The Center for Theological Studies

Confession and Belief: Confirmatory or Essential?

2011-11-15T09:48:00.000-08:00

It’s good once more to return to The Center for Theological Studies. I acknowledge that I haven’t posted in months and do apologize for this. A number of things have transpired this semester between work and school that have prevented this. All in all, it’s good to be back. I feel like this is a “Blog Reunion” of sorts J

I was submitting some work for one of my bosses today and got to thinking about Calvinism and Arminianism and the constant disagreement that goes on between these two soteriological camps. Of course, when you throw Molinism in the mix, it’s a battle of a time!

Today, though, I wanna focus on salvation itself and talk about confession and belief, components of the Gospel. I tackle this question here today because a lot of Calvinists who hold to irresistible grace do so because of “the sovereignty of God,” they often say. First off, they act sometimes as if Classical Arminians such as myself have no notion of the sovereignty of God...and they often cannot distinguish between Classical Arminians and Open Theists. Even the late Dr. Clark Pinnock, most renown five-point-Calvinist-turned-Open Theist, could distinguish the two camps.

So what happens in salvation, according to the Scriptures? More specifically, how does one become saved? What does the Bible specifically tell men and women to do in order to be saved? Calvinists believe that the Lord first regenerates a person, changes them from the inside out---and then, they confess and believe (as though confession and belief are merely confirmatory signs of a predetermined salvation that God has already done).

Let’s take a look at this, however: if the Calvinist ordo salutis (order of salvation) is correct, then why must the individual confess and believe? The Calvinist notion of salvation is the same thing as saying that a person must first go buy a chainsaw in the store to work on their yard and then, the store owner will let them in to buy the chain saw! Does this make sense? Not at all! How can someone buy a chain saw if he doesn’t first enter the store? If it is “necessary” to enter the store, how then, can entering the store be “merely confirmatory”? If something is confirmatory, it is significant but more optional than necessary. The words “necessary” and “optional” are opposites (not synonymous).

If we apply this to salvation, the question we must ask ourselves is, “If confession and belief are required for salvation,” are they necessary? Yes they are. I’m sure that many Christians would not disagree with that statement. The problem, however, comes when you tie in the necessity of confession and belief with the sovereignty of God. Calvinists, in their attempts to focus on the sovereignty of God, minimize the very salvation process that God’s sovereignty created. They give with one hand what they take away with the other.

Can we not find a solution that equally holds to both the sovereignty of God and the necessity of confession and belief---without sidelining either? Calvinists show through their minimization of confession and belief that they cannot find a solution that fits with their notions of irresistible grace and unconditional election. And this explains why they often have to appeal to mystery or say, “It’s all in the mind of God” as a defense mechanism to cope with the problems and contradictions of their own system. Molinists battle the same problem: their notion of unconditional election forces them to say that the individual in question would have been saved, had he never confessed and believed (because these are conditions and election is “unconditional”).

“No, that’s not what Molinists would say!” some tell me. Molinists would say that confession and belief are necessary conditions for salvation; however, they would then turn around and say that God had already chosen the church (and those who make up the church) before the foundation of the world (appealing to Ephesians 1). How could God have chosen these individuals before they fulfilled the conditions? The Molinist answer would be that God foreknew who would choose Him (this is where they sound like a Classical Arminian)...but they would then veer left and say, “But God sovereignly chose the world in which these individuals ‘happened’ to choose Him”---and God foreknew all that would happen. This may suffice for the Christian who cares about his or her own election and takes no thought to the perishing and ungodly in the world; but this doesn’t suffice for me. I strongly believe in the sovereignty of God, such that God could have saved the entire world (and never granted freedom of choice to begin with). However---and this is where I draw the line---God did grant humans the freedom to choose to either be saved or be damned. God’s sovereignty is responsible for man’s freedom. I would say to any Calvinist that, if you think God’s sovereignty didn’t grant freedom, think again---it did!

Because God granted the freedom to choose whether one is saved or lost, the question becomes, “Why didn’t He choose that the entire world be saved?” What I mean by this is, if God is sovereign in the Calvinist sense (that He irresistibly saves whom He pleases), then God has an awful lot of explaining to do. Somewhere along the way, He only decided to save 18 people out of a pool of 50 people drowning (an example often used), while the other 32 perished. Why didn’t God save the others who were perishing? The answer? “Because God didn’t want to.” Now the question after this is: “If God didn’t want to save those other 32, who’s to say that God wants to save me?” I could be a member of the church and think I’m saved, but how do I know? What about if, in the end, I’m not one of the elect (due to some invisible election decree)? The sad reality is, if there is one person on earth that God does not want to save, who’s to say that God wants to save anybody?

Have any of us ever seen the invisible election decree? No. How then, can we believe God loves us, as opposed to the ungodly? This is where Calvinists would start to name things in their lives that have changed, their love for the things of God, how God is teaching them...experience then becomes the reason as to why they “know” God loves them. But this is a problem. Where does Ephesians 1 ever say anything about “God validating our election with experience” before the foundation of the world? Where does it say that the election decree will be confirmed by experience? Nowhere do the Scriptures teach this. If there is an invisible, unconditional election decree, then confession and belief are not needed for salvation---they are merely confirmatory signs of an eternal regeneration (that is, Christians were “born saved”).

I could go on, but I think Romans 10:9 can stand by itself. As I close, though, ask yourself: “What did Jesus spend the majority of His time teaching?” What pervaded Jesus’ gospel message while He was on earth? If you do the right kind of digging, you’ll find that He spent far more time on the conditions of confession and belief than He did the invisible election decree and irresistible grace. God bless.

November Update

2011-11-01T09:00:00.000-07:00

Dear CTS Readership,

It is your blog owner, Deidre here. I just wanted to write and give you an update about where I've been and what I've been up to for the entire month of October.

I did find work, and I have been publishing some stuff around the Web. For those of you who are curious as to what I've published, see the last post. I have published something this past month (October 2011) that you may find intriguing. It is another post at the "Residence Hall Linens" blog, titled "No Taxation With Education: Three Strategies in the Textbook Revolution You Should Join" (http://www.rhl.org/blog/blog/date/2011/10/page/3/). It's the last post at the bottom of the page link. I actually liked the picture they provided. What I liked most, though, was the genius idea the Lord provided about textbooks. Somehow, I combined my history background in my undergrad at UNC-Chapel Hill with my love of knowledge and being "in the know," and...VOILA! The article was born.

Other than publishing online content, I've been busy preparing my bibliography for the Master of Theology program. Annotating books late at night until 7am or 8am has not been fun, but looking at the books has reignited a spark in me to return to theological research and all the things I love about it. A few of the books I checked out from the seminary library are actually books that I've been wanting to buy for the longest time but forgot to. It's pretty awesome when you meet the books you crave on your bibliography!

This semester has been a semester off from blogging as usual, but I'm not done with this place. I intend to return and resume my defense of the Christian faith and all that such a defense entails. Whenever I get the chance, I will continue to return to CTS and update my readers as to my whereabouts. For those of you who desire to contact me, just send me a line here or look me up on facebook. If you contact me at facebook, let me know you're a follower in the e-mail when you attempt to facebook friend me. That way, I won't think you're a stalker or something (trust me: stalkers are on facebook these days!)

It sure feels good to come back here and write. Just so you know, I've missed CTS too! Life hasn't been the same with work and bibliographical research. However, I intend to make a full return here once the bibliography has been completed...so watch and see. If you have any questions, leave them here in the comments section. I pray that the Lord is doing amazing things in your lives and that you are living each day for His glory and His glory alone. Soli Deo Gloria, Deidre

Update: My Whereabouts

2011-10-04T10:00:00.000-07:00

Dear Readership,

It has been an entire week today since I last made my way to The Center for Theological Studies! It feels good to check in on things here and to brief you about my whereabouts.

Just for the record, I have not given up blogging. I intend to return and blog on topics of interest when free time allows. I desire to continue my work on Edward Fudge's "The Fire that Consumes," so don't think it's over and done yet. There is more to cover, and I will cover it as time permits.

Having said that, I would like to announce that the Lord is faithful. I received the job as a theology writer with the international writing corporation I mentioned one week ago. I just wrote my first paper two days ago---and it was actually a paper comparing and contrasting two sculptures. I wrote the paper well and was awarded a nice little bonus from the corporation. Who knew that hard work could literally "pay" off? :-)

I have also been blessed to be named the Research Assistant of "What's Your Impact?" Magazine, an international magazine based in Montreal, Canada that is devoted to preventing global warming at all costs. My first project for the magazine will be to talk about gasoline cars vs. hybrid cars, as well as the negative effects of gasoline cars on the environment. I can't wait for hybrid cars to become more affordable so everyone can have a hybrid!

In addition to these jobs, I also took on a corporate writing job with a corporate writing firm. My boss, named Lisa, and I have a great working relationship. We talked on the phone for the first time some days ago, and she told me, "You have a lot of potential in this business." I sure pray so. My desire is to do great work for my boss (or bosses) and make a great income. I am depending on it in order to eat and live. In some ways, you can call me a "corporate businesswoman," to use my mother's terminology: I work for a corporate firm and I make corporate pay rates. Thank you Lord, for such blessing in my life...

I just wanted to write and update you all on the vast amount of work I've taken on myself. I know it's a lot, but I have a lot of bills that require money. Losing my mother was the hardest thing for me, but now, I've got to step in her place and afford the big bills. Still, though, I've gotten to write a bit. If you want to see some of the work I've done (though anonymously labeled), please see the following blog posts at the Campus Living blog on the Residence Hall Linens site (http://www.rhl.org/blog/):

(1) "Dorm Room Theft Prevention Tips"

(2) "The Best and Worst Study Places in College"

(3) "Don't Settle for Less: How to Make College Life Work for You"

This will do for now. Thanks again for tuning in to read about where I've been and what I've been up to. Pray much for me that I will please my employers and the Lord in my jobs. It is because I take these jobs that I can return to CTS and do what I really love: write theology to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ. God bless.

Where the Inconsistency Lies: The Inclusivist Denial of the Greater Revelation

2011-09-22T09:00:00.000-07:00

“The explanation for the salvation of these Old Testament saints [Moses and David] is, typically, that they are saved by the blood of Jesus--- in the same way we are saved. This is undoubtedly the case. However, they then constitute people saved by Jesus without explicitly accepting him---in other words, they are saved via inclusivist means. Why separation from Jesus chronologically should permit inclusivist salvation while separation from him geographically or culturally cannot, is a puzzle exclusivists must solve if they are not to fall into a blatant inconsistency” (James F. Sennett, “Bare Bones Inclusivism and the Implications of Romans 1:20.” EQ 77.4 (2005): 316).

Today’s post is a bit of a detour from the series on annihilationism I’ve been writing here at The Center for Theological Studies for the last two to three weeks. I realize that I need to provide an update to my readership as to my whereabouts and activity...so before I get started with today’s post, let me provide a quick update here.

For the last near two weeks, I have been reading for my new degree. Having graduated from Southeastern Seminary this past May 2011, I then turned to Southeastern’s Master of Theology (ThM) program, which constitutes the start of doctoral studies. In other words, I’m well on my way to obtaining a PhD...though it will take another four to five years before I obtain it. In any case, between that and looking for full-time positions of work, I’ve had my hands tied. I am currently applying for a full-time position of theological researcher at an international writing company. Still though, I don’t yet have a decision from them. Pray that all goes well---and that I can get the job.

