If you have any theological interest in the subject of hell, you will probably have either read or heard someone tell you that Jesus taught more about hell than anyone else in the Bible. In fact, you may also have read/heard people telling you that Jesus preached on the fearful idea of hell as a place of endless suffering far more than he talked about heaven.

John Walvoord, in his contribution to the book Four Views on Hell says that when it comes to the doctrine of hell in the Bible, “Jesus himself defined this more specifically and in more instances than any New Testament prophet. All the references to gehenna, except James 3:6, are from the lips of Jesus Christ himself…” [Walvoord, “The Literal View” in William Crockett (ed.), Four Views on Hell (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 19-20.]

Some of the initial rhetorical impressiveness of this observation fades away, however, when we realise that “all the instances” of gehenna, in the Gospels actually amounts to very few. As it is a very Jewish word (a Greek term derived from a Hebrew word referring to the Valley of Hinnom), it comes as no surprise that Matthew uses it most often. But even in Matthew’s Gospel, it appears in no more than four contexts (Matthew 5, Matthew 10, Matthew 18 and Matthew 23). Actually, none of those passages really serve the purpose of teaching about gehenna. That word is used in passing during a teaching on a different subject.

To be fair, the Gospel writers don’t actually have to use the word gehenna to teach about the judgement, so we should also count examples that don’t use that word. But even then, how many examples would we have beyond these four? Bear in mind – it would be cheating to double up by counting the same teaching from two different Gospels (that would be like taking clippings from two different newspapers and then claiming that the same disaster happened twice!). I’ll use Matthew’s Gospel. If we choose only examples where Jesus is actually teaching about hell rather than a different subject, I would set the number at something close to zero. But let’s include examples that appear to refer to the final fate of the lost, even by way of a distant possible analogy in a story. Let’s start adding up.

Read the rest of the entry »

Hank Hanegraaf is, among other things (such as a dead ringer for David Letterman, in the right lighting), one of the writers over at the Christian Research Institute. In his very brief article “Why Should I believe in Hell” there appears a section called “Is annihilationism biblical?” Hank presents three reasons to reject annihilationism. Unfortunately, his comments turn out to be a tour de force of fallacious reasoning.

For those readers not already familiar with the terminology, “annihilationism” is the name for the view that God will not eternally torment those who are not “saved,” but will instead end their life permanently. They will be gone. OK, on to Hanegraaf’s comments:

Read the rest of the entry »

Norman Geisler wrote The Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics. It’s basically an encyclopedia of Norman Geisler’s beliefs, in the sense that it offers Geisler’s perspective on the A-Z of Christian theology and philosophy (if you think that’s not a fair summary, have a look at the encyclopedia’s rather hostile and unfair treatment of Alvin Plantinga’s Reformed Epistemology. That is not a fair summary).

In the encyclopedia there’s an entry for “Annihilationism.” It’s a very short entry, just long enough for the author to tell us in several different ways that he doesn’t think annihilationism is true or biblical, but the exegetical issues aren’t unpacked in any detail. This, however, caught my eye under what Geisler calls the “philosophical arguments” against annihilationism (remember, Norman Geisler believes the traditional doctrine of the everlasting torment of the damned in hell):

Annihilation would demean both the love of God and the nature of human beings as free moral creatures. It would be as if God said to them, “I will allow you to be free only if you do what I say. If you don’t, then I will snuff out your very freedom and existence!” This would be like a father telling his son he wanted him to be a doctor, but when the son chose instead to be a park ranger the father shot him.

There are two issues here, and I’ll focus on the second. The first issue is that there’s much to be said for the thought that annihilationism is less like murder and more like suicide. If God is the source of all life and a person has freely and resolutely chosen to be without God, then neither that person nor Geisler is in a position to raise a moral complaint about anyone’s freedom being violated or not respected if that person loses their life as a result. In other words, the very thing that people freely choose when they reject God is ultimately the loss of their very being. God will give them what they have asked for, which is, to borrow C. S. Lewis’s phrase, “to leave them alone.”

