Theology in the Raw - 648: #647 - LIVE! from the Rethinking Hell Conference with Chris Date

Episode Date: May 7, 2018

Find out more about Rethinking Hell on their website, conference site, and Facebook page. Also follow Rethinking Hell on Twitter. Support Preston Support Preston by going to patreon.com Connect with Preston Follow him on Twitter @PrestonSprinkle Check out his website prestonsprinkle.com If you enjoy the podcast, be sure to leave a review.

okay so we're gonna get started here and again this is a live a live podcast um yeah this is gonna be uh kind of raw and uh informal we both said let's just keep it informal so we didn't actually plan ahead anything we said let's actually not just to make it natural and conversational so i'm gonna i'm gonna kick us off and uh if i screw up can i get a redo or it's a recording it's recording not live. We can edit it. I edit it all the time. Oh, come on. Somebody just said that we never edit it.

No, I edit it a lot. Sorry, go ahead. I rarely edit my podcast, even if I kind of mess up. I have to listen to the whole recording all over again so I can find any mistakes and edit it out. Welcome to a joint podcast between Theology and the Raw and the Rethinking Hell podcast. My name is Preston Sprinkle and I'm here with my friend Chris Date from Rethinking Hell. And we are at the Rethinking Hell conference. This is the fifth one, Chris, is that right? The fifth one.

We are in kind of north, I got my geography right, northeast-ish Dallas, Texas. And there has been wonderful discussions, presentations. I guess I can't say that because I'm one of them, but I think it's been... Yours was acceptable. I think it's been a good night and morning so far. So far, there's been three presentations. We're still waiting to hear from you, Chris. But I presented last night.

I mean, my title had to do with the last like four minutes of my talk, but basically, my focus was on, it's like a biblical theology of the fate of the wicked, looking at various passages and background material. And then Dr. Craig Evans presented on more specifically on Mark 9, where Jesus talks about people being cast into hell and argued for Isaiah 66. Well, obviously it's Isaiah 66 background, but then talked about how early Jewish usage correlated Isaiah 66 with the term Gehenna. And then Greg Allison just gave a historical theology defense of eternal conscious torment, arguing that this has been kind of the consensus view of the early church.

And we need to take that tradition seriously. And Chris State's going to argue from the atonement this afternoon. So, how do you, Chris, your initial thoughts on this morning? Do you have any lingering questions or maybe emphases, things that, you know, we should kind of walk away with so far? What's been your general impression? You're really putting me on my spot. I don't know.

It's been really enjoyable so far. First of all, I'm really grateful that Dr. Allison was willing to come out and sort of put himself in the lion's den as he did, so many of us being conditionalists. And I take very, you know, somebody in the audience, I don't know if you're here, but said when you talk so much about tradition, it sounds very Catholic. I don't think so. I think it sounds very Protestant. Being reformed, and that's probably going to rub a lot of you the wrong way, but being Reformed, I take very seriously tradition,

and I don't think that it should be easily overturned. And I think that Dr. Allison is right. There has, I am going to challenge a little bit this idea of there having been a consensus. But for the most part, he is right. There has been a consensus, and we have to take that very seriously. I just think that presentations like yours and Dr. Evans, and if I can say so, the presentation I'm going to be giving are grounds for challenging that presumptive authority. And, you know, I'll leave that up to you to decide. But the point I'm getting at is I actually,

I want to take Dr. Allison's side here a little bit and say that one thing we should take away is we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss a consensus of the church. Do take it seriously. And I would hate if there's somebody here who's on the fence and suddenly after tonight, bam, you're a beaver in conditional immortality. I think that's a little too quick. Take your time, take it seriously. And I would hate if there's somebody here who's on the fence and suddenly after tonight, bam, you're a beaver in conditional immortality. I think that's a little too quick. Take your time, take it seriously. And I, yeah, I mean, people, people ask me how come, you know, it's taken you so long to land where you do on annihilation. And it was really the way to the church tradition. I mean, that's, I, I want to take that seriously. I don't want to be so arrogant that here I am in 21st century Western America with my ex-Jesus that I can overturn, you know, a massive weight of tradition. I will say, though, I mean, our tradition is a bit checkered.

I mean, misogyny has been, in fact, a lot of people use quoting. I could also quote their statements on women and how women have been treated and how even marriage is really designed for procreation alone. That's been a consensus as far as I know. Or anti-Semitism. There's been a lot of that in christian history slavery isn't quite uniform but that's that's been a big part of our tradition and obviously flat earth and several other things so i uh our our tradition is checkered now i say that not to say oh therefore we dismiss it but you know um i guess i'm i am a little more um eager or want to say cautious, but a little more, maybe less cautious than some of my ECT friends would be in overturning the tradition. The question I want to ask in literal flames, has that always been part of the tradition as far as you know?

