Jun
15.
We’ve made it to five episodes! This one is part one of a biblical and theological (mostly biblical) discussion about hell, the doctrine of eternal punishment in Christian theology. It’s a two part presentation. In this part, I present my position on the subject, a view called annihilationism. In the next show I’ll be looking at argument against my view and in favour of a more traditional view of hell as a place of the eternal torment of the damned.
As I promised in the Episode, here’s a list of some prominent Christian thinkers who hold (or held – some of them are dead) to an annihilationist point of view:
- John Stott
- Michael Green
- Clark Pinnock
- Philip Edgecumbe Hughes
- John Wenham
- Dale Moody
- Edward Fudge
- Graham Scroggie
- Edward White
- Basil Atkinson
- E. Earle Ellis
- Homer Hailey
That’s what I came up with in 2 minutes. Now, come on in, the water’s lovely!
EDIT: Here are parts two and three.
Similar Posts:
- Peterson vs Peoples
- Jonathan Edwards Comes to the Aid of Annihilationism
- Loftus on eternal torture
- Hell: Definition vs description
- Dialogue with Thomas Talbott
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Tags: annihilationism, hell, podcast
Hey.. loved the soundbite at the beginning. Made me laugh out loud. Keep up the good work.
1. Why spend six minutes before getting to the points?
2. “It repented the LORD that he had made man…” Does it not mean God changed his way of dealing with man, rather than that His foreknowledge had failed Him and he was now sorry he had created man?
3. Not very serious objections, are they?
2. No.
It means that God was “upset (grieved, sad, depressed) about the sin that had, and would be committed by humanity”.
Unless of course “grieve” means something else.
Foreknowledge does not enter into it.
If an recovering alcoholic has a drink, his/her friends and family will be sad/upset/grieved – however they will have certainly “foreknown” that it would happen. The analogy is a little weak but you should be able to get the idea.
Whether or not you know an even will occur does not preclude you being upset about it or not. The idea that God being upset about Sin occurring meaning he didnt know it was/did/will happen is just ridiculous.
(note “repented” is not a very good translation).
(from the translation notes of the NEt bible:
tn Or “was grieved”; “was sorry.” In the Niphal stem the verb ????? (nakham) can carry one of four semantic meanings, depending on the context: (1) “to experience emotional pain or weakness,” “to feel regret,” often concerning a past action (see Exod 13:17; Judg 21:6, 15; 1 Sam 15:11, 35; Job 42:6; Jer 31:19). In several of these texts ???? (ki, “because”) introduces the cause of the emotional sorrow. (2) Another meaning is “to be comforted” or “to comfort oneself” (sometimes by taking vengeance). See Gen 24:67; 38:12; 2 Sam 13:39; Ps 77:3; Isa 1:24; Jer 31:15; Ezek 14:22; 31:16; 32:31. (This second category represents a polarization of category one.) (3) The meaning “to relent from” or “to repudiate” a course of action which is already underway is also possible (see Judg 2:18; 2 Sam 24:16 = 1 Chr 21:15; Pss 90:13; 106:45; Jer 8:6; 20:16; 42:10). (4) Finally, “to retract” (a statement) or “to relent or change one’s mind concerning,” “to deviate from” (a stated course of action) is possible (see Exod 32:12, 14; 1 Sam 15:29; Ps 110:4; Isa 57:6; Jer 4:28; 15:6; 18:8, 10; 26:3, 13, 19; Ezek 24:14; Joel 2:13-14; Am 7:3, 6; Jonah 3:9-10; 4:2; Zech 8:14). See R. B. Chisholm, “Does God ‘Change His Mind’?” BSac 152 (1995): 388. The first category applies here because the context speaks of God’s grief and emotional pain (see the following statement in v. 6) as a result of a past action (his making humankind). For a thorough study of the word ?????, see H. Van Dyke Parunak, “A Semantic Survey of NHM,” Bib 56 (1975): 512-32.)
LOL – six minutes. Is that really how much the human attention span has shrunk, where six minutes feels like a long wait?