Now, on to the task at hand. Sennett seems to posit that there is an inconsistency in the exclusivist argument, since exclusivists argue that the OT saints can be chronologically disabled from explicit faith in Jesus while people today cannot be geographically or culturally hindered. But this claim of Sennett’s is problematic.

First off, let’s notice that the OT saints were hindered from explicit faith in Christ because of chronology, the time in which they lived. People today are not chronologically hindered from Christ. Christ had not yet come in the Old Testament. He has come today (Romans 3:24-26; Acts 17:30-31). Men can no longer claim ignorance because Christ has come. Though it may not seem true, the person on the island today has been given more revelation (because Christ has come) than persons on the island in the days before Christ. That in and of itself indicates a greater responsibility toward the gospel.

Now let’s tackle the idea of what Sennett calls “inclusivist means.” What about Old Testament Gentiles such as Rahab and Ruth? Were they saved by “inclusivist means”? I think not! The story of Ruth shows that Ruth left Moab, her homeland, and her family in order to join herself to Naomi and her God:

“Do not urge me to leave you or turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people; and your God, my God” (Ruth 1:16, NASB).

The last statement Ruth makes is “your God [shall be] my God,” a statement that indicates an explicit confession in the Lord God of Israel, Yahweh. It is at this point in the narrative of the book of Ruth that Ruth says, “I claim your God as my own God. Yahweh is Lord of my life, Naomi, just like He is Lord of yours.” Does this indicate inclusivism of any sort, inclusivism in the manner James Sennett seems to think it does? Of course not! After all, the Lord was known in the days of Naomi as “Yahweh”...so Ruth’s ownership of the God of Israel was her very own personal confession of faith in God. This contradicts Sennett’s claim to inclusivism---for Ruth had an explicit confession, recorded in Ruth 1:16, that Yahweh would be her God.

Thus, there is no inclusivism in the Old Testament, for explicit faith is there in the text. The second problem with Sennett’s claim is his statement that individuals today are culturally and geographically hindered from explicit confession of faith in Christ. Is this true? No! This is where making distinctions is so vital to the theological profession.

There is a difference between “hindered from a human messenger” and “hindered from Christ.” Can individuals of today be hindered from a human messenger? Of course. There are still countries in which human missionaries are denied access. There are still countries in which missionaries cannot work and live. Such countries do not want to know the God of the Bible, and do not want missionaries to come in the country for fear of converting their people. In such situations, missionaries are denied access and cannot give gospel presentations. But does the limited access of missionaries indicate that the Missio Dei, the mission of God, is limited? Not at all. Paul said it best in 2 Timothy 2:

“Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David, according to my gospel, for which I suffer hardship even to imprisonment as a criminal; but the word of God is not imprisoned” (2 Timothy 2:8-9, NASB).

Paul was imprisoned, but the Word of God was not. And today, there are many missionaries who are imprisoned...but the Word of God is not. Sometimes in this discussion, inclusivists do not understand that when they synonymize the message and the messenger, they negate the sovereignty of God to take the gospel to those who are denied access to a human messenger.

I think the real inconsistency does not lie in exclusivist claims to distinguish the pre-Christ and post-Christ eras, but rather, to inclusivists who claim that Christ must atone for sins (necessary atonement) but that one can believe in Him for salvation or not (optional faith). Will a husband give himself for his wife and yet, allow his wife to go have an affair with another man? Hardly any. And if a husband is this jealous for his wife’s affections, why wouldn’t the Lord be even more jealous for the praise of the humanity for which Christ died? God bless.

Forsaking Half the Gospel: The Connection of Salvation and Condemnation

2011-09-21T09:00:00.000-07:00

“Like Jesus, he adds to the Old Testament picture---not gory details of unending tortures, as did some of his contemporaries and many of his successors, but the shining, single beam of the gospel.”

In my last post, I tackled Fudge’s prooftext of Romans 2 and how the chapter itself did not mention conscious torment or “unending tortures.” While the text does not explicitly mention those things, Romans 2 does implicitly reference conscious torment---with its use of the words “tribulation and distress.” There are two other words the chapter uses to discuss the end---“wrath and indignation.” It seems that, contra Fudge, the text is not as silent on the subject as annihilationists would like to have us believe.

In today’s post, I will continue to examine Fudge’s quote about how the Scriptures themselves disagree with conscious torment. As I said in the last post, Fudge seems to separate conscious torment from the gospel. For Fudge, the “gory details of unending tortures” is opposed to the “shining, single beam of the gospel.” But is this true? Fudge seems to think so. This is what he wrote about the Doctrine of Eternal Judgment and the Christian faith at the beginning of his work:

“Such generosity of spirit (towards those who disagree) flows more naturally when we rank our issues the way Jesus and the New Testament writers weigh them---in proportion to their relationship to the gospel. That means, as Randy Harris explains, that we ‘imagine concentric circles with the cross at the middle’ so that ‘conversations at the center carry a great deal more weight than conversations in one of the outer circles.’ Assessing an issue’s relationship to what is most central---the gospel itself---puts it in biblical perspective” (Edward William Fudge, “Crediting Others With Good Faith,” from The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2011).

For Fudge, the issue of the nature of hell (not to mention the doctrine of hell) constitutes an issue that is located in the “concentric circles” that extend beyond the middle, which contains the cross. Thus, the salvation of humanity is more important than a biblical discussion of hell. Hell is secondary when compared to the cross.

But is this true? Is it right to think of hell as nothing more than just “an evangelical, academic discussion” about matters that are really not all that important? Not if we pay attention to what Jesus says in the gospel! Let’s read a familiar passage most believers know well, John 3:16ff---

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:16-18, NASB).

Notice that in John 3:16-18 above, Jesus talks of “judgment” or “condemnation” (King James, New King James translations) twice? This should dispel the notion that condemnation has nothing to do with the gospel. If the gospel involves salvation, and condemnation (or hell) is the exact opposite of salvation, is condemnation not a part of the message of the gospel? If condemnation is not part of the gospel, I don’t see why we would warn men and women that the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). I don’t particularly see the reason for Paul’s statement that “Knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Cor. 5:11) if condemnation is not part of the gospel.

If condemnation is part of the gospel, and the gospel (the cross) is at the center of evangelical discussion, does this not place hell in the middle of the “issues diagram,” where the cross is, with the other issues being placed in concentric circles? I think it is here that we see that Fudge’s attempt to show Christian courtesy and unite evangelicals around salvation is nothing more than a “Let’s be cordial and agree on the essentials,” forgetting that hell, being a part of the gospel message, is, in and of itself, an essential as well.

I will leave you with this: if hell is an essential part of the gospel message, how can we proclaim something to be true that we know so little about? When it comes to discussions of heaven, we can talk to the unbeliever because the Bible provides sufficient information. While we do not know everything about heaven, we do know that the Lord Jesus went away to prepare heaven for His children (John 14:2), and that no one can come to the Father (Heaven, the place of the Father’s dwelling) without coming “by Jesus” (that is, by a confession of faith in the Son of God, see John 14:6). We know that Heaven will be a place of bliss, that the saints of God will experience conscious pleasure in the new heaven and new earth, that the Lord will wipe away every tear from our eyes and that there will be no sorrow, no death, no pain, for “the former things have passed away” (Revelation 21:4). We know these basic things about heaven...but what about hell? Depending on who you ask, you may receive different answers as to the nature of hell. How then, can we preach the entire gospel (involving condemnation and hell) if we don’t know the nature of condemnation, if we don’t know whether hell will involve conscious torment or unconscious torment? Perhaps Fudge could be right; maybe I’m making more out of the Doctrine of Hell than I ought to. But it could also be the case that Fudge (and many Christians) aren’t making as big of a deal out of the Doctrine of Hell as they ought...

Conscious, Eternal Torment: The Bad News of the Gospel

2011-09-12T09:00:00.000-07:00

“Is not Paul making the same point [Romans 2]? Not once in this passage does he mention everlasting torment. Immortality for him is always God’s gift to the saved, as are incorruption, glory, honor and eternal life. Like Jesus before him, Paul freely borrows from the Old Testament’s prophetic vocabulary. Also like Jesus, he adds to the Old Testament picture---not gory details of unending tortures, as did some of his contemporaries and many of his successors, but the shining, single beam of the gospel. Illuminated most brightly in that light is the figure of Jesus Himself. Jesus, not lurid details of conscious torment, is the contribution the New Testament makes to the Old Testament’s apocalyptic literature” (Edward William Fudge, “Romans 2:6-11,” from The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2011).

I discussed (to some extent) the fact that the Greek word for “destruction,” phthora (and its verb, phtheiro) refer to the destruction or ruin of a number of things: house, reputation, virginity, food, etc. Still though, when one uses the word “destruction” or “ruin” as regards these various contexts, there are differing connotations that the word provides. For example, the destruction of a house is not the same as the wasting away of food. This is the key to the debate between traditionalists and annihilationists: while annihilationists hold that the word “destroy” with regards to humans indicate that humans are destroyed like a house, traditionalists disagree. Why? Because the Scriptures themselves show us that man is worth more than the animal kingdoms and other natural elements. While the Lord used the dust of the ground to make man, the Lord placed His image upon man and also gave him intellect and dominion over the earth. The natural elements could not provide those things; God Himself provided them because man was the crowning glory of His creation.

Here we find ourselves tackling Fudge’s commentary on Romans 2. In this chapter, he points to immortality, connects it to eternal life, and states that “Not once in this passage does Paul mention everlasting torment.”

What can be said about this? Well, it’s true that Paul does not mention the words “everlasting torment”; nevertheless, Paul does provide an accurate picture of God’s stance in the end. Let’s look at Romans 2:

“...the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each person according to his deeds; to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God” (Rom. 2:5b-11, NASB).

Paul mentions a few words to describe the end punishment of the wicked: (1) “wrath,” (2) “indignation,” (3) “tribulation,” and (4) “distress.” A good way to determine Paul’s words regarding the ungodly (unbelievers) is to examine the meaning of these 4 words Paul uses.

“Wrath” means “extreme anger.” “Indignation” refers to “anger or annoyance provoked by what is perceived as unfair treatment.” “Tribulation” refers to “a cause of great trouble or suffering.” “Distress” refers to “extreme anxiety, sorrow, or pain.” From these four words alone, we can tell that God will have “extreme anger” towards the ungodly; God’s anger will be provoked by how wrongly the ungodly treated the Lord by not believing in Him; the ungodly will face great trouble and suffering, and will suffer from extreme sorrow, pain, and anxiety. Do these four words allow us to conceive of the final punishment of the ungodly? Yes. Look at the words “tribulation and distress.” Do these words not indicate great suffering, extreme sorrow and pain? Does this not match Jesus’ words in the parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:30)? Jesus Himself said in the Parable that the end would consist of “weeping and gnashing of teeth”---synonymous for both emotional and physical torment, both of which are forms of conscious torment. So, again, I ask: how does this differ from what the rest of the Scriptures teach about the end? If anything, it doesn’t teach that the end is “unconscious” for the wicked.