I mean, or is that? The metaphorical thing, the flames being metaphor for some sort of separation or torment seems to me to be somewhat novel historically i could be wrong about that and if there's anybody who's a historian uh correct me please but when i look at like for example um not just a few years ago there was this whole strange fire conference right and there was this big hullabaloo about charismatics and and um we sort of riffed on that in an article at rethinking hell saying that the real strange fire was actually this fire that somebody named felix uh very earlier in the church described, which is a fire that literally melts off people's flesh, but simultaneously regenerates it forever and ever and ever. That idea, and then you have the language of Edwards and Spurgeon who talk very, you know, in stark terms about almost like a

spider being hung over or dangled over a pit of flames, writhing in torment. And it seems to me that this idea of it meaning something like separation from God and not to be taken literally is rather novel. And that's why it's actually traditionalists who not too long ago were accused of being soft-hearted and backpedaling on hell because they were taking this sort of separation view of hell instead of a literal flames view. And even Al Mohler cautions against that in his contribution to hell under fire so i would say i i personally think that this separation stuff is is a way to try and soften the idea because many of us do have a real strong revulsion to the idea of the literal flames what would you say about the weight of the tradition so i'm i'm not a historical theologian i've i've done some work in like pre uh augustinian kind of pre-nicea

um fathers in certain areas but so my understanding is that there was a quite a bit of diversity prior to augustine we've talked about that i mean several you know athanasius irenaeus and several others they're you know big big names like these are not on the fringes of the early church that would have been more it seems like there were conditionalists then augustine comes on and obviously a massive influence very clear and doesn't just assume ect but really argues for it um and then after that it seems not not uniform but that is the dominant view do you have any thoughts on how that came about how there was this kind of diversion all of a sudden boom it's just like one view for you know the next thousand years or so well i think you put the nail on the head i think that um i think that in ath or uh in augustine

you've got somebody who's extremely intelligent extremely respected and deservedly so and i think that his influence is deserved um and i think that no it's sort of everybody sort of followed in his footsteps i there may be more to the story than that and i certainly think that there's more of the story the later you get into church history when you know it's going to start becoming a capital offense to disbelieve in the traditional view. Nowadays, there are professors and pastors who will lose their livelihoods if they even consider an alternative to the tradition. So, I mean, I'm better able to explain why it persists. I'm less able to explain why that turning point happened with Augustine.

I think it was mostly his influence, yeah. Yeah. And if you guys have any questions, you can go ahead and come up here. His influence, yeah. Yeah. And if you guys have any questions, you can go ahead and come up here. What do you think about, he made an interesting thought about the, Greg did, about the need for this to catch on. We would need almost like another reformation.

Do you agree that's not going to happen in our lifetime? Or do you find that that's unnecessary? Is that for this view to really have credibility? For the annihilation view to have credibility? Yeah, I think, I mean, I don't know if I would go so far as it has to be like the reformation but i do think it is going to be something like that given the presumptive authority of the tradition that dr allison scribed um there was another part of your question that i won't started to pick up on and i've already forgotten uh oh do you think that the the a reform in our lifetime yes right yeah no so this is this is a tough question i do think i mean especially with the advent of the internet, gatekeepers of the tradition are no longer able to prevent curious, interested hearers from hearing what it is that people like you and I have to say.

So I do think they're not going to be able to do that any longer. And I see the tide changing. I mean, you've told me about pastors and professors you've spoken to who are in the closet. In other words, they're already there. I can't say so yet. And I think that'll, I think, here's the thing, before you come back, the reason why I'm reluctant to assume that that perception I have is right is because they thought the Christian analysts and annihilationists in the 8th century America thought the same thing. Often quoted a guy named Jacob Blaine who thought that the traditional view was on the verge of

collapse. There were so many Christians, he said said who held to the annihilation of the lost that it there's no possible way the tradition could come back and and dominate it did yeah right at least in the states so you know i think we're on the verge of that happening but you know something could happen and change part of the problem too and i want to get to your question is that i mean there's so many things you said i want to branch but the the the internet's huge that is i mean the reformation happened it wasn't because martin luther it wasn't because of printing press romans it was the good news the printing press and now the internet is like printing press times a thousand and so like you said now there's exposure to views me i found very how many like

like stalwart i was saving word like I know very few evangelical leaders and thinkers who advocate for ECT because they thoroughly studied the issue. I mean, you debated somebody, I'm not going to name any names, but he's one of the brightest humans I've ever even heard of in a Christian faith. And he almost wasn't aware of the passages in the discussion.

