Full-Proof Ministries

Archive for the ‘Systematic Theology’ Category

I apologize for the considerable delay in getting this second article completed.  I had written and rewritten it a number of times, never finding the finished product worth posting.  I suppose for some very gifted writers, composing an essay is as easily accomplished as speaking.  I possess no such gift so these posts take me longer to compose than I suppose is warranted by the quality of what finally gets published.

In my first post, I did not defend my position as an annihilationist, nor did I offer any texts that I believe teach the doctrine of hell the way I have come to view it.  Rather, I  just introduced a few options and stated which one I hold to.  That was all I intended to do, but now I will being to unpack my thinking on the subject and hopefully, if I do not convince you to become an annihilationist yourself, you will at least entertain the view as a coherent and (much more the effort) a Biblical one.

This post will again disappoint the reader who is looking for a succinct defense of the annihilationist view of hell.  Before I can convince you of this view, I have to begin to deconstruct the view you’ve been all but programmed to think is Biblical.  Those of you who read the first post will recall that I myself was a card-carrying member of the traditionalist fellowship until only recently – my first REAL study of the doctrine of hell at all.  In this post, I will begin attacking the literal conception of hell as a difficult, if not impossible thing to imagine.

To begin, I must survey the lexical landscape of the Bible as it refers to this “place.”  My survey will use the KJV for a couple of reasons.  First of all, the King James Version has had a more profound impact on the English speaking world to date than any other translation of the Scriptures.  Second, and more to the point with this study, I believe its translators conflated some terms that ought to have remained distinct.  The word “hell” appears 54 times in the KJV.  Of those 54 occurrences, 31 are in the Old Testament translating the Hebrew word sheol and 23 are in the New Testament.  The New Testament of the KJV translates two different Greek words as hell, the first being hades (the Greek N.T. equivalent of the O.T. sheol) and the second being Gehenna.  So, in total, we have the English word “hell” in the Bible coming to us from three different ancient words – two of which (sheol/hades) are all but synonymous.

Sheol was simply an ancient reference to the place of the departed; it was used to refer to the realm of the dead…the grave.  This is not to say that the word only and ever meant “the grave,” but this definition certainly dominates its use in the Old Testament.  It ought to be obvious enough just from the brief explanation here that we should not confuse this concept with that of the final punishment of the wicked, but in case you were tempted to see this term as some sort of euphemism for the lake of fire, we see the righteous going there after death as well.  So, of the 65 times sheol occurs in the Hebew Old Testament and more specifically the 31 times the KJV renders it “hell,” we have little license to conjure up Dante’s medieval depiction of a place of fiery torment.  We turn now to the New Testament to aid us in our search for the “literal hell.”

I’ll start with hades since, as I said, it is the Greek New Testament equivalent of the Old Testament Hebrew sheol.  It appears ten times in the NT: Mattew 11:23; 16:18; Luke 10:15; 16:23; Acts 2:27,31; Revelation 1:18; 6:8; 20:13,14.  If hades is the equivalent of sheol, I suppose no further explanation is necessary to convince the reader that hades is no help in our quest for a literal picture of hell.  But I’m no scholar, so don’t take my word for it.  Here’s what Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Theology says:

“ [Hades] is virtually synonymous with the Hebrew Sheol, the placename of the abode of the dead. Thus the word has in itself no doctrine of reward or punishment…”

A possible exception is granted for its use in Luke 16, but we’ll save that for another post when I begin to look at individual “proof” texts for the doctrine of eternal, conscious torment.

Finally, we come to the Greek word Gehenna.  This word occurs twelve times in the New Testament: Matthew 5:22; 5:29; 5:30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15; 23:33; Mark 9:43; 9:45; 9:47; Luke 12:5; James 3:6.  Though this word is used to speak of final punishment, we have no less difficulty concerning its literalness.  You see, the word is actually a proper noun – that probably ought not be translated at all and in many modern translations is not.  The reason it ought not be translated is that it refers to a geographic location – the Valley of Hinnom.  This place was well known in first century Judaism as a valley southwest of Jerusalem where refuse was burned continually.  It is used euphemistically in the New Testament to describe the fate that awaits the wicked after final judgment.  LITERALLY speaking, if we are to insist on a literal understanding of hell, we must imagine that countless millions of souls will be deposited just outside Jerusalem after the final judgment.  But I suppose that isn’t what most people have in mind when they demand a “literal” view of hell.

The aim of this post was, again, not to defend my view of hell just yet.  It was to try to get the reader to think more critically about things they may have just taken for granted.  The next time you are tempted to chide the “liberal” Christian who might deny a literal view of the lake of fire, ask yourself if YOU believe in a literal lake of fire given our brief survey of the concept.  It may well be that the “liberal” you suppose is trying to undermine the Biblical teaching of hell has spent considerably more time with the Scriptures on this important doctrine than you have.  And surprise, surprise, I don’t necessarily DENY a literal hell, either, I’m just not sure it’s accurately represented by the image you conjure up when the word “hell” is uttered.

CLICK HERE FOR A PDF COPY OF THIS ARTICLE IF YOU ARE HAVING TROUBLE READING ON THIS PAGE

Now that the bulk of the chatter over Rob Bell’s book has begun to die down, I think it’s time to address not Rob Bell or his universalism, but the response that mainline Christianity has given.  I’ve seen all kinds of videos posted in response and blog articles written – many of which shed no more light on the subject of hell than Rob Bell did with his endless question-asking.

Let me start by saying that I think Rob Bell asked a lot of good questions.  I think his responses left much to be desired, but it showed at least on his part an honesty with the difficulties he has over the traditional view of hell.  He asked tough, candid questions that most of us prefer to ignore.  But ignoring them doesn’t make them go away!  And are we any better Christians for not asking them ourselves and trying to wrestle with the Biblical data?  Or is the traditional view of hell something we just hold as one of the tenets of the Christian faith so there’s nothing more to say?

I began reading the Bible a few years back as if I had never read it before.  I tried (as best I could) to lay aside presuppositions and traditional baggage.  NOT (and please hear me on this) because I thought those traditions were inherently wrong OR because I simply wanted to rock the boat, BUT because I EARNESTLY WANTED TO PURSUE THE TRUTH FOR MYSELF.  I hope that is how you read your Bible.  Often those who most loudly proclaim the Bible as their authority are the most guilty of simply taking something for granted that has been assigned the label of “Orthodoxy: Do not Tamper.”  The traditional view of hell is one of those that I think, largely because it is such a horrible thing to think about, has been left un-tampered with.  Allow me to do a little tampering.

If you’re unfamiliar with the discussion at large, the traditional view of hell is also known as “eternal, conscious torment.”  It pretty much posits an eternal punishing in a “lake of fire” in contrast to the eternal bliss experienced by believers.  From ancient times, this place of punishment has been somewhat literally depicted by church fathers and commentators as a physical reality of pain that never subsides.  I’ll spare you the quotes on an article that is going to be long enough already without adding endless quotations to the mix.  Simply look up early church views on hell and you will be provided with endless ghastly depictions and attempts to describe what hell will be like.

So, you may be wondering, isn’t the traditional view the only view allowed by the Biblical data?  You may be surprised to hear that many scholars declare quite emphatically, “NO!”  So what are the options?  Well, in contrast to the traditional view there are those, like Rob Bell, who adhere to a form of universalism.  A strict universalism would claim that “all roads lead to God.”  Just pick your path, and it will get you there, because Jesus is reconciling all things to himself.  Rob Bell seems to hold to a slightly modified view where not everyone will end up in bliss because not everyone will ever (even at the threat of hell’s flames or the for the fear of God) choose to be redeemed.  In this case, the hinge-pin is really choice.  In this view some will actually be lost, but not because they never heard the Gospel or responded to it, but because in the end, they still refused to be reconciled to God.  Universalism is generally regarded as heretical, but does at least make use of some texts of Scripture to make their case.  Rob Bell softens the heresy and for that, we’ll give him a small “h” rather than calling him a full-blown (big “H”) Heretic and tying him to the proverbial stake.