How can the end contain “tribulation and distress” for the wicked unless they consciously experience this end? If they are annihilated and cease to be (as Fudge believes), then how can they experience “distress” (as in Romans 2), “torment and unrest” (Revelation 14:10-11), and the worm not die nor the fire go out (Mark 9:42-48), if they are not conscious in the experience? This is where annihilationist theology seems somewhat absurd.

There is another point to be brought out about Fudge’s quote. However, I will save that for my next post. Stay tuned.

Word Study: "Phthora" (Destruction) in Galatians 6:8

2011-09-09T09:00:00.000-07:00

“The Epistle ends on a similar note. ‘The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from the nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life’ (Galatians 6:8)” (“Galatians 6:8,” from The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2011).

The last two posts have concentrated on Joshua 7 and Fudge’s annihilationist presupposition. Fudge posits that Joshua 7:25 refers to the deaths of Achan and his family as annihilation, when the text only speaks of cremation. To argue the concept of annihilation involves a discussion of the mortality of the soul (for the traditionalist, immortality), which then involves the metaphysical and spiritual. Achan and his family’s deaths are presented to us biblically on a physical, mortal level. The discussion of the soul is never given thought here. And, if we assume hypothetically that Fudge is right, his view is further defeated by the words of the writers in Hebrews 10:28-29, which stresses that in contrast to death as prescribed in the Mosaic Law, there is a “much severer punishment” prescribed for those who insult the Spirit of grace and trample over the blood of Christ. If the first death is annihilation, the second death cannot be the same as the first.

Today’s post will cover the word “destruction” as Fudge traces the word in both the Old and New Testaments. Fudge provides a word study of “destruction”:

In ordinary Greek this word spoke of ‘ruin, destruction, dissolution, deterioration, corruption’ according to Arndt and Gingrich. Paul uses it of perishable food (Col. 2:22) and the decaying world (Rom. 8:21). Peter applies it to animals destined to be killed (2 Pet. 2:12, NIV, ‘destroyed’). Arndt and Gingrich cite non-biblical sources where the word refers to an abortion or a miscarriage; it had the same meaning in Christian literature of the second century. ‘You shall not murder a child by abortion’ is the injunction of both Barnabas (19:5) and the Didache (2:2). ‘Abortion’ is phthora, the word Paul uses here” (Fudge, The Fire That Consumes).

The word was used in the second century to mean abortion; but again, this doesn’t do away with the idea that abortion is a physical crime. To abort a baby is to kill that baby. But, once again, this refers to nothing more than cremation does (the act of Joshua 7:25). Abortion involves the killing of the flesh, not the killing of the soul. Abortion is a physical issue, annihilation a metaphysical one. The word phthora can also refer to spoiled food, as well as the killing of animals and the decaying of this present world. The word does refer to all of these things, but the word must have different connotations when applied to these things. The decay of food is not the same as decaying of the world or the killing of animals. This is a point I have made: that Fudge cannot distinguish the different meanings when the same word is used to refer to these three different contexts.

This is where Fudge’s words take an interesting turn:

“Metaphorically, the word could be used in a moral sense as in the ‘depravity’ of wicked men (2 Pet. 2:12). The verb (phtheiro) meant to ‘corrupt’ or to ‘ruin’ and can speak of destroying a house (1 Cor. 3:17), seducing a virgin (2 Cor. 11:3) ruining a man financially (2 Cor. 7:2), or corrupting someone’s morals (1 Cor. 15:33; Eph. 4:22; Rev. 19:2). The building is extinct as a building, the maiden’s virginity is forever gone, the man’s financial security is annihilated, and the good character that once existed now exists no more” (Fudge, The Fire That Consumes).

As Fudge says above, the verb for corruption, phtheiro, can be used to refer to the destruction of buildings, the destruction of a woman’s virginity, the destruction of someone’s reputation, and the corruption of good morals. However, does destruction in each of these contexts look the same? Can we say with certainty that the destruction of a house looks exactly like the destruction of someone’s reputation? No. While it is true that the end is the same (that is, that the house is no more and the reputation is no more), the end destruction occurs in different ways. The house is no longer, but there is still debris (traces of the elements that built the home). With the reputation, the destruction of the man’s reputation does not mean that he can never get it back. It simply means that, at the time, the good reputation he had is gone (for the time being).The one exception to the above list is the woman losing her virginity: that is something that, once she loses it, she cannot reclaim it again. Still though, it is metaphorical (she is not physically destroyed by the destruction of it).

Does destruction mean the same thing when we look at these various contexts in which the word is used? Of course not. Here at The Center for Theological Studies, I was once approached by an annihilationist commenter (someone who wanted to backup Mr. Edward Fudge in this series) and told, “Of course, every conditionalist (conditional immortalist) knows that the word ‘destroy’ has different meanings in different contexts.” He seemed to believe that I was wrong for critiquing the annihilationist on the view that destroy means “annihilate” in every context. However, this is where I will demonstrate what I have said about Fudge in posts past. Here is where I will show the readership the problem with Fudge’s word studies. In his study of the word “destruction” (Grk. phthora), Fudge will plaster the same meaning on the word for all contexts:

“According to many traditionalists, these words cannot have their normal meaning when applied to final punishment because biblical figures of ashes under foot and rising smoke do not signify literal, chemical annihilation. Having ruled out this supposed literal sense of ‘destroy,’ ‘ruin,’ and ‘perish,’ traditionalists conclude that these very words that, on their face, clearly speak of loss of life, must mean eternal conscious torment instead” (Fudge, The Fire That Consumes).

Why is it that traditionalists reinterpret the notion of destruction to refer to eternal, conscious torment? They do so (at least I can say I do) because they are convicted by the biblical text; they are convicted by passages of Scripture such as Revelation 14:9-11 and Mark 9:42-48. Traditionalists are convinced that, if the Bible teaches that the torment of the wicked will be forever and ever, and that the wicked will have no rest for all eternity, then the wicked must feel the torment (and thus, will experience eternal, conscious torment). The question to ask is, “Does the text ever argue temporary torment?” Fudge can turn the tables on the traditionalist...but does his own presupposition hold to the truth of the Scriptures?

The only response provided by Edward Fudge is that the Bible does not explicitly discuss the immortality of the wicked...therefore, the wicked cannot live eternally in torment. But passages like Revelation 14:9-11 show that the torment and unrest are eternal. Does Revelation 14:9-11 not imply eternal, conscious torment? What in the biblical text implies temporary torment and subsequent annihilation?

Does the destruction of a house equal annihilation? No. Is it true that the destruction of a house, or food, or the ruin of a person’s reputation accurately portray literal annihilation? No. As I’ve said throughout this series, the question we have to ask is, “Does ‘destroy’ mean the same thing in these contexts?” The answer is a resounding “No.” God bless.

"A Greater Degree": The Second Death in the Epistle to the Hebrews

2011-09-08T09:00:00.000-07:00

“This is the word’s meaning throughout the Scriptures. Because Paul refers to a punishment of the age to come, we need not automatically assign anathema a meaning it has never had before. The method of God’s punishment will surely be different, but the meaning of it will be the same. If even an angel from heaven preaches a different gospel, Paul says he comes under this sentence. He is anathema---herem---devoted to utter destruction” (Edward Fudge, “Septuagint/Old Testament Background,” from The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2011).

In my last post, I examined Fudge’s words regarding the stoning and burning of Achan and his family in Joshua 7:25. I stated the point then (and I will now) that the stoning and burning of Achan and his family (it was only just, according to the Law of the Lord) was nothing less or more than cremation. The burning of Achan and his family’s bodies are what happens to individuals today when they are cremated. This same thing happened to a cousin of mine, Douglas, when he died in a car accident. His death was due to an unexpected accident back some 20 years ago this year.

At the time Douglas died (we called him “Doug” for short), I was about 7 years old with chicken pox during the trek from home to Washington, D.C. (some four hours away). Doug fell asleep at the wheel one night while out traveling; his Jeep wrangler hit a bridge, went over the side, and then rolled down a hill of grass until stopping at the bottom. Doug’s face was so disfigured from the accident that it was horrifying to look on him in the casket. My family (Doug’s father, my uncle Alvin) decided to have him cremated. That day at the grave, I didn’t go out to see the cremation (my mother wouldn’t allow me and my sister to; she stayed in the van with us). This took place on an old-school level. Today’s cremation practices are more formal than they were twenty years ago.

All of this is to say that cremation and annihilation are not synonymous. Cremation refers to the act of burning someone’s skin, while annihilation refers to both the body and the soul of the individual. In annihilation, the person is not only burned, but ceases to be. Even in cremation, the person still has ashes that are collected and placed in a vase for the family. In annihilation, there is nothing left of the person at all. I think these two concepts could be similar but not equivalent.

Today’s post then, will tackle the problem of Fudge’s claim that Achan and his family were “annihilated,” rather than cremated. There are problems with Fudge’s claim of Achan and his family in Joshua 7 (this is problematic enough), but there are even bigger problems with Fudge’s claim if annihilation is the “final punishment.”

Regarding Achan and his family’s demise, I’ll repeat Fudge’s words:

“No Israelite doubted that Achan was destroyed because there were physical remains. No one chortled that Achan was not literally annihilated. Nor did they think that ‘destruction’ meant he should be fastened in a cage and tortured endlessly. They knew what it meant to be herem/anathema, and they carried that out” (Fudge, “Septuagint/Old Testament Background,” from The Fire That Consumes).

The underlined words from Fudge’s quote demonstrate both Fudge’s view of Achan and his family’s death as well as his disdain for the traditionalist view of hell. Notice that, according to Fudge, no one assumed that Achan and his family should be “tortured endlessly.” It’s no secret that Fudge despises the traditionalist view.

But there is a problem with Fudge’s statement: that is, Fudge discusses the concept of annihilationism where it does not belong. When a traditionalist discusses the idea of conscious eternal torment, he or she is not discussing a concept that has already happened. In other words, conscious eternal torment is unlike anything experienced here. Why is it unlike the torment experienced here? Because it is final and it is administered as wrath from an angry God. Death on earth is a lot more of a relief than final punishment, so the traditionalist would say. In Fudge’s view, however, annihilation is just like what happened to Achan and his family in Joshua 7.

Do you see the problem I’m seeing? It is that, if one can point to annihilationism as having happened at mortal death, then how can annihilationism be the nature of both physical death and eternal death? Is the final punishment not greater than the first punishment?

It is at this point that Scripture will be employed to provide the answer to the question. Is the final death the same as the first death, or worse? To answer this question, let’s turn to Hebrews chapter 10. There in Hebrews 10 we find an important excerpt that demonstrates the problem with Fudge’s claim:

“26 For if we go on (AZ)sinning willfully after receiving (BA)the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of (BB)judgment and (BC)the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 (BD)Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 (BE)How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve (BF)who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean (BG)the blood of the covenant (BH)by which he was sanctified, and has (BI)insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “(BJ)vengeance is mine, I will repay.” And again, “(BK)the Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a (BL)terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the (BM)living God” (Hebrews 10:26-31, New American Standard).

Verses 28 and 29 of the excerpt concern the subject of annihilationism. The writer(s) first discusses the Law of Moses in verse 28, and notes that one who disobeyed the Law of Moses in the Old Testament “dies without mercy.” What death was this? Physical death. Fudge would call this physical death “annihilation,” though he would agree that this death was a physical one. However, what do we do with the words of verse 29? Verse 29 says that there is a “much severer punishment” for the person who insults the Spirit of Grace and tramples over the blood of Christ. What is the nature of this “much severer punishment?”