But secondly, and forgive me if this sounds a little blunt but the situation is just so odd, I can’t believe that Geisler walked into such an obvious trap!

If Dr Geisler believes the doctrine of eternal torment, and is happy to use the above analogy of the way a father treats his son to provoke objections to the way annihilationists allegedly see God (as I’ve explained above, they need not see him that way, but let’s set that aside for now), how exactly should the analogy be re-cast to describe the way Geisler thinks God will treat people who reject him? Would this be akin to a father telling his son that he wants him to be a doctor, but when his son decides to be a park ranger the father drags him downstairs to the basement, straps him to a table and begins horribly mutilating and torturing him for the rest of his life, giving him medication to ensure that he never sleeps or passes out so that he must experience the maximum amount of excruciating suffering imaginable?

How could Geisler not have seen that coming?

(You can see Geisler’s piece on annihilationism reproduced here.)

Glenn Peoples

Kenneth Gentry

I like a lot of Kenneth Gentry’s work on preterism and on the book of Revelation, its dating and the way that it refers to first century events in a way that some people miss.

I didn’t know he had said anything about the doctrine of eternal punishment, and the annihilationist viewpoint in particular, until tonight. I’ll never know exactly what he has to say, except that he thinks annihilationism is bad. Apparently he once gave a one hour lecture on the subject and you can listen to it for nine bucks. He’s pretty sure that he did a good job, because the lecture is called “Annihilationism Annihilated.” Here’s the description:

In this two hour lecture given at Christ College, Gentry sets out the annihilationist objections to eternal hell, then analyzes the annihilationist argument exposing its superficial nature.

Given that, as far as I know (and yes this could just be my ignorance at work), the man has no reputation as an expert on the subject (and I say that as someone who makes a habit of trying to stay on top of “who’s who” in the field), I am somewhat surprised to see this – for sale at least – and I was surprised to see it called “Important critique of the resurging annihilationist view.” I had never even heard of the critique until now. I think it’s a tactical mistake, but one that works in my favour, both because of the way the confidence is presented in a form that closely resembles flippancy, and also because it is very obviously marketed to those who share Dr Gentry’s view. Annihilationism would be helped if all of its critics worked this way: preaching over-confident sermons to the choir.

No serious, fair assessment of annihilationism will yield the conclusion that the arguments in its favour are “superficial.” And unlike Dr Gentry, I have self consciously titled and marketed (for free) my materials on the subject in a way that is genuine about not merely impressing those who share my view, but reaching out and explaining the reasons for that view to those who are hostile to it.

So here’s a reminder to those who haven’t encountered it before: For not a single penny, you can listen to my three part series on the doctrine of eternal punishment where I outline and defend the claim that annihilationism is biblical and then one by one address the arguments against annihilationism in an effort to show that those who use them have engaged in either fallacious reasoning or poor hermeneutics of Scripture.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Also over in the Theology Articles at my site, you can check out my published response to the work of Robert Peterson, the most vocal evangelical opponent of annihilationism. You can see his reply to that article, and my follow up, where I explain why his response is ineffective.

Whether or not it’s an “important” critique is something that you can decide that for yourself, but it won’t cost you a bean.

Glenn Peoples

Thomas Talbott is Professor Emeritus of philosophy at Willamette University in Salem, Oregon.

One of Dr Talbott’s online activities is as a scholar in residence at The Evangelical Universalist (along with Gregory MacDonald). Talbott (I hope he won’t object to me just referring to him by last name) is a proponent of universal salvation, the view that everyone who has ever lived and will ever live shall, at some point, be reconciled to God, trust in Him and enjoy eternal life as a redeemed child of God. I’ve made no secret of the fact that I don’t share this view (click the “heaven and hell” category to see what  I mean).

One thing that’s done at the Evangelical Universalist is that a guest is invited to have a one on one dialogue with Dr MacDonald or Dr Talbott on a subject, and when they’re done, questions are invited from onlookers. At the moment Dr Joel Green from Fuller Theological Seminary is in discussion with Dr MacDonald on Universalism and the issue of free will. I’ve been asked to take part in a discussion with Dr Talbott. I’m not sure that the subject has been hammered into shape yet, but my guess is that it will be something involving universalism (no surprise there) and annihilationism. We’ll see how it shapes up and I’ll let you know when it’s about to take place.

Glenn Peoples

Here it is, the first podcast episode for 2009, complete with my summer hay fever voice! Kicking things off for the year is a discussion of what lies beyond the grave. The resurrection of the dead is the hope of the New Testament for our eternal life, yet popular Christian theology has come to place a lot of weight on the hope of going to heaven when you die. Short story: It has to stop and we need to adjust our focus.

Glenn Peoples

Episode 023: Imagine There's no Heaven [ 40:35 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Here it is, Episode 18. Here I draw on the work of the fourth century bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius. His work called The Incarnation of the Word is my all-time favourite work from the Church Fathers, and I think it gives us excellent theological reasons for adopting annihilationism. Along the way, it invites a theological storm over what it meant for Christ to become subject to death as one of us.

As always, comments are more than welcome. I’m also on the lookout for someone who might be interested in co-hosting the occasional show with me. Drop me a line if you’re interested!

Episode 018: Athanasius, Atonement and Annihilation [ 39:45 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

What? Jonathan Edwards comes to the aid of annihilationism? Why would I say that? We all know Jonathan Edwards didn’t believe that annihilationism is biblical. Yes, we do all know that, but there are ways to help a view that do not involve showing that it is biblical.

Some advocates of the claim that the Bible teaches eternal torment make the mistaken claim that just because the Bible uses the phrase “eternal punishment,” it must be taken to teach eternal torment. The falsehood of this assertion is fairly superficially obvious, and it’s not like a lengthy argument is needed to put it in its place. But what’s interesting is that Jonathan Edwards, one of the most memorable preachers on the lurid details of eternal torment and who emphatically rejected annihilationism came to the rescue of annihilationism just at this point in the argument, in a chapter entitled, “Concerning the Endless Punishment of those who Die Impenitent,” paragraph 31.

He noted that some people advanced belief in the final annihilation of the lost, thinking that this scheme provides relief from the specter of eternal punishment (this is Edwards’ characterization of their goal). But, he warned, even if this were true, we would still not have escaped the idea of eternal punishment, since this scheme would itself be eternal punishment. Observe how he dismisses the view:

On this, I would observe that there is nothing got by such a scheme; no relief from the arguments taken from Scripture, for the proper eternity of future punishment.

Although Edwards himself thinks the scheme (annihilationism) is mistaken, this is not his point here. He says here that there is nothing got by the scheme itself (in other words, even within such a scheme, regardless of whether or not it is true) that brings relief from the Scriptural teaching that future punishment is eternal.

He was wrong, in my view, to reject the scheme. But I do applaud his objectivity. There’s a temptation among many (myself included at times, no doubt) to become intellectually slack when it means not considering annoying points in favor of views that we reject. But Edwards will have none of this. While he thought annihilationism to be false, at least he recognized that it is not an alternative to eternal punishment, but rather another version of eternal punishment.

Now, I know that in the past when speaking about the hopeless arguments and frequent mistakes made by traditionalists who critique annihilationism, I’ve used Robert Peterson as an example. I even had a paper published, pointing out the mistakes in his case. People are going to think I’m picking on the poor guy. I swear, I didn’t set out in this post to critique him, but in looking up quotes, I discovered an absolutely blatant error, and it’s an error that will, in the mind of the reader who believe Peterson, impugn another believer (Edward Fudge), so what the heck, here goes.

The above observation about Jonathan Edwards was clearly pointed out by Edward Fudge when in dialogue with Robert Peterson. As on so many other occasions, however, Peterson, far from granting the point, did not even understand it. He starts out alright, summing up the argument by saying “Fudge claims that Jonathan Edwards called annihilation eternal punishment.” So far, so good. But that’s where the hope of a good argument died. His reply was to point out by using examples (examples summed up by John Gerstner) that Edwards did not himself believe in annihilationism. Peterson concludes with what is supposed to be a rebuttal: “Plainly Edwards opposes annihilationism.” (Fudge and Peterson, Two View of Hell, p. 89.). But this is not even relevant to the argument.

After saying this, Peterson claims to have a “second reason” for rejecting this reading of Edwards (as though he has just presented one reason already). He rejects it because Edwards uses the word “proper.” Peterson says:

Edwards understands ‘the proper eternity of future punishment’ to consist in everlasting punishment [note: by this, Peterson really means “everlasting torment – GP], which he then demonstrates. He goes to some lengths to show that annihilationism is in error, concluding with the words, “so this scheme overthrows itself.”

This is all wrong, and I am at a loss to charitably imagine how Dr Peterson can say this after actually reading the chapter in question. Check this for yourself at THIS LINK where the work in question can be read online:

Scroll through to Chapter 31, which is the one in question. Read it, and you’ll see that Edwards argues exactly as I have described, only at more length. But then after this, he moves to Chapter 32 and introduces a new scheme, after ending his comments on annihilationism. In this new scheme that Edwards examines:

the torments of the damned in hell are properly penal, and in execution of penal justice, but yet they are neither eternal, nor shall end in annihilation, but shall be continued till justice is satisfied, and they have truly suffered as much as they have deserved, whereby their punishment shall be so long as to be called everlasting, but that then they shall be delivered, and finally be the subjects of everlasting happiness… (etc)

Edwards explicitly states that in the scheme he is now considering, the lost are not annihilated. It is after discussing problems internal to this view, and not annhilationism, that Edwards uses the words that Peterson erroneously quoted, at the end of paragraph 32, “so this scheme overthrows itself.” Oops. Peterson claimed that this statement was the conclusion of an argument for the claim that only eternal torment is properly a punishment that is eternal as a refutation of annihilationism. But not only did Edwards not even present such an argument in chapter 31 when talking about annihilationism, this comment was not even written in reference to annihilationism but rather to a version of Universalism. I can’t imagine getting a rebuttal more badly wrong.

The absolute irony of this obvious error is the way that Peterson sought to soften the blow against Edward Fudge, saying:

I do not accuse Fudge of impure motives here. He errs because of his zeal for annihilationism and his consequent tendency to read that doctrine into the words of historical (as well as biblical!) writers when it isn’t there (Two Views of Hell, 90).

So in other words, Fudge is reading Edwards with too much haste and too little care because he’s a little too willing to find his conclusions there? The irony is palpable, given the nature of Peterson’s error, which seems to be the result of a failure to adequately grasp Edwards’ point in the first place, and then a mistaken citation made for no other reason than too much haste and too little care.

A bit too much “zeal,” perhaps?

And here it is, episode 7, the final part in the three part series on hell. This is the longest episode that I have ever done, and it is the longest I ever plan on doing. Don’t worry, this isn’t going to become a pattern, but I wasn’t about to do a fourth part, so I had to fit everything into this one.

As always, your comments and questions are welcome. Drop me a line – podcast at beretta-online.com – You can even send your comment or question as an audio clip, and I’ll play it on the show.

Episode 007: Hell part 3 [ 59:36 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Here’s part 2 on my series on hell. In this episode, I look at some key arguments against annihilationism and for the doctrine of eternal torment, and why those arguments fail.

As this episode ended up being longer than expected (there are plenty of bad arguments to cover!), I’ve decided to present a third episode in this series, where I will cover the remainder of the main arguments for the traditional view. But at least this time I managed to squeeze in my regular “This Week in History” segment.

The next episode will be a little shorter.

Episode 006: Hell part 2 [ 47:39 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download