These are not the only alternatives to a literal, traditional view of hell, however.  The reader might be surprised to hear that solid, Evangelical scholars differ on some particulars about how to read the Bible’s teaching on this doctrine.  In fact, this doctrine was treated in one of Zondervan’s “Viewpoint” books entitled Four Views on Hell.  It was edited by William Crocket who is, incidentally, one of the authors of the four views in question.  In order of appearance in the book, the four views are (1) The Traditional (and quite literal) view of hell, espoused by John Walvoord; (2) The Metaphorical view of hell espoused by William Crocket;  (3) The Purgatorial view of hell defended by Zachary Hayes;  and (3) The Conditional view of hell embraced by Clark Pinnock.  For the sake of brevity, I will refrain from diving too deeply into any of these views, but my main point here is that the views are many and more diverse than most Christians realize.

Before I get into what view I hold to (which I hold tentatively), I want to take a moment to let you know that I grew up embracing the Traditional view of hell.  I certainly didn’t like it, but I believed the Bible taught it and so, to be faithful to Scripture, I held it and defended it if the topic came up.  The fact is, I was unaware until only recent years, that there were other views of hell on the table.  I suppose this is because hell does not make for a pleasant discussion and admittedly, the Biblical data is less than we would like to have, but certain verses seem to juxtapose the eternal existence of a believer’s soul in bliss with the likewise eternal existence of the unbeliever’s soul in torment (stay tuned for treatment of each of those passages in upcoming articles).  So, I held unswervingly to the traditional view until only a recent time.

So, what view do I hold?  Not just yet.  I need to address one more thing before I continue.  It is because of my commitment to pursue truth and influence others to do the same that I urge you once again, to allow the Bible to speak for itself.  Read God’s Word as if you have never read it before and do your best to derive your beliefs solely from what it says.  Notice I’m not telling you that you need to go read this guy or that guy or watch this video or that to be convinced.  That is because I really do believe in Sola Scritpura while I believe some others simply like the force that the claim might give to their argument. Unfortunately, while I know that my pursuit in this is TRUTH, it is often alleged that those who hold to my position do so because the “Biblical” view of hell is too hard to accept.  It is said that people like me go to the Bible looking for something else to believe about hell because the grim reality is just too much to bear.  Now, I will readily admit that I do think the picture of hell as viewed through traditional lenses is a very terrible thing – but so is sin against a holy God.  God is God and I am not.  He can do with us as He sees fit and He can do with the finally impenitent what He sees fit.  My question is, “What does God tell us He will do with the finally impenitent?”

Well, I believe that a strong Biblical case can be made (though I still hold it tentatively) for the view Clark Pinnock defends in the aforementioned viewpoints book called the “Conditional View.”  It is also been called the “Conditional Immortality View” and perhaps is best known as the “Annihilationist” view.  This view would posit that the ultimate end of those finally unrepentant souls is utter extinction.  It emphasizes the thematic view throughout the Bible on the final end of the wicked which is “death” or “destruction.”  This end is often held in contrast to the fate awaiting believers – eternal life – and would be the more natural opposite of eternal life.  It is the curse of Genesis 3 on mankind for having rebelled against God.  It was God’s intention that He fellowship with His creation in perfect harmony, but that program was interrupted by mankind’s first sin.  The result – the ideal, eternal existence of communion and fellowship with God was set aside and death entered our world.  No sense of immortality for the sake of eternal torment was expressed in the Old Testament, and none will be found if sought.  It would not be until the New Testament was written that Biblical support for eternal, conscious torment would seem to surface.  And addressing those texts will have to await further posts on the subject.

For now, I am interested in your thoughts.  Many, I believe, would be convinced annihilationists if not for the sheer weight and force of tradition.  It is not something I overturn lightly and something that only the Biblical data can force me to do.  In this case, I have no other choice, because my conscience does not allow me to continue to believe or teach something I do not believe the Bible to teach.

Before you rush to the defense of “orthodoxy” to save me from heresy, I want you to consider that perhaps you have not given quite enough time to this important doctrine to draw such bold conclusions.  Further, consider the fact that many of your favorite Bible teachers may also be open to views other than the traditional view (ever heard of F.F. Bruce, John Wenham, D.A. Carson?  They don’t all share my view, but they all hold to something other than the traditional view).  Like I said, I hold this position tentatively.  Should a better case be brought to my attention for another view that does the Scriptures more justice, I would gladly change my position.  Before you send me links to books or articles that I should read, however, I will provide a partial list of publications and resources that have informed my thinking on this subject.  Perhaps that article you thought would change my mind is already in the list.  Here it is:

Articles:

(1984) Edward Fudge* “The Final End of the Wicked”

(1990) Clark Pinnock* “The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent”

(1991) James Brandyberry* “Important Forgotten History: The Roots of Opposition to Conditionalism”

(1991) Alan Gomes: “Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell, Part One; Part Two

(1994) Alan Linfield:  “Sheep and Goats: Current Evangelical Thought of the Nature of Hell and the Scope of Salvation”

(1994) Robert Peterson – “A Traditionalist Response to John Stott’s Arguments for Annihilationism”

(1997) Robert Peterson – “Basil Atkinson: A Key Figure for Twentieth-Century Evangelical Annihilationism”

(1997) J.I. Packer: “Evangelical Annihilationism in Review”

(1998) Jeff Spencer: “The Destruction of Hell: Annihilationism Examined”

(1998) Samuele Bacchiocchi* “A Biblical View of Human Nature”

(1999) Samuele Bacchiocchi  “Survival of the Soul: A Historical Glimpse of the Belief in the Survival of the Soul”

(1999) Samuele Bacchiocchi  “Hell: Eternal Torment or Annihilation?”

(1999) Samuele Bacchiocchi  “The State of the Dead”

(1999) Robert Peterson  “Does the Bible Teach Annihilationism?”

(1999) Norman Geisler  “Annihilationism” (excerpt from Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics)

(2001) William E. Arp – “Tormented or Terminated?”

(2007) Glenn Peoples* “Fallacies in the Annihiationism Debate: A Critique of Robert Peterson and other Traditionalist Scholarship”

(2007) Robert Peterson  “Fallacies in the Annihilationism Debate? A Response to Glenn Peoples”

(?) J.P. Holding: “An Examination of Annihilationism”

Books:

Crockett, William V. Four Views on Hell. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996. Print.

Edwards, David L., and John R. W. Stott. Evangelical Essentials: a Liberal-evangelical Dialogue. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1989. Print.

Fudge, Edward, and Robert A. Peterson. Two Views of Hell: a Biblical & Theological Dialogue. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. Print.

Fudge, Edward. The Fire That Consumes: a Biblical and Historical Study of Final Punishment. Houston, TX: Providential, 1982. Print.

Morgan, Christopher W., and Robert A. Peterson. Hell under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004. Print.

Peterson, Robert A. Hell on Trial: the Case for Eternal Punishment. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 1995. Print.

Wenham, John William. The Goodness of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1974. Print.

Audio:

Steve Gregg: Three Views of Hell Part One; Part Two

Glenn Peoples: Postive Case for Annihilationism

Hell, Part Two: Tradition Strikes Back

Hell, Part Three

Video:

Edward Fudge Origin of Traditional Hell

The Fire That Consumes

Greg Boyd Thoughts on Eternal Punishment

I now eagerly await your responses.  God bless you in your pursuit of truth,

Growing up, I always viewed Arminianism as some sort of “faith plus works” model of salvation.   That idea was further established by those friends of mine who came from supposed Arminian circles that very much did believe that their salvation was in part dependent on the salvific work of Christ on the cross and in part due to their constant striving in good works.  Though I knew not what label to affix to their theology at the time, I grew to be certain in later years, that they practiced what is known as Arminian theology.  In all reality, however, what my friends were guilty of embracing was more of a folk-theology digression from true, Classical Arminianism.

In his book, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, Roger E. Olson makes a strong defense of Classical Arminian theology against many of the commonly-held, yet thoroughly unwarranted caricatures of Arminian Theology.  He does this in ten chapters, each tackling a separate Myth projected onto Arminianism by those outside (and, unfortunately by some supposedly inside) the Arminian camp.  The 10 myths are as follows:

1. Arminian Theology is the Opposite of Calvinist/Reformed Theology
2. A Hybrid of Calvinism and Arminianism is Possible
3. Arminianism is not an Orthodox Evangelical Option
4. The Heart of Arminianism is Belief in Free Will
5. Arminian Theology Denies the Sovereignty of God
6. Arminianism is a Human-Centered Theology
7. Arminianism is Not a Theology of Grace
8. Arminians Do Not Believe in Predestination
9. Arminian Theology Denies Justification by Grace Alone Through Faith Alone
10. All Arminians Believe in the Governmental Theory of the Atonement

I believe this book would be beneficial for both Calvinist and Arminian alike.  It has always been my conviction (though sadly not always my practice) that to be fair we ought to get our description of a particular theological persuasion from the best, most able proponents of that persuasion. All too often, we are satsified in obtaining our description of a theological camp we differ with from the detractors of that view, rather than “the horse’s mouth.”  Let us all be gracious enough to read the perspective of those we think we disagree with before deriding them as sub-Christian or heretical.  Those are strong terms that ought not be used flippantly.

I recently finished reading a wonderful book entitled Thinking About God: First Steps in Philosophy by Greg Ganssle.  If one wants to be good at theology and apologetics, it really is helpful to equip oneself in philosophy.  I once heard Hank Hanegraaff, the host of the Bible Answer Man radio program, state that his most effective employees at the Christian Research Institute were those who were trained in philosophy.  Jeff Whittum and I are both currently reading Dr. Norman Geisler‘s Systematic Theology Volume 1.  I have no doubt that one of the things that makes Dr. Geisler’s theology book so much better than so many others I’ve read is not only his theological training, but his extensive philosophical training and study.

For those with no background in philosophy, there may be no better place to start than Dr. Ganssle’s book.  First of all, it’s short.  The last page of the index is page 187.  It’s not tiny print either.  It isn’t large print, but it isn’t tiny.

Secondly, those pages are divided into 27 chapters.  This means that if we divide 187 pages by 27 chapters, we end up with really short chapters.  The longest chapter is 11 pages.  Many are only 3 or 4 pages long.  This is nice for the fact that many people are intimidated by philosophy.  I don’t think people need to be intimidated by it and Ganssle’s book is the place for any and all who are (and even those who aren’t).  The chapters are bite sized and if you knock out one a day, then in a month you’ll have finished this small, but effective intro to philosophy.

Thirdly, Ganssle is very conversational in his style.  He writes as if he’s sitting in your living room having a conversation with a friend.  In all three of these ways, his intro to philosophy is easier than any other I own.

You won’t learn too many of the $50 big words of philosophy in this book.  You won’t learn a history of philosophy.  You won’t learn many of the names and dates of people or the fancy names assigned to their concepts.  What do you expect in 187 pages?  But Greg teaches you and me how to think.

His book divides into four parts:

1. Introduction
2. Reasons to believe in God
3. God and evil
4. What is God like?

In the introduction he spends 6 chapters on things like what philosophy is, what faith is and deals with the issue of whether or not we can be neutral in dealing with topics like God.

In the section of Reasons to believe in God he spends 10 chapters going over three of the most commonly used and accepted arguments for God:

1. cosmological argument
2. teleological argument
3. moral argument

Though again, he doesn’t use the big words I just used.

He spends six chapters in part three (God and evil) going over . . . well, God and evil.  Here he explores issues such as freedom and determinism.

In part four (What is God like?) He goes over some basic theology of a theistic god such as omnipotence and omniscience.

There’s no glossary.  There really doesn’t need to be.

Great read.  I recommend it highly.  I might read it again soon just to see if I can pick up another nugget or two or just to let his style permeate mine a little more.

Anytime that I’m teaching at a church for the first time, I present a message of mine called B.A.S.I.C.S. I’ve taught it many times and I tweak it along the way too.  B.A.S.I.C.S. is an acronym to help me remember essential Christian doctrines.

By essential I mean that a doctrine is definitional for Christianity, Evangelicalism in particular. In other words, if a person rejects any of these, then what they believe is not Christianity by definition. The letters in B.A.S.I.C.S. remind us of the following doctrines:

• Bodily resurrection of Jesus
• Atonement by substitution
• Second Timothy 3:16 (The Bible is the inerrant word of God)
• Incarnation or Isaiah 7:14 (Jesus was virgin born AND is truly human)
• Colossians 2:9 (Jesus is also truly god – I also talk about the Trinity at this point)
• Second Coming of Jesus

Christians can disagree about dozens, perhaps hundreds of other things such as:

• Are sign gifts for today?
• Is the millennium pre, post, or a?
• Is the rapture pre-trib, post, mid, partial or pre-wrath?
• Calvinism or Arminianism or something else?
• Is the description of Hell literal, allegorical, or are the lost annihilated?
• Are we eternally secure or can we lose our salvation?
• Is the earth/universe young (6,000 – 10,000 year old) or old (13.7 billion years give-or-take)?
• Should we immerse or sprinkle in baptism?
• Should we baptize infants or not baptize them?
• Which is the correct way to interpret the book of Revelation: idealist, preterist, historicist, or futurist?

And on, and on, and on, and on the list goes. However, we can disagree about such things. You and I could debate one of these, but hopefully we can discuss this over a burger or go out for a burger afterward.

Oh, don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying they’re unimportant. Indeed, they are important. But they aren’t definitional.

So, attractive as relative theories for truth may appear, they actually fail before they’ve even gotten off the ground.  Truth is objective, truth is real, truth is absolute.

The Bible tells us that God’s Word is truth.  In fact, Psalm 119:160 tells us that the grand total (sum) of His Word is truth.  Jesus said in John 14:6 that He is the Way, the TRUTH, and the life – that no man can come to the Father, but by Him.  If that statement is true, and truth is absolute, then this is a very exclusive and sobering verse.  No man can come to the Father (enter heaven) but by Him.  Thankfully, Jesus didn’t just leave claims in His Word that what He said was true, He left an empty tomb behind to prove His Word(s) were true.  John 8:31-32 tells us that if we abide in His word, we will know the truth, and the truth will set us free.

We need not fear the pursuit of truth, nor be embarrassed to embrace that truth once it’s been found.  If we stand for nothing, we’re liable to fall for anything.  Test what you’re standing on, but when you find firm ground, there’s nothing wrong with staying there.

Which one comes first???

I was asked at work the other day about the relationship good works play to the salvation of one’s soul. Because this type of question is so common, I figured it was worth a quick post.

Often we are guilty of putting the cart before the horse, so to speak, in relating one thing to another. Well known is the chicken and the egg concept: which one came first? While this type of trivia is fun to think about, but inconsequential in the end, salvation is no joking matter.

The book of James in the New Testament challenges us: You show me your faith without your works and I’ll show you my faith by my works. So then, are works instrumental in one’s achieving salvation? Do enough good works grant us entrance into heaven?

I would argue (from Scripture) that thinking along those lines is to put the cart before the horse. Ephesians chapter two tells us we are saved by grace, through faith, and that it is not about the works we do. The passage goes on to imply that if it were, there would be room for boasting, and it would no longer be a salvation by grace, but by works. A salvation that is by faith plus works diminishes the finished work of Christ on the cross and gives us at least partial credit.

On the other side, however, James tells us that faith without works is dead. So what does that mean? Can we have a faith that is still saving yet labeled “dead?” Perhaps an analogy would help paint the picture more clearly…

Imagine you win the lottery and never need to work another day in your life. You hated your job before and everyone knew it….but you didn’t quit working. In fact, you didn’t change a single thing about your life from before you won the lottery. How many people do you think would believe you when you tell them you won all that money, yet decided to keep driving the same beat up car, living in the same beat up house and working the same dead-end job. People would (rightfully) question the truth of your claim to have won the lottery. You may very well be a millionaire, but there is no evidence in your life to back the claim.

In that same way, good works is evidence one has salvation. It wasn’t the works that achieved the salvation, but rather they were the automatic outpouring of an authentic conversion. Do I believe someone can be saved and not produce much evidence? Yes, I do, but I would caution that person against feeling secure in a faith that has done nothing to manifest itself in good works. There is far too much at stake to roll the dice on this one.

It’s time to put the horse in front of the cart. We can do nothing to earn our salvation, but once we have it, it should be obvious to the rest of the world…it’s the only evidence we have of a saving faith in Christ.