Fudge would say that the Old Testament stonings and killings were annihilation; however, if annihilation was a common practice in the Old Testament, how can it be the “more severer punishment” that the writers of the Epistle to the Hebrews talk about?

Fudge cannot have the text say it both ways. If annihilation is the final punishment, it cannot be the first punishment. A good question to ask Mr. Fudge is, “What is the nature of the first punishment? And if you think the first punishment is annihilation, and the second death is worse, how then, can the second death also be annihilation?”

Let’s set up a syllogism to see this:

Premise #1: the second death is worse than the first.

Premise #2: the first death is annihilation (Fudge’s view).

Premise #3: the second death must be worse than annihilation.

If the second death must be worse than the first death, and the first death is annihilation, then the second death must be worse than annihilation. But, if the second death is worse than annihilation, Fudge’s view is problematic indeed. Both the first and second deaths cannot be annihilation.

The goal of this post was to look at Fudge’s view of physical death (annihilation), his view of the second death (annihilation), and see if the text allows for it. The biblical text disagrees with Fudge and states that the second death and final punishment is worse than the first death. If this is the case, then it looks as if Fudge’s interpretation of Joshua 7 (not to mention the entire Old Testament) is quite erroneous and troubling. Traditionalists who can call annihilationists on this irreconcilable notion in their theology place annihilationists in a corner that they cannot get out of. God bless.

Qualifying Language: Anathema in the Old and New Testaments

2011-09-07T09:00:00.000-07:00

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: if anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” (Galatians 1:8-9)

In my last post, I discussed the annihilation of ungodly men and women, Satan, his angels, and ultimately, of Hell itself. I stated that, if everything in Hell is to be annihilated, Hell itself would be annihilated because Hell would serve no purpose. Why would God create a Hell if there would be no one to inhabit it permanently? Consider this along with the fact that Jesus Himself states that Hell was created “for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41). Nowhere in the biblical text do we read of the annihilation of the lake of fire and brimstone, nor do we read of the annihilation of Hell. Fudge may claim that annihilationism is “grounded firmly in Scripture” (see “Some Biblical Details That Inspire Change,” from The Fire That Consumes), but where is the annihilation of the ungodly, Satan, demons, false prophet, beast, and Hell itself found in the Scriptures? And if it is not found there, nor is there a biblical inference we can make regarding it, how then can we trade in the traditionalist view regarding Hell? Upon studying this subject matter, I have come to learn that many individuals think that “the grass is green on the other side” of theology until they search out these matters...then, they maintain little desire to look across the green grass over to the other side, ever again.

Today’s post will focus on the word anathema in Galatians 1:8-9 as quoted above. What does the word anathema mean in this context? What does the word anathema mean in John 3:18?

Let’s read the context behind this word:

“The word [anathema] literally means something set up or laid by to be kept, as a votive offering might be hung on a temple wall after being devoted to a god. Because offerings devoted to the true God were commonly burnt in their entirety or otherwise destroyed, the word in biblical usage signifies something ‘accursed’ or doomed to destruction” (Edward William Fudge, “Galatians and Corinthians: Exposition, Galatians 1:8-9,” from The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2011).

The word anathema means “destruction,” a word that Fudge also studies in the biblical text to argue for annihilationism. In context, the word often referred to objects, offerings devoted to God that were burned when offered on an altar. In the context of Galatians 1, however, the word refers to “he,” a person who preaches or teaches a different gospel than what Paul and his companions preached. I will ask this again, as I’ve asked it in earlier posts of this series: can we really say that people are destroyed in the same way that objects are destroyed? For those who have never thought about this question, let me explain something here: the words “anathema” and “destruction” will be interpreted in one of two ways: (1) the words will mean the same for both objects and persons, or (2) the words will mean different things for the two distinct groups of objects and persons. And where one ends up on this question is a matter of the philosophy of language.

Now, does this mean that theology does not play a role? Au contraire, I think it does! As I’ve shown in my post, “Lost in the Fall: The Image of God in the Book of Genesis” (August 2011), the image of God in man is what preserves the sanctity of human life. In fact, it is the image of God in Genesis 9:6 (post-flood) that serves as the reason why humans cannot murder one another. Humans are, however, allowed to kill the animals for food post-flood, but not each other. Why? Because humans bear the image of the divine God. It is this same image that preserves the sanctity of human life that annihilationists will deny still exists within man today.

At this point, Fudge provides an Old Testament background on the word anathema (LXX):

“The Septuagint [LXX] had ordinarily used anathema as the Greek translation of the Hebrew herem, the usual term for something ‘devoted’ to God and therefore, under ordinary circumstances, to be totally destroyed. It is used of the Canaanites whom God tells Israel to ‘totally destroy’ and whom they do ‘completely destroy’ (Num 21:2-3)...the site of this destruction is called Horman (from herem), that the Greek text gives as Anathema...When the Canaanite spoils are ‘set apart for destruction,’ the Septuagint uses anathema (Deut 7:26). The most famous incident involved Achan and Jericho. The city and all its spoils were anathema---‘devoted to destruction’—and so would be any Israelite who took from its spoils for himself (Josh 6:17-18; 7:12)” (“Septuagint/Old Testament Background,” from The Fire That Consumes).

Here we see that the spoils (POW= possessions of war), along with people, could be destroyed. But again, the question I ask is: “Are humans destroyed like objects or things?” Fudge seems to agree with the traditionalist take on the philosophy of man, though he skirts over it immediately and refuses to contemplate the implications of such an agreement:

“Death is lack of relationship with God. In this [death], men and women differ from the animals, who share their earthly origin and gift of life” (“Life In Relation to God: Human Death,” from The Fire That Consumes, brackets mine).

The death of human beings is qualitatively different from the death of animals (see my post titled “Qualitatively Different,” from August 2011). If this is so, how much more so must mankind differ from objects or possessions? This lesser-to-greater argument makes sense when one considers that animals are qualitatively superior to objects. It is this philosophy (provided for us from the opening pages of Genesis) that should complement our theology. If we have an incorrect view of man from the Scriptures, our philosophy of man will stray from the truth.

Annihilationists are the ones who maintain an incorrect philosophy of man (because they deny the image of God in man, a theological concept). This explains the following comment:

“No Israelite doubted that Achan was destroyed because there were physical remains. No one chortled that Achan was not literally annihilated. Nor did they think that ‘destruction’ meant he should be fastened in a cage and tortured endlessly. They knew what it meant to be herem/anathema, and they carried that out” (Fudge, “Septuagint/Old Testament Background,” from The Fire That Consumes).

Fudge exposes the reader to his own view here. “No one chortled that Achan was not literally annihilated” tells us all we need to know. Fudge believes that when the text says, “And all Israel stoned them [Achan and his family] with stones, and they burned them with fire after they had stoned them with stones” (Joshua 7:25b),” the text is in fact confirming the doctrine of annihilationism. But what do we see here? Nothing to do with annihilationism! The text doesn’t even so much as provide a hint that annihilationism is the action here. Rather, what we are told is that Achan and his family are killed by stones and then their bodies are burned. To be brief, Achan and his family are cremated, not annihilated. In regards to the immortality/mortality of the soul, the text remains neutral---and silent. Neither the traditionalist nor the annihilationist can use Joshua 7:25 to make their case.

Last but not least, Fudge ends this section of the word study of anathema with another troubling philosophical claim:

“This is the word’s [anathema] meaning throughout the Scriptures. Because Paul refers to a punishment of the age to come, we need not automatically assign anathema a meaning it has never had before. The method of God’s punishment will surely be different, but the meaning of it will be the same. If even an angel from heaven preaches a different gospel, Paul says he comes under this sentence. He is anathema---herem---devoted to utter destruction” (“Septuagint/Old Testament Background,” from The Fire That Consumes).

But why must the word maintain the same meaning throughout the Scriptures? As I’ve stated in my posts on the philosophy of language this past month, a word can be the same word in two places of Scripture but have two different meanings, depending on context. This is the problem with the annihilationist interpretation: it assumes that the word means the same thing, no matter the context. This is why, for Fudge, anathema means “annihilate,” whether it pertains to possessions of war or to people. This assumes, however, that man is equivalent to the objects of war, the rocks, the rivers, and the trees. But did not Fudge say that man’s death is qualitatively different from that of the animals? If man has a different essence (and different death) than the animals, how can his destruction be of the same nature as that of spoils of war, of things, of possessions, of objects? To conclude that the destruction of man and the destruction of gold and silver are the same is to contradict Fudge’s own statement about the different nature of man’s death from that of the animal kingdom.

I will conclude by saying that Fudge’s own words contradict his earlier words. How can man’s destruction be the equivalent of the annihilation of property when man and object have distinct essences? It is the distinctions of essence that dictate the differences in punishment. Achan and his family, we are told from Joshua 7, were killed with stones and then burned. This is physical death, but the eternal death is of a different nature than the physical one. Noah’s day is compared to the day of the Lord’s return (see Matthew 24:37-41), but the second death will not be drowning by water. Instead, the second death will be of an eternal nature, a death involving the soul, a death that will give way to eternal torment in body and mind. Cooling the tongue will be the least of troubles in the minds of those who enter forever the home of the devil and his angels.

"Away From the Face of the Lord": God's Presence and Final Punishment

2011-09-05T11:13:00.000-07:00

“...because Paul speaks of the Lord’s presence as a source of blessing for believers in his previous letter to the same audience (1 Thess 4:17-18), if we view that text as the natural context for understanding 2 Thess 1:8-9, symmetry could call for the interpretation that God’s absence is the source of punishment for unbelievers.

Gordon D. Fee notes that ‘for Paul the ultimate judgment...is not in this case some expression of “hell,” but rather is ‘total, irreparable exclusion from Christ.’ That language squarely fits conditionalism’s vision, for how can anyone continue to exist forever who is totally cut off from relationship and connection with the only source of life and ground of existence?” (Edward William Fudge, “Separation,” from The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2011).

In my last post, I made the point that annihilationists like to believe their theological position lines up with Scripture; unfortunately, they hold to some philosophical claims that Scripture does not support in any trace or evidence whatsoever. I also pointed out that interpretations of soul destruction in the Old Testament (“destroying souls,” “soul dying,” etc.) are nothing more than either analogies and metaphorical statements or a reference to physical life. None of the references provided by Fudge present soul annihilation to the reader. All of them seem to indicate that man was a unity (as most scholars believe) consisting of at least a body and soul. The soul of the person stood for the entire person, holistic and complete in every part. However, there are no references to either immortality of the soul or annihilationism in the Old Testament. There are traces and glimpses of the resurrection, however, but no evidence for either side in the debate over unconditional/conditional immortality. For annihilationists to appeal to the Old Testament to justify their position (back when such a debate would never have even been present in the minds of the Hebrews) is anachronistic at best and shocking at worst.

In today’s post, I am gonna cover a phrase that is commonly used by annihilationists to point to their view: that is, the phrase “away from the presence of the Lord,” or a phrase very similar to this one. In the quote above, Fudge mentions 1 Thessalonians 4:17-18, where Paul talks about the coming of the Lord. Those who are dead in Christ (the godly dead) will rise from their graves first...then the believers who are alive will be caught up to meet the Lord. Paul’s words “so we shall always be with the Lord” are intended for the believers. That is, those who believe on the name of Christ will forever commune and reign with Christ.

But what about the ungodly, those who do not believe in Christ? Their punishment is to be “away from the presence of the Lord” and to “pay the penalty of eternal destruction” (2 Thess. 1:8, NASB).

Gordon Fee claims that the expression itself does not refer to hell (see the quote by Fudge); but is this true? I think it is. Contra Fee, the context of 2 Thessalonians 1 is discussing eternal punishment. After all, does not Paul mention “eternal destruction” as the penalty of the ungodly in 2 Thess. 1:8? Is not Hell the eternal destination of the ungodly, the place of “outer darkness,” where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth (see Matthew 25:30)? In addition to this, the text of 2 Thessalonians also tells us “the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire” (2 Thessalonians 1:7). What more proof do we need to see that hell is under discussion here?

Fudge uses the words of Gordon Fee to support his own view: “That language squarely fits conditionalism’s vision, for how can anyone continue to exist forever who is totally cut off from relationship and connection with the only source of life and ground of existence?”

The question is asked regarding the existence of life apart from God, and Fudge makes it clear that conditional immortalists do not believe the ungodly can survive apart from God’s presence. Since hell is a place of darkness, a place where God cannot be (1 John 1:5-7), then no ungodly person can live eternally separated from God.

Fudge’s view seems to make sense...until one realizes that there are more inhabitants in hell than just human beings:

“And the devil who deceived them [the nations] was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Revelation 20:10, NASB).

The devil, the beast, and the false prophet are all cast into the lake of fire and tormented forever (the same length of time that it is said humans will be tormented, see Rev. 14:10-11).

But this brings an interesting question: if ungodly humanity will not suffer in eternal torment but will eventually face annihilation, does this not indicate that the fallen angels (demons) will ultimately face annihilation? If the fallen angels are annihilated, does this not indicate that Satan himself will be annihilated? And if Satan is annihilated, what then, is the purpose of Hell? Was Hell not created for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41)?

If ungodly humanity, the fallen angels, and Satan are annihilated, what happens to Hell? It’s logical to say that Hell too, will be annihilated. In other words, if you take away Satan and the fallen angels (and ungodly humanity), there is no purpose for Hell to exist. Hell then, is annihilated because it serves no purpose. I do not see the annihilation of Hell as a concept in the biblical text...but this is the logical following of annihilationism when taken to its fullest implications. I’m no more wrong in showing where presuppositions lead than the late Francis Schaeffer was in showing individuals how their evolutionist presuppositions led to moral absurdity and the meaninglessness of life (see also William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith, where he talks about this idea in his chapter “The Absurdity of Life Without God”). If everyone in Hell is annihilated, why shouldn’t Hell itself be? This train of thought just seems inevitable to me.

The truth is, according to Matthew 25:41 and Revelation 20:10, Satan, the demons, false prophet, beast, and even ungodly humanity will spend a consciously-tormented eternity in Hell. There will be no annihilation of the ungodly, Satan, or anyone else in the everlasting torment. The question we must ask ourselves is this: “Do the Scriptures show me annihilation? Do the Scriptures present the utter annihilation of the ungodly?” If the Scriptures do present the reader with annihilationist doctrine, why does it seem that the torment of Hell is without end in the biblical text?

There are two roads. Either the traditional view of hell is right (and man will be consciously tormented for all eternity) or the annihilationist view is right (and ungodly humanity will cease to be). May the Lord grant our hearts, minds, and consciences insight into this contemplative issue. God bless.

"As Traditionalists Do": Annihilationists and Their Doctrine

2011-09-03T13:37:00.000-07:00

“Dr. Yarbrough [Robert] also claims that my statement that Gehenna ‘does not belong to time but to eternity’ manifests ‘a timeless view of eternity, a Platonic understanding,’ putting me in the same category with traditionalists who adopt a Platonic view of the immortality of the soul. I thank Brother Yarbrough for the reminder that Plato did not view eternity as time extended endlessly, but as timelessness that is qualitatively different from time-bound. However, I do not build a doctrine on Platonism, as traditionalists do, and if Yarbrough will agree to leave off using the phrase ‘immortality of the soul,’ I will stop contrasting time and eternity” (Edward William Fudge, “Interaction of Salted With Fire,” from The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2011).

Before I get started, I desire to say two things. First, let me commend Edward Fudge for producing a massive work on conditional immortality. I usually enjoy studying unique theological positions...and studying this doctrine has been a rather unique experience. I think it is studying unique theological views that makes theology such an exciting field of study. To study God’s Word and see the various interpretations that have been given regarding the Scriptures is a sight to behold.

My respect for Edward Fudge is the same as for all theologians. Edward Fudge has been very cordial to me in his disagreement, and I am honored that we have been able to dialogue. He has shown me what it means to dialogue in humility, yet to do so in a way that humility does not require backing down from one’s theological convictions. His charity here at The Center for Theological Studies is one of many reasons why you should buy his book and allow him to have a voice.

My respect for Edward Fudge, though it is great, does not come without criticism of his theological views. To critically assess the work of theologians is a sign of intense respect. Most theologians I know would not dare assess the work of individuals whom they do not respect. Therefore, it is in the highest respect that I critique Edward Fudge. And I hope that my readership would understand this point. All of the critical assessments here at the center are not done in the spirit of ad hominem attacks, intended cruelty, malevolence, hatred, or any other ill-willed intentions. Rather, the work done here is to be done in the spirit of honest assessment. I desire to give every writer a voice while still providing my own reasons for why I agree or disagree with his or her view. I think that great respect can coincide with strong critique in a way that glorifies God and edifies the saints...and perhaps brings dying men and women to the knowledge of the truth for salvation.

The task for this post is to equip the saints of God to defend their faith. Apologetics, then, aids theology. The two (apologetics and theology) work together.

In the quote above, Fudge accuses traditionalists of holding to Platonic philosophy. This argument is called the genetic argument, where someone attempts to prove that something is wrong because of its origin. Because the traditional view argues the immortality of the soul (Fudge reasons), and traditionalists give the concept a philosophical name (immortality of the soul is a philosophical concept, though a theological one as well), traditionalists must argue from Plato’s views on the subject.

Unfortunately, I do not find this to be the case. While “the soul is immortal” is a philosophical claim, it is not one that is merely assumed. When you read the works of traditionalists on the doctrine of hell, you will often find them quoting Scripture and arguing from Revelation (amongst other texts) that when the text says that the ungodly will be tormented “day and night, forever and ever,” that “they will not rest” in the lake of fire and that “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever” (see Revelation 14), traditionalists believe they are representing the biblical text faithfully to claim that the self will not annihilate but will experience conscious, eternal torment. And let’s face it: if someone were writing an article about the torture innocent people are facing around the world due to dictators, everyone would naturally assume that the innocent people are consciously experiencing such torture. No one would assume that these people were dead before facing the torture. No one assumes that a prisoner is dead before facing lethal injection for his mass murders (if lethal injection is the capital punishment administered). When people think of torture, consciousness is assumed. Never do we think torture is administered where someone is unconscious or already dead.

Why then is it, when it comes to reading the biblical text in everyday language, “their torment is forever and ever” refers to either “no torment at all” or “temporary torment followed by annihilation”? The text is assumed to yield an annihilationist interpretation only if we read annihilationism into the text.

Having said this, let’s place Fudge’s quote into perspective: if Fudge can see the philosophical presupposition (Platonic philosophy) of traditionalists, can he not see his own philosophical presupposition? This is what Fudge has to say about his own system versus the traditionalist view of hell:

“These details, and scores of others from both Testaments, provide a clearer view of the biblical hell than does the majority tradition of unending conscious torment. They represent an understanding of the divine character more fully in accord with the revelation of God revealed in Scripture and in Jesus Christ, including both his goodness and his severity. They furnish a place to stand with confidence, a position grounded firmly in Scripture, an incentive to forego timidity based on uncertainty, a boldness to declare the whole counsel of God on this important subject” (Fudge, “Some Biblical Details That Inspire Change,” from The Fire That Consumes).

It is understandable that Fudge would desire that he be seen as one who is following Scripture on this subject; however, where is the proof of temporary torment? There is no direct proof to make the annihilationist case in Scripture. He even calls annihilationism “a position grounded firmly in Scripture.” But where is the proof that should be firmly grounded in Scripture before we believe it? Should we forego the interpretation of Revelation 14 and 20 in favor of a position that has no trace of Scriptural support for itself? In a post titled “Lost in the Fall: The Image of God in the Book of Genesis” (see this page), I showed that, contra annihilationism, the image of God still exists within man. How do we know? James mentions it some decades after the death and resurrection of Christ! How then could the image have been lost in Genesis? This is an annihilationist presupposition that the Bible itself contradicts.

And what about the annihilationist assertion that the soul dies at death?

“It is deliberately said both that the soul dies (Judg. 16:30; Num. 23:10; et al), that it is destroyed or consumed (Ezek. 22:25, 27), and that it is extinguished (Job 11:20)” (Fudge, “Some Key Biblical Words,” from The Fire That Consumes).

Let’s take Numbers 23:10, for example. Balaam (the false prophet who ends up blessing Israel and not cursing them), says,

“Let my soul die the death of the upright, and let my end be like his!” (NASB)

But the words “my soul” here refer to the self, the person. Balaam was saying, “Let me die the death of the upright.” The soul here refers to the person. This is the same way the soul is used in the New Testament when Jesus says (to use the KJV), “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?”. When the King James translators write “soul” in Luke 9:25, they were not meaning that his soul would be annihilated. Rather, in the context of eternal consequence, Jesus was saying that the one who invests in the world will gain the world but lose his own life (and what can he give in exchange for his own life?). This, however, does not mean that his soul literally dies and is annihilated.

Let’s approach another text, Ezekiel 22:25, 27.

“There is a conspiracy of her prophets in her midst like a roaring lion tearing the prey. They have devoured lives...” (Ezek. 22:25, NASB)

The words the Lord God uses here present a metaphor: the prophets are having their way with the people, manipulating them, similar to the way a lion tears its prey. The people are “prey” for the prophets because the people do whatever the prophets tell them to do. The prophets, then, are manipulating God’s people and using the people for their own selfish gain. But when the Lord says, “They have devoured lives,” He is not talking about the issue of annihilation or of conscious torment. Instead, the Lord is using “devoured lives” in a metaphorical way: the lion eating his prey is an analogy for what the prophets are doing with the people. They are not literally eating the souls (or lives) of the Jews. They are simply scheming, tricking, deceiving, and manipulating them. The analogy of the lion tearing his food is used to poetically demonstrate the immorality over God’s people the prophets are executing.

How about Ezekiel 22:27?

“Her princes within her are like wolves tearing the prey, by shedding blood and destroying lives in order to get dishonest gain.”

Notice that the topic of Ezekiel 22:27 is “dishonest gain.” What the Lord God is talking about here is manipulation, trickery, deception, political corruption, etc. Once again, another analogy is being paired up with the evil work of the prophets in the land---that is, the analogy of wolves tearing their food. “Destroying lives,” in this context, refers to political and spiritual corruption, not annihilation of the soul. How one can find annihilation in these verses is extremely puzzling to me...

Job 11:20 is another text that discusses the wicked:

“But the eyes of the wicked will fail, and there will be no escape for them; and their hope is to breathe their last.”

Here in Job 11, the words “breathe their last” are literally translated as “the expiring of the soul.” In other words, the lives of the wicked come to an end. Does this text refer to annihilation? Once again, there is no proof for such an interpretation. Why can’t Job 11 discuss the annihilation of the soul? It cannot do so because the same chapter discusses “Sheol,” which is not referring to the place called Hell (prepared for Satan and his angels) but the grave. Sheol refers to the grave, the same place that everyone went when they died (whether godly or wicked). If Christ brought immortality to light through the gospel (2 Tim. 1:10), then what is seen in the Old Testament is a great deal of discussion regarding mortality (with a tinge of hopefulness regarding life beyond the grave; see Job 14:14).

The purpose of this post was to look at annihilationism’s philosophical presupposition and prooftexts of support. After our investigation, it should now become clear that annihilationists are guilty of holding to certain philosophical presuppositions as well. While they claim to be more “above water” than traditionalists, they too, employ philosophy regarding the annihilation of the wicked. Annihilation has no support within Scripture, not so much as a hint of an inference to support it. In the end, we are either left to choose the endurance of the immortal soul of both godly and wicked (who were made in the image of God) or the annihilation of the wicked and the immortality of the righteous (who lost the image of God in the fall of Genesis 3). Which view do you think has firmer biblical grounds?

Qualitatively Different: Humans vs. the Plant and Animal Kingdoms

2011-09-02T09:00:00.000-07:00

In my last post, I stated that humanity is qualitatively different from plant and animal species. Man has been given not only the image of God, but the God-given right to rule, subdue, have dominion over every creature and creeping thing on the earth. In this, he is greatly distinct from plant and animal life.

I also stated in my last post that Edward Fudge believes that we are made of the same elements as plants and animals. If one places this beside the fact that Fudge argues for the mortality of the soul (that the soul is not immortal, but mortal), one understands that, like plants and animals, man will die and return to the dust---the only exception being those who believe in Jesus (whom God has granted an immortal soul to at the moment of faith). In short, it seems that annihilationism holds to tenets of theistic evolution. I have only come to this conclusion as a result of my reading...but it is something I’d like to dabble into sometime into the near future...

In this post, however, I have a shocking statement to make: Edward Fudge argues here that man is different from the animals. Humans differ from plants and animals in their death:

“Death is lack of relationship with God. In this, men and women differ from the animals, who share their earthly origin and gift of life. Thielicke paints a vivid picture of mankind’s uniqueness among God’s creatures. Only humans are aware of being related to God, are conscious of their sinfulness, can contemplate their own mortality.

‘The flowers and the grass, the whales and the mountains know nothing of being thus related to God. Only man knows this. Only he with his solitary awareness of death protrudes above the creaturely realm and thus has a different form of perishability, as though his were raised to a higher power. He alone must pose the question of the meaning of God’s action that comes to expression in his death...Because he is compelled to pose the question, it becomes evident that man’s returning to dust is qualitatively different from the simple physical returning to dust of a simply physical being...He sees clearly a decision being made against him here with which he must come to terms’” (Helmut Thielicke, quoted by Edward Fudge, “Human Death,” from The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2011).

Thielicke’s quote, a quote that is advocated by Fudge, poses problems for the statements Fudge made some few paragraphs earlier. Just to show the opposition Thielicke’s quote has to Fudge’s, let me reprint Fudge’s quotes here from the last post:

“We are also one with the rest of God’s creation, composed of the same elements found in the rocks and rivers and trees...” (Fudge, “Part of Creation,” from The Fire That Consumes)

“We are not constitutionally superior to these things so that we can look on them with disdain” (Ibid.).

Let’s look at the two phrases I’ve underlined in the above quotes that are contained in the same paragraph in the text. The first quote says that we are made of the “same elements” as the rocks, rivers, and trees. If we are, can we be “qualitatively different” from the rocks, rivers, and trees? If we are made of the same elements as the rocks, rivers, and trees, why would human death be any different from the death of trees and rivers? If humans are like rocks, rivers, and trees, humans will only waste away. Again, I don’t see how we can be any different in death if we are composed of what these natural objects are composed of. We are made with the same stuff they are...we will die the same way they do, or be destroyed as they will be (if annihilationism is true). How can one argue that humans die differently (qualitatively) if humans have are not “constitutionally superior” to these objects?

Fudge quotes Thielicke as an authority; but, if Helmut Thielicke is right, then Fudge has provided a refutation to his own annihilationist view. If humans are not “constitutionally superior” to other natural objects, then humans waste away as do these other natural objects. Last but not least, if humans are not constitutionally superior, then this poses problems for annihilationism...because, if only some are granted immortality (due to faith in the Lord Jesus), then some humans are more human than others because some humans have immortality while others do not. As a result, a new kind of “soul election” is created. The reason why such an approach can seem valid, however, is because Fudge (and the annihilationist camp) will argue that the image of God is lost in the fall. See my post “Lost in the Fall,” published August 2011, for more details.

If something is qualitatively different from something else, then two things differ in their quality or essence. If humans differ qualitatively from rocks, rivers, and trees, then humans differ in their essence from these things. How do humans differ in their essence? Fudge notes a few things:

“Only humans are aware of their being related to God, are conscious of their sinfulness, can contemplate their own mortality” (“Part of Creation,” from The Fire That Consumes).

How are humans different from plants and animals? They are cognizant of their relationship to God, possess consciousness, and can contemplate, think deeply upon, their own mortality and finiteness. Where is the image of God in this? It isn’t there, since it is presupposed in annihilationism that the image of God was lost with the fall. We are different from plants and animals only in that we have consciousness and intellect.

But if this is all we have, then when the human body returns to the dust, will not the consciousness and intellect return to the dust with it? How then, does this make man different from the plants and animals? If man is nothing more than flesh and bone, then his consciousness and intellect (no matter how stellar) are still “mortal” and will waste away back to the elements of the earth. So again, I don’t see how man is qualitatively different in any significant way from plants and animals. It seems that man has a few neat “exterior” features to himself...but he will still return to the dust, the same as every other creation under the sun.

The goal of this post was to show that Fudge makes rather interesting statements about man not being “constitutionally superior” to the other creations yet being “qualitatively different, even in death” from them. If earthly things die, and man dies a natural death (as do the plants and animals), how is he any different from them---unless he has an immortal component to himself, a component of his human existence that cannot die? This is the question I pose to annihilationists. God bless.

The Connection: Annihilationists and Theistic Evolution

2011-09-01T09:00:00.000-07:00

“We are also one with the rest of God’s creation, composed of the same elements found in the rocks and rivers and trees. We participate with them in the cycle of life. Even the sun and moon are active partners in human life on God’s earth. We must not despise our ‘physicalness,’ therefore, or disregard the rest of God’s creation. We are not constitutionally superior to these things so that we can look on them with disdain” (Edward Fudge, “Part of Creation,” from The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2011).

Before I get started, let me say that, though many of you may not know it, Mr. Edward Fudge (author of The Fire That Consumes) paid a visit to this blog, The Center for Theological Studies, some few days ago. I was so honored to receive a response from Mr. Fudge, and ask that you all read it in your free time. The post should be here on the main page.

I wanna take time to thank Mr. Edward Fudge for paying a visit to the site and taking note of my work. It is no secret that Mr. Fudge and I disagree regarding the nature of the final punishment of the ungodly...but it is wonderful to know that he can read my work and respect my view (as I have done with regard to his view).

When I first began reading The Fire That Consumes, I immediately began to wonder if annihilationism had any connection to evolution. I reasoned within that, if annihilationists believed that ungodly individuals die and “waste away,” then this meant that man is nothing more than bones, muscles, and flesh...and if this is all man is, then this idea fit the exact picture of the homo sapien detailed in Darwinian evolution. At the beginning of Fudge’s book, I was familiar with Dr. Clark H. Pinnock’s advocacy of conditional immortality. I read his chapter in the Four Views on Hell, a book that is part of the Zondervan Counterpoints Series.

Fudge’s quote above, however, allows us to see a direct link between annihilationism and theistic evolution. First, note that “we are also one with the rest of God’s creation.” This idea of a “circle of life,” the theme song of The Lion King, "The Circle of Life" written by Elton John, is an evolutionary idea. “The Circle of Life” places man as a link in the chain of animal life. Man depends on the animals and the animals depend on man. Man eats animal and animal eats man. Man fears animal and animal fears man. The Circle of Life portrays man and beast as equally powerful forces bent on survival of the fittest. All of these thoughts connected with the idea show how evolutionary it is. Add to this the idea that man does not have an eternal component, that when he dies, he wastes away as does the rest of the animal kingdom! This unity mentioned in Fudge’s quote is indicative of an evolutionary stance.

Next, note that “we are...composed of the same elements found in the rocks and rivers and trees.” We are in the circle of life (Fudge calls this “the cycle of life”) with the rocks and rivers and trees, and are made of the same elements as the rocks, rivers and trees. This, too, is an idea of Darwinian evolution. Evolutionists argue that we are who we are “by chance” (they disdain the notion of design). What they fail to understand in asserting this (as does Edward Fudge) is that, when they claim humans are made of the same elements as the rocks, rivers, and trees, they forget that this also means that the rocks, and rivers, and trees are made of the same elements as man (in this thought)...and that, while this may seem to knock man from his assumed “superiority of constitution,” it also elevates the rocks, rivers, and trees to human status! As I said in my last post, we ascribe human characteristics to inanimate objects through personification because we realize that these same inanimate objects do not innately possess human characteristics. A good example of this notion of Darwinian evolution can be seen in Rob Bell’s book, titled Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. Bell’s chapter titled “There Are Rocks Everywhere” is the best example of theistic evolution that I know of. From 1 Corinthians 10, Bell concludes that “God is in all things” (some form of pantheism), and then labels God as “the life force” (a concept of vitalism). Let’s just say it’s the one chapter of Bell’s book that every evangelical ought to read.

Now, let me say that I do agree that we are not to look down on the rest of God’s creation. Genesis tells us that everything God made was “good” and “very good,” so we are to consider it such. The birds and bees may not be human, but they are still good because God created them and called them “good.” Nevertheless, I cannot agree with Fudge when he says that we are not “constitutionally superior” to the other parts of God’s creation. I believe we are, and I believe the Scriptures teach us this. To find out where man is in the creation, let’s go to “Geneseos” (Grk. book of the beginnings, Genesis) to see if these things are so.

When one reads Genesis, one easily notices that God first creates the light, earth and sky and water, and vegetation. After these things, God creates man in His own image, after His own likeness (Genesis 1:26-28). Unlike the existing creation before man (whom God merely spoke into existence), man was created by God’s intimate connection with him:

“Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being” (Genesis 2:7, NASB).

The Lord God “tailor-made” man, and then “breathed” life into him. What other creation on earth has this happened to? I can’t think of any others. Thus, Fudge’s statement that we are not “constitutionally superior” is not true. How can it be, if man was given breath from the divine for his existence...while the animals were simply spoken into existence?

At the end of Genesis 1, verses 28-30, God crowns man as the glory of His creation:

“God blessed them; and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’ Then God said, ‘Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you...” (Genesis 1:28-29)

God tells man to “subdue” the earth, to “rule over” the rest of the creation. What other creation is given this type of divine blessing? I can’t think of any others.

What other texts bear weight in this discussion? Psalm 8 provides necessary details as well:

“You have made him a little lower than God, and You crown him with glory and majesty! You make him to rule over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea, whatever passes through the paths of the seas” (Psalm 8:5-8).

God crowned the human race with glory and majesty. Genesis 1:28-30 is a good demonstration of the glory and majesty God granted to the human race at creation. If mankind has been granted the power to rule over the creation, how then can we be equal to the rocks, rivers, and trees? I simply don’t understand how there can be equality between these different portions of creation.

The goal of this post was to look at the doctrine of annihilationism and see if it has any affinities with Darwinian evolution. I think it does: it values man as equal to the plants and animals, and doesn’t deem man “constitutionally superior” to these other portions of God’s creation. Yet and still, these ideas are quickly placed in trouble when one understands that man bears God’s image and likeness, unlike the rest of creation (Gen. 1:26-28); man has been granted dominion over the earth (see Gen. 1:28-30), unlike the rest of God’s creation; last but not least, man’s soul is of greater worth than the world (Luke 9:25), unlike the rest of creation. All of the above evidence testifies that man is something more than the rocks, rivers, and trees...he is not to be compared to the rocks, rivers, and trees, but to the Lord whom He is most like. God bless.

When Everlasting Means Ever Lasting: Aion and Aionios in the New Testament

2011-08-31T09:00:00.000-07:00

“Petavel points out that Scripture frequently uses aion, aionios, and their Hebrew counterparts (olam in various forms) of things that have come to an end. The sprinkling of blood at the Passover was an ‘everlasting’ ordinance (Exod. 12:24). So were the Aaronic priesthood (Exod. 29:9; 40:15; Lev. 3:17), Caleb’s inheritance (Josh 14:9), Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 8:12-13), the period of a slave’s life (Deut 15:17), Gehazi’s leprosy (2 Kgs 5:27)---and practically every other ordinance, rite, or institution of the Old Testament system. These things did not last ‘forever’ in the sense of ‘time extended without limitation.’ They did last beyond the vision of those who first heard them called ‘everlasting,’ and no time limit was then set at all. According to this view, held by Petavel, Froom, and others, this is the meaning of ‘eternal’ in the Bible. It speaks of unlimited time within the limits determined by the thing it modifies” (Edward Fudge, “Everlasting Things that Last Forever, And Some That Do Not,” from The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2011).

In my last post, I tackled immortality as a universal thing. What makes it so is that, when Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, because Adam was the father of the human race (and the human race came from Adam’s loins), death spread not only to Adam but to all men (Romans 5:12). If death was the universal punishment, immortality must have been the universal God-given gift. This is a self-evident biblical inference.

In this post, though, Fudge attempts to press forward the annihilationist view by showing how the word “eternal” within Scripture can illustrate a limited amount of time, not time without end. What I will demonstrate is that the word “eternal,” as does the word “destroy” (and all words included) must be determined by the context. Without context, anyone can make certain words mean anything they want to.

Let’s start with the items above that Fudge notes use the word “eternal” but do not last forever: priesthood, the life of a slave, Caleb’s inheritance, the sprinkling of the blood at Passover, etc. The word “eternal” is used with these things, but context dictates that the word here does not mean “without end of time.” Why? Because the Aaronic priesthood was done away with in Jesus (see Hebrews). The life of a slave ends, for the slave will die like everyone else. This seems to make sense to most individuals.

But Fudge then discusses the idea of the eternal sin:

“To be guilty of an ‘eternal’ sin (Mark 3:29) is to be guilty of one that will not be forgiven even in the age to come” (Fudge, The Fire That Consumes).

Here with Mark 3:29, the word “eternal” used in this context means “without end.” For the person that blasphemes against the Holy Spirit (the context of Mark 3:29), there will be no forgiveness for this sin in this age or the one to come. In other words, there is no time at which the said individual will be forgiven.

Fudge argues that the word “eternal” does not mean forever because he hopes that readers will agree with his annihilationist view. If one can argue that it is the results of an action that are eternal and not the action itself, he can say, “Consider eternal death; the dying is not eternal but the consequences are.” Annihilationism then seems to be a credible view when lined up against this train of thought.

The problem with this, however, is that there is scriptural evidence that testifies against this view. There is Mark 9 and Jesus’ words about hell:

“If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire, WHERE THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED. If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than, having your two feet, to be cast into hell, WHERE THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED. If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell, WHERE THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED” (Mark 9:43-48, NASB).

Three times in these six verses of Mark 9, we find Jesus saying that “their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.” What Jesus tells us in this passage is that the fires of hell continue to burn eternally. The fire is never put out, “the fire is not quenched.” In addition, the worms never stop eating flesh: “their worm does not die.”

Now, let’s think: in order for the worms to live forever, they must have flesh to eat. This means that they will eat the flesh of the ungodly forever and ever. The fire will burn the flesh of the ungodly forever and ever. Revelation 20:14 describes this as “the torment” of the ungodly, which will happen “day and night, forever and ever.”

How does Mark 9 relate to Fudge’s comment regarding the word “eternal”? The word “eternal,” contra Fudge, does not just relate to the result of the action but the action itself. In the case of Mark 9, the death is “eternal” not only because the results of death will be forever (Fudge’s view), but also because the dying process itself is eternal: “their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.” The ungodly will continually die, and the effects of that death will be forever. Both the action and the result are characterized by the word “eternal.”

Fudge presents the reader with an interesting take on the word “eternal” in this post. Nevertheless, the context itself works against Fudge and confirms the traditional view. Whenever the word “eternal” is used, context must always be considered...however, the word “eternal” can refer to the action as well as the result; and here, “eternal” refers to both. God bless.

Given By God At Creation: Immortality as Presupposition

2011-08-30T13:34:00.000-07:00

“Most if not all traditionalists throughout Christian history have rejected the doctrine of innate or natural immortality of the soul as taught by Plato, for a God-given immortality (a biblical idea) which they presumed to be bestowed on humans universally, either by creation or by resurrection (an idea found nowhere in the Bible). Because these traditionalists believe that every human will be immortal in the age to come, they approach the Scriptures with a presupposition that those who go to hell cannot literally be destroyed and pass out of existence. Understandably and inevitably, the traditionalists’ presupposition of universal human immortality entices them to interpret Scripture so that they always arrive at the traditionalist conclusion” (Edward Fudge, “Peterson’s Fourth Reason,” from The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2011. Kindle Edition).

In my last post, I talked about Tertullian and his view that the word “destroy” does not mean annihilate. I went into great detail about the philosophy and language and used the example of Jesus and the temple in John 2, where the Jews meant one thing with the use of the word “temple,” while Jesus meant another. I think this is the error committed by the Doctrine of Annihilationism (Conditional Immortality).

In this post, I intend to respond to Fudge’s attack on traditionalists. While I have aimed to rebut the annihilationist view here, I also have a responsibility to respond to the attacks made by those with whom I disagree. A great apologetic not only involves a good offense, but also a good defense...not just a good defense, but a good offense. Teams can’t win games without both, and the church of Jesus Christ cannot, either.

In the quote, Fudge states that the idea of universal immortality is “an idea found nowhere in the Bible.” I want to point out this phrase because, what I am about to show you in this post is that Fudge’s words are quite erroneous indeed.

If Fudge is true, what do we do with the Fall of Genesis 3? Was the fall tragic or not? Indeed, I think it was. Have you ever taken time to read through the “Graveyard Chapter” of Genesis 5? It is full of people who lived, had sons and daughters and wives, and then died. “Adam lived...nine hundred and thirty years, and he died” (Genesis 5:5, NASB); “so all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years, and he died” (Gen. 5:8); “So all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years, and he died” (v.9); “so all the days of Kenan were nine hundred and ten years, and he died” (v.14); “so all the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred and ninety-five years, and he died” (v.17); “So all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years, and he died” (v.18), etc. Genesis chapter 5 is full of individuals who lived many years and then died. The question we should ask ourselves is, “Why is chapter 5 placed where it is in “Geneseos,” the book of beginnings (LXX)? Because it is placed in the historical record of Scripture chronologically after the fall for a reason.

Death is listed in Genesis 5 as the overarching theme for a reason. What is this reason, one may ask? It is because of the harsh sentence given by God to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3. The fall, the temptation and its succumbing led to death for all the human race. As Paul states in Romans 5,

“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned...nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come” (Romans 5:12-13).

But why is this so tragic? Because death was the consequence of sin, not a natural part of the intended human existence. In other words, death is the result of sin, not God’s decision in originally creating man. Death shows us that the creation is stained, polluted, tainted, full of sin and sin’s consequences. Death shows us that things are not the way they are supposed to be. As Cornelius Plantinga has written in his book, “It’s Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be” (See Cornelius Plantinga Jr.’s It’s Not The Way It’s Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin for more details).

Does it make sense for God to “punish” man with an end to his life if God intended man to have a number to his days before He created him? Does it make sense for God to punish mankind for something that He had already intended to decree to them? No, not at all. A parent punishes a child when he or she does wrong to show that child what it means to lose privileges when parents are not obeyed. How serious is the punishment if all the parent ever wanted to do was torture the child anyway?

As Cornelius Plantinga Jr. shows us in his book (mentioned above), life is not the way it’s supposed to be! Life was originally meant to be forever, in the presence of God, surrounded by the glory of God at every turn. Our world, however, is far from what God originally meant it to be. And death shows us that the God of the Scriptures always intended for man to live forever. Immortality was always the plan of God. And this intention of God’s was not removed when sin entered, but it was delayed. Because God always desired man to live forever with His Creator, God never gave up on man...but He did allow His plan to be delayed. Because man sinned against God in the garden, God would allow humanity to die tragic deaths.

But there is hope to the story, and there was hope that day in the garden of Eden in Genesis 3. Even in that text we find that the Lord already prepared to remedy the situation created in the garden of Eden (Eden is Hebrew, meaning delight):

“And I will put enmity between you [the serpent] and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel” (Genesis 3:15).

By the time we get to Paul’s concluding words of his sixteenth chapter to the Romans, we see that this revelation was given to Paul of the Old Testament verse in Genesis 3:

“The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet” (Rom. 16:20, NASB).

I didn’t understand the Genesis reference until I read the apostle Paul. Praise the Lord for His patience with those of us who study the Scriptures, who often miss many important things that He often tries to explain to us.

I think it is safe at this point to see this Scriptural inference up close. First, let’s remember that according to the apostle Paul, death spread to all men (Romans 5:12); if death was a consequence of sin, then the original decree was one of blessing, one of universal immortality. Death could not have been a part of the original decree (otherwise, death was never a consequence to begin with). If death spread to all men, and all men were intended for immortality (death was due to sin), then universal immortality was given by God to humanity in creation. In addition, if the life of mankind did not matter to God, why would He decree that murderers would lose their lives if they murdered other human beings (Gen. 9:6)?

If human death was always a part of the original plan, how could it be a result of the fall? In this scenario, if human death existed before the fall of Genesis 3, how serious was the consequence of the fall? I could agree with Edward Fudge about annihilationism if he could show me that universal immortality cannot be defended scripturally. However, I do disagree with the annihilationist camp on this one...because everything we know scripturally points to this immortality inference as a biblical one, indeed. God bless.

