Quote of the day, from John Locke:

Death then entered, and showed his face, which before was shut out, and not known. So St. Paul, Rom. v. 19, “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin,” i.e. a state of death and mortality : and, 1 Cor. xv. 22, “In Adam all die;” i.e. by reason of his transgression, all men are mortal, and come to die.

This is so clear in these cited places, and so much the current of the New Testament, that nobody can deny, but that the doctrine of the gospel is, that death came on all men by Adam’s sin; only they differ about the signification of the word death: for some will have it to be a state of guilt, wherein not only he, but all his posterity was so involved, that every one descended of him deserved endless torment, in hell-fire. I shall say nothing more here, how far, in the apprehensions of men, this consists with the justice and goodness of God, having mentioned it above: but it seems a strange way of understanding a law, which requires the plainest and directest words, that by death should be meant eternal life in misery. Could any one be supposed, by a law, that says, “For felony thou shalt die;” not that he should lose his life; but be kept alive in perpetual, exquisite torments? And would any one think himself fairly dealt with, that was so used?

John Locke, The Reasonableness of Christianity as Delivered in the Scriptures in the Works of John Locke (1824 edition, volume 6, p. 4.),

I part ways with Locke when he says that Adam’s sin did not involve the whole human race. Perhaps disturbing to some readers, I think that “Adam” in the story of Eden actually represented the whole human race but I won’t delve into that now (although for what it is worth, I think that this understanding removes the rationale for some of the crasser theories of the “transmission” of sin from Adam to us).

Locke’s comments on the actual punishment for sin, however, seem to me to be not only true, but to be obviously so. If only such common sense prevailed among my evangelical brothers and sisters!

Glenn Peoples

(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Every Christian who decides on a stance to take on the mind-body issue is going to have to live with the fact that there will be certain “problem texts” in the Bible that appear to conflict with the position they take. As a physicalist, I think there is a very small number of such texts for my view, and I think there are plausible explanations for all of them (for example Jesus’ words to the criminal on the cross Luke 23:43, which I discussed recently). What one hopes to do is to settle on a view that has fewer problems than all others, problems that have an explanation in sight.

I think that traditional Cartesian/platonic dualism has a real problem, therefore, when it comes to 1 Corinthians 15, as I think it contains a problem for dualism – a problem with no real solution that I can see. The chapter is a decent size, so I won’t reproduce it here, but go ahead and read it first to make sure I’m representing what it says faithfully. The subject is the resurrection of the dead, and it arises because some of those in the church in Corinth had said that there will be no resurrection. The Apostle Paul makes a number of comments on this, one of which concerns my point here. In doing so he indicates that he cannot possibly have been a dualist.
Read the rest of the entry »

(3 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

As I’ve indicated numerous times, I’m a physicalist. I don’t think that I’m an immortal ghost/soul living inside a body. I think that I’m a physical creature. Long before I encountered philosophy of mind or neuroscience, I became convinced that this is what the Bible teaches, making its teaching on human nature stand out like a sore thumb against the pagan Hellenistic theology of the first century.

I also become convinced that since I am not an immortal immortal ghost living inside a body, when my body dies I will not escape death and live on in heaven, or the underworld, or the astral plane or anything of that sort. I think the Bible teaches that death is very real and it puts an end to our life. There is no conscious state of any sort immediately following death. There is noting at all. Of course, I am a Christian and I do believe in the resurrection of the dead, but that obviously doesn’t happen when a person dies, or I think somebody would have noticed by now. The view I hold has sometimes been called “soul sleep” because it views death as a state of “sleep” or unconsciousness. It’s not an ideal term because it can be taken to imply dualism and maybe “person sleep” would be a better alternative, but it’s too late for that. The term has been coined.

Holding and expressing these views rubs some of my fellow conservative evangelicals the wrong way, but for the most part there’s really no disputing that the Bible presents human nature and death this way literally dozens of times in fairly clear language. Affirming dualism and the view that we live on as immaterial spirits after death and go somewhere is a point of view held in the teeth of the biblical evidence. This fact too, I suspect, rubs some of my fellow conservative evangelicals the wrong way.

In spite of the fairly clear overall teaching of the Bible, there is a very small handful of biblical passages (no more than four, in my view) that might be used (and have been used) to suggest that actually the general impression given by most of what the Bible teaches is false, and that really we do survive our bodily deaths and travel to heaven, or hell, or some other place and live consciously there. This should not be surprising. Whether you’re doing surveying, earth science or biblical interpretation, when formulating a theory you’re always going to be confronted with recalcitrant evidence, that is, evidence that at first glance seems to go against the flow of the well-established facts and is in need of an explanation. The existence of such evidence in science or in Scripture does not falsify a theory.

One of those texts is Luke 23:43.
Read the rest of the entry »

(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Recently I blogged on what traditional Christian theology says about hell. I cited the examples of Tertullian, Aquinas, Jonathan Edwards and Isaac Watts, all of whom taught in one way or another (Tertullian being the most graphic) that when the saints get to heaven they will derive great happiness and enjoyment from watching the torture of the damned. My point there was that those who claim to hold the traditional Christian view of hell don’t realise that this was part of that theology, and would be less likely to state that they affirm the traditional view if they were aware of this aspect of it.

John Loftus liked what he saw, but for quite different reasons:

One belief change of mine that allowed me to pursue my doubts about Christianity was the rejection of an eternal punishment in hell. This doctrine is completely barbaric. It is the biggest stick ever invented by man to keep believers from questioning their faith. Christian philosopher Dr. Glenn Peoples rejects this doctrine too in favor of annihilation, and says why in a recent post. Reject it like he does and you’ll be freer to think about your faith.

Read the rest of the entry »

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

The greatest show in eternity is going to be one hell of an act, theologians have told us throughout history. Tertullian was the first to say so:

What there excites my admiration? what my derision? Which sight gives me joy? which rouses me to exultation?—as I see so many illustrious monarchs, whose reception into the heavens was publicly announced, groaning now in the lowest darkness with great Jove himself, and those, too, who bore witness of their exultation; governors of provinces, too, who persecuted the Christian name, in fires more fierce than those with which in the days of their pride they raged against the followers of Christ. What world’s wise men besides, the very philosophers, in fact, who taught their followers that God had no concern in aught that is sublunary, and were wont to assure them that either they had no souls, or that they would never return to the bodies which at death they had left, now covered with shame before the poor deluded ones, as one fire consumes them! Poets also, trembling not before the judgment-seat of Rhadamanthus or Minos, but of the unexpected Christ! I shall have a better opportunity then of hearing the tragedians, louder-voiced in their own calamity; of viewing the play-actors, much more “dissolute” in the dissolving flame; of looking upon the charioteer, all glowing in his chariot of fire; of beholding the wrestlers, not in their gymnasia, but tossing in the fiery billows; unless even then I shall not care to attend to such ministers of sin, in my eager wish rather to fix a gaze insatiable on those whose fury vented itself against the Lord. “This,” I shall say, “this is that carpenter’s or hireling’s son, that Sabbath-breaker, that Samaritan and devil-possessed! This is He whom you purchased from Judas! This is He whom you struck with reed and fist, whom you contemptuously spat upon, to whom you gave gall and vinegar to drink! This is He whom His disciples secretly stole away, that it might be said He had risen again, or the gardener abstracted, that his lettuces might come to no harm from the crowds of visitants!” What quæstor or priest in his munificence will bestow on you the favour of seeing and exulting in such things as these? And yet even now we in a measure have them by faith in the picturings of imagination.

Read through it a few times. Soak it in. According to Tertullian, his admiration, his derision, his joy at the sight, and his exultation, will be roused by the visible sight of those who did not believe in Jesus, groaning, living in consuming flames, tossing in flaming billows. He looked forward to hearing those who took part in plays, although with much louder voices as they scream because of their torture in hell. He longed to fix his gaze on those who were actors as they suffer in agony before his eyes. Surely, he marvels, no human priest or quæstor (a Roman official governing financial affairs) can provide you with any favour as great as watching and enjoying all this! But God will. It’s a pity that we can’t see it now, but, Tertullian encourages us, as we look around even now at those who are still alive and reject Christ, we can imagine all this happening to them. By faith, thank God, we can picture it right now.
Read the rest of the entry »

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

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 little. As it is a very Jewish word (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 actually serve the purpose of teaching about Gehenna, that word is referred to 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 »

(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

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 »

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

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

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

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

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

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

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...