Like people aren't really racing to become an expert on hell. So I know very few who have actually done that, I think, in the biblical material and and and you know champion ect there's a you know a dozen or so names you can think of that are published or written on it and i mean overwhelming majority of people who are like oh yeah that's totally what i believe what do you think about isaiah 66 24 and they're like i don't know what that verse say you know they're not that aware of the discussion and in fact i think um uh when

people's uh uh part of the rethinking hell team he once said that um uh his experience well and this has been the experience for many of us we're we're encountered with this view this alternative to the tradition and our immediate thought particularly if we're apologists who've interacted with jehovah's witnesses and mormons and things our initial thought is oh come on i can think of a i can think of a hundred verses that support the doctrine of eternal torment okay name some well you know and then you know there's a little bit of hemming and hawing and you might be able to come up with what you call the big three. I think we gave you that term, but I think it was Ronnie Demler, in fact, who originally hooked us up that came up with the phrase big three, but for the most part,

yeah. And even the ones they do quote like Mark nine, they're not aware of its, of its old Testament background, let alone it's in a 10, a intertestamental background. So yeah, I don't think that I think, I think what's happened is most people that are not sort of in the trenches like we are, they've just assumed that the only people who question this are liberals and soft-hearted, you know, people who can't countenance the idea of a wrathful God.

And they think that, they think it's just Jehovah's Witnesses and so on and so forth. Those are the only people who question this traditional view. So they don't feel the need to go into the level of depth that one must really do in order to have this conversation all right first question

great and you can direct it at both one or just yeah great appreciate that i appreciate the discussion and the charitable nature of it and all that and uh um you know preston you you said last night that hey we follow the text all right and yet we acknowledge tension and acknowledge mischarge the limits of our understanding right and, you know, you said about this person who rejects or whatever and God chooses to torment them. I mean, you could worship God like that. And so, yeah. And you said at the end of theology and they're all, you know, not that long ago. Hey, I mean, we believe that God is good and we believe that God is loving and he's going to do the right thing.

And I agree with all that, you know. And yet, as I study the scripture, I mean, I can't find a reason why I could not be among the deceived, you know, and so I find myself kind of in the Christian universalist camp along the lines of Robin Perry, because I feel like if I can't trust God to save everyone that I can't trust God to save me, you know, and I feel like I mean, the traditionalist or the annihilationist perspective, I feel like they must be willing to say, hey, I trust God to do the right thing. I trust that God is good, even if he sends me to hell, even if he

annihilates me, you know, this is what I believe. And so, yeah, I mean, why am I not among those in Matthew 7, 21 to 23, you know, who seem genuinely surprised that they're not in? And so, anyways, I just want to hear your comments on that. That's a great thought. Yeah. Is God just, even if he sends me to hell, I mean, I guess I answer might be a little too simple. But if I do trust the scriptures and if salvation is through confessing that Jesus is Lord, believe in your heart, God raised him from the dead, which I do, I actually do. Do I waver in doubt? Do I disobey him?

Yeah, absolutely. But when it comes down to how is somebody saved by faith, I have that, I have that condition. And I guess you would say, well, yeah, so the Pharisees, they thought so too and everything. And yeah, that's a, I don't know. Yeah, I guess for me, I do. So I don't, I will, hopefully I would say yes. If, if I have not met the, this is going to sound so works righteousness, but if I have not met the criteria is for salvation, then God in his perfect justice, if he is good,

he is God. And if I have not met the standards he requires i would take faith in jesus christ and then yeah that should be that would be dust i would say that theoretically obviously i would be weeping and gnashing my teeth too and you know um yeah that's a yeah the universalism i i scare people well i scare my traditionalist friends when i say this i mean i think there's much more biblical credibility for universalism one of the old not the main reason why i'm not a universalist is the strength of annihilation I scare my traditionalist friends when I say this. I mean, I think there's much more biblical credibility for universalism in ECD. One of the main reason why I'm not a universalist is the strength of annihilation, really.

And I think that by definition rules out universalism. Whereas I tell my ECD friend, like the burden rests on you. You believe in consciousness. You believe in a body. You believe that the human person is fully intact. And yet, obviously they would repent after being tormented for a few minutes, hours, maybe a day or two, they would hold on and tormented for a few minutes hours maybe a

day or two they would hold on and probably all right give up you know so you're saying god who wants all to come to him is prevent you will not either accept their repentance or he seals them so that they can't and then maybe there's biblical arguments for that you can you can do that but that the burden of proof would rest on them they are alive forever and ever and ever as me if you face judgment and are annihilated that that by definition rules out universals. Unless you say, you know, at that judgment. So, yeah, Robin Perry, I mean, he's a friend and he's a brilliant scholar. And when I read his book, I was like, wow, he's no joke.

And his contribution to the book you edited, too, is really good. Oh, man, yeah. Almost better than somebody we would have liked to have done a better job. It was part of the most compelling essay. It was, it was. Theologically, I don't know about biblically but theologically i just want to say in answer to the question that was asked uh and this is going to sound this is a very reformed answer but it's also genuine i mean this um firstly uh um why me why why am i among the saved well that's the whