at first glance you can see that the Rich Man was in hell and was tortured in flames. But there are actually a lot of problems if we are to take this story literally. First of all, before and after this story Jesus is telling parables that have nothing to do with the afterlife. Here’s a list of problems about the story itself if taken literally:
1.Why would you ask for a drop of water for your tongue when your ingulfed in flames?
2.Abraham is saying that Lazarus deserves comfort and the rich man torment, just because of hardships(or lack of) in life.
(how cruel can Abraham be?)
3.If there’s a great gulf between them how can they have a normal conversation without shouting? Or even hear each other?
4.How can the rich man even talk if he’s ingulfed in flames and screaming with intense pain?
5.And finally, Abraham speaks about Moses and the prophets yet why aren’t they with Abraham? Surely they deserve to go to “paradise” with Abraham when they die. And what about everybody through history? So it’s just Abraham and the rich man?
This story just makes no sense if it is to be taken literally. Why do we meet Abraham after we die? Is he taking the place of God? And how can we all fit in Abraham’s bosom? I don’t exactly know why Jesus told this story, but since in all the previous parables Jesus is critizing how the Pharisees are so righteous yet ignore the poor, it probably has something to do with that. Other reasons why Jesus told this story could be that Abraham had a servant named Eleazer (Lazarus is a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Eleazer), or it could be a retelling of a Bar Ma’jan (from palistinian talmud). In this story a teacher of the law ends up in comfort, but a poor man ends up in torment. Jesus just switches the two roles around to show the Pharisees hyprocisy.
Anyways, about Revelation 20:10.
And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
The same shall drink of the wine of the WRATH OF GOD, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.” (9-11)
Now if you read the verse in context you can see that an angel is announcing a punishment for the followers of the beast. In Revelation 14:16-21 you can see the punishment:
“And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.
And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the WRATH OF GOD. And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.”
Now clearly these people died.
Let’s take a look at John 14:1-4
“Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.”
Now Jesus is saying that He’s going to prepare place for us. Jesus says that if He goes, He will COME AGAIN/SECOND TIME/ANOTHER TIME and receive us. And He’ll take us where He was. Now if you haven’t noticed, come again is a synomym for second time, and another time. Have you ever heard of Jesus’ Second Coming? That’s when He will come and get us. Not instantly at death. You may be wondering, well isn’t the place Heaven? Well yes, but it’s going to be on earth.
“Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” – Matthew 6:10
Heaven, or should I say New Jerusalem is going down to earth, and that’s when we will go to that place.
“And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” – Revelation 21:2 In Greek and Hebrew (shamayim), there’s only ONE word for heaven/sky, so the proper translation is that the New Jerusalem came from the sky.
One last verses. Too tired for anymore. Anyway, take these verses at face value please.
Lord,” Martha said to Jesus, “if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask.” Jesus said to her, “Your brother WILL RISE AGAIN.”Martha answered, “I KNOW HE WILL RISE AGAIN IN THE RESURRECTION AT THE LAST DAY.” Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26 and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” “Yes, Lord,” she told him, “I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world.”
September 24, 2012 at 7:25 am
I am an annihilationist (a conditional immortality-ist) because the scriptures prove it.
There is a mountain of scripture supporting the annihilationist position, and the very few scriptures that seem to support the doctrine of of eternal torment are weak. Here is a list, in no particular order proving that the lost do not get to have eternal life in hell being tortured. Read through them, using the plain english we all understand. (I mean, do not assume that “perish” can’t possibly mean “perish” for example)
Matt 7:13
Matthew 10:28
Matthew 13:30
Luke 13:3
John 3:16
John 5:24
John 8:21
Romans 6:23
1 Corinthians 3:17
Galations 6:8
2 Thessalonians 1:9
Hebrews 10:26-27,
Hebrews 10:39
James 1:15
James 4:12
2 Peter 2:1
2 Peter 3:7-9
1 John 5:12
Jude 5
Jude 10
Revelation 2:11
Revelation 17:8
Revelation 18:8
Revelation 20:14-15
Revelation 21:8
Ezekiel 18:4
Psalm 1:4-6
Psalm 2:11-12
Psalm 5:6
Psalm 9:3
Psalm 9:5
Psalm 9:6
Psalm 21:9
Psalm 34:16
Psalm 36:12
Psalm 37:1-2
Psalm 37:9
Psalm 37:20
Psalm 37:22
Psalm 37:23
Psalm 37:34
Psalm 37:38
Malachi 4:1-3
Isaiah 66:16
Genesis 2:17
Genesis 3:19
Psalm 49:12-14
Psalm 50:22
Psalm 54:5
Psalm 56:13
2 Corinthians 15-16
2 Cor 3:6
2 Cor 7:10
Psalm 37:10
Psalm 49:14
Ecclesiastes 9:5
Ezekial 18:20
Psalm 92:7
Philippians 3:19
Isa 43:17
December 6, 2012 at 5:26 pm
In all my travels (which are many) on the world wide web, I have never seen a finer example of the absolute illiteracy of the uber-verbose as I have here. Bobby Grow you have triumphed. I’m impressed … and irrevocably confused.
December 6, 2012 at 5:51 pm
illiteracy: the inability to convey understanding through the written word
Pingback: Our most popular (read and interacted with) posts written in 2012 | Near Emmaus