Christianity's Platonic Origin: Tertullian and the Philosophy of Language

2011-08-29T23:10:00.000-07:00

“‘I may use, therefore, the opinion of Plato,’ writes the ancient apologist from Carthage, ‘when he declares, ‘Every soul is immortal.’ But what of Jesus’ warning to fear God who can destroy both soul and body in hell? How is that possible, if the soul is immortal?

In light of Tertullian’s presupposition, the answer is obvious. ‘Destroy’ does not mean ‘destroy.’ When Jesus says that God can destroy the soul, explains Tertullian, he really means that God will torment the soul forever. ‘We, however, so understand the soul’s immortality as to believe it ‘lost,’” Tertullian concludes, ‘not in the sense of destruction, but of punishment, that is, in hell’” (Tertullian, quoted by Edward William Fudge, “Interaction: No Platonic Influence?”, from The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2011).

I am back once more to tackle conditional immortality and make the case for the traditional view of the immortality of the soul and the traditional view of hell. In this post, I desire to spend some significant time on the philosophy of language and the role it plays in this debate. Often, believers can naively think that debates over Scripture are just matters of interpretation...but do they realize that such “interpretations” consist of philosophical reasoning? Very few seem to know this; and yet, there are so many debates in the world that are conducted over philosophical discussion. I think that if we intend to have a philosophical theology, a “queen” that is aided by the “handmaiden” of philosophy, then we must begin to see that philosophy and theology are closely intertwined. It will prove to be key in debates such as this (annihilationism vs. immortalism).

I for one agree with Tertullian when he says that “destroy” does not take on the literal meaning when Jesus refers to humans. Why? I am convinced that the philosophy of man is distinguished from the philosophy of objects. The Scriptures indicate rather heavily in Revelation (not to mention other places) that man will be “tormented” in the lake of fire and brimstone. Therefore, if one places words like “destroy both soul and body in hell” against the rest of Scripture, which claims conscious torment, one cannot come out with an annihilationist definition of “destroy.” Man is created distinct from things. Man has consciousness, while objects do not. Man can talk, while objects cannot. Man can build and plant, while objects cannot. Man cannot be subjected to objects; objects are always subjected to man. The objects that are on the earth have been given by God for man’s disposal, so that man would benevolently exercise the dominion over the earth that God has given (Genesis 1:26-28).

Country music singer Steve Wariner once performed a song called “Two Teardrops.” The song is all about a conversation between two teardrops about the reason why they are falling from the faces of certain individuals. One of the teardrops falls from the face of a woman who just got married. “She was so happy she just got married/I was on her cheek when she wiped me away with her glove/ I could tell by the look on her face, she didn’t need me/so I drifted on down and caught me a ride to the sea,” the tear responded. “The other tear said, ‘We’ve got a connection/I’m a tear of sorrow, born of rejection/I’m from the sad brown eyes of her old flame,’” the song goes. The chorus begins with, “Oh the ocean’s a little bit bigger tonight/two more teardrops somebody cried/ one of them happy and one of them bluer than blue...” It’s obvious that people often cry tears of joy or tears of sorrow, and this song capitalizes on both “tearful” emotions.

I didn’t use the country song “Two Teardrops” just to introduce country music or make most of my readership feel uncomfortable (since very few individuals likely know of my affinity for some of the genre), but to demonstrate that when it comes to inanimate objects such as tears, humans often use personification. With inanimate objects, we tend to give them human characteristics or human traits---speaking, crying, screaming, walked, danced, etc. For instance, someone in a poetic mood could write, “the sun danced across my window this morning.” In such a scenario, we wouldn’t assume that the sun literally danced across the window. If the sun started grooving outside my window, I would throw myself in my bed and hide in fear! By using personification, we are consciously aware that the sun, moon, stars, and other parts of creation (and inanimate objects) are not human. Otherwise, ascribing human language to them would be like saying “I talked.” One has a visual image of me talking but there’s nothing deeper than conversation indicated by such a statement. Saying “I talked” certainly isn’t as poetic as saying “the sun danced” or “the waves roared,” etc.

And this type of language brings me to the discussion of the philosophy of language. One of the things I think Fudge fails to understand is that, according to the philosophy of language, words have context. That is, a word can mean two different things in two different contexts. Take the word “bad” for example: in the sentence “Hurricane Irene will be a bad storm,” one would not believe that I am saying “Hurricane Irene will be cool.” I don’t think most individuals with common sense would make such a statement. There is certainly nothing cool about a storm that has 65 million Americans in its path, destined to wipe out a great deal of the peaceful life of the North Carolina coast and produce massive amounts of sand erosion. When I say, “Hurricane Irene will be a bad storm,” I am saying that the hurricane will be terrible, that it will be destructive, that it will uproot homes, wipe out sand on beaches, hide highways, etc. All of the destruction just described does not sound “cool” to me.

The need to place words within their literary context was also a concern of Jesus. The Lord often utilized various meanings of words to show the Jews how little they really understood. For example, in his overturning the tables in the temple (because of the moneychangers polluting the house of God), the Jews asked Him about His authority to overturn tables. Jesus then replies,

“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19, NASB).

The Jews respond, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and You will raise it up in three days?” (John 2:20)

Notice that Jesus uses the word “temple” and the Jews use the word “temple,” but both parties mean totally different things. This is why John says in Jn. 2:21, “But He was speaking of the temple of His body.” John 2:21 clarifies for us what Jesus was saying. The temple was not the physical building structure, but His flesh, the same flesh He took on to come into the world as a man. The Jews, however, do not understand this...and end up deeming Jesus as foolish. In reality, they were the ones that did not understand what Jesus was saying.

Perhaps the problem the Jews had with Jesus was over the philosophy of language; and perhaps annihilationists err in the philosophy of language when interpreting the word “destroy” in Jesus’ statement that He could “destroy both body and soul in Hell.” Even the word “destroy” has different meanings in different contexts. To destroy a piano is not the same as destroying sand on a beach; to destroy sand on a beach is not the same as destroying a human, etc. To destroy an object is not the same as destroying a human, and vice versa.

Last but not least, let’s hypothetically assume that the word “destroy” does mean “annihilate.” If it does, this still does not destroy the traditional view of hell because God is “able” to do many things that He does not choose to do. For example, the Lord could make $125,000 pop into my hand in this very instant...but He will likely not do this (although, if He did, I would truly rejoice!). So God can annihilate body and soul, but Scripture does not teach that He does annihilate anywhere else...which leads me to believe it is only a possibility, not a probability. It is only potentiality and not actuality.

As we’ve seen in this post, not only do verses mean what they mean in their correct contexts, but words have significantly different meanings in their correct contexts as well. When words are misplaced or misunderstood, it can lead to much difficulty. I think this is why “destroy” as “annihilate” cannot hold as a sufficient definition for the word in the biblical text. God bless.

Resurrection or Immortality? Annihilationism's False Dilemma

2011-08-27T09:00:00.000-07:00

“Jesus’ quotation of the declaration, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ (Matt. 22:32), has often been used in support of man’s immortality. Staunch conservatives have noted, however, that Jesus uses the quotation to prove, not immortality, but the resurrection. The Lukan parallel (Luke 20:37-38) says that ‘to him all are alive,’ but both the context and the argument point to the resurrection of those who belong to God, not the immortality of every person” (Edward William Fudge, “Humankind in Biblical Perspective,” from The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2011. Kindle edition).

This post will continue from the discussion given in the last post on “Humankind in Biblical Perspective” (a chapter in Fudge’s The Fire That Consumes). This post will continue to place both theology and apologetics side-by-side. Fudge tackles common biblical evidences used to argue immortality and attempts to refute them. I think that annihilationists must rebut these evidences if their doctrine is to be taken seriously. At the same time, I have a bias: I am an evangelical Christian committed to the study of God’s Word, and there are just certain things that a plain reading of Scripture provides for me that it would take major reconstruction of the text to undo. One of those concerns the doctrine of soul immortality.

In this post, I intend to tackle another passage that argues for the immortality of the soul---that is, Matthew 22:32. Let’s read this verse in its context:

“But Jesus answered and said to them, ‘You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living” (Matthew 22:29-32, NASB).

The context of these verses regards the Pharisees, who pose a question to Jesus (possibly a hypothetical one) about a woman who marries one husband (who then dies) and his brothers, subsequently. All of the seven brothers die before the woman. In the resurrection, whose wife would she be? Which of the seven brothers could legitimately claim the woman as his wife? The Pharisees likely pose this question to Jesus in order to stump Him...but, as we know, Jesus always has an answer for their clever questions.

Now, back to Fudge. In Fudge’s response to this, he separates immortality and resurrection:

“Jesus uses the quotation to prove, not immortality, but the resurrection.”

Is it not the case, however, that immortality is connected to resurrection? What else will humanity be resurrected to except immortality? Is this not the point that Paul was making in 1 Corinthians 15 when he said that “this mortal must put on immortality” (1 Cor. 15:53b)? If resurrection and immortality are tied together, I don’t think Fudge can make them as absolutely distinct as he is trying to do.

Next, let’s tackle Matthew 22 itself. In Matthew 22:31, Jesus refers to the “resurrection of the dead,” which could easily seem to prove Fudge’s point. The problem with this is that Fudge overlooks verb tenses, which plays a huge role in the theology developed from these verses. Jesus states that the Lord’s words, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” refer not to the dead but the living. What does this mean? Did not Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all die? Yes they did. So then, if they are dead, how then can they live? Well, one could easily take one part of the interpretation (as did the Pharisees) and conclude that the dead will (future tense) live again. There is, however, another part of the interpretation, a part that the Pharisees overlooked...and a part that Edward Fudge overlooks. What is the missing part? The missing part is Jesus’ words that the dead are living.

How does the idea of living tie to the resurrection? Notice that in Matthew 22:28, the Pharisees say that the woman “will live”---this is why they ask the question, “Whose wife will she be?”. Jesus, however, wanted to demonstrate to them the problem with their thinking: not only would there be no marriage in heaven (the Pharisees were wrong about marriage)...there would also be no spiritual “coming to life” in the resurrection. Those who died in Christ would not just start to live in the resurrection...they are living now! Even though they are physically dead and their soul is absent from the body, they are present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8; Phil. 1:23; John 12:26). In Philippians 1:23, Paul contrasts “remaining in the flesh” with “departing to be with Christ,” which Paul labels as “much better.” I would have to agree: it is better to depart and be with Christ...but what a blessing it is to live on in the flesh for the sole purpose of abounding to God’s glory!!

I am thankful that Fudge attacks this passage; he has to in order to make the case for annihilationism. The problem with his critique, though, is that I just don’t think the annihilationist view can withstand this strong text. If those who have died (past tense) are called “living” (present tense) by the Lord Jesus, and the resurrection is a future event, does this not demonstrate the truth that the dead live on because of an immortal soul? Does this not show us that believers live on, apart from the resurrection? Does this not show us that, body or no body, believers live on---not because of a body, but because of the soul? What this shows us is that what makes a person a living soul is not the body, but the soul of the individual. It is this enduring life (in the absence of the flesh) that makes the strongest case for the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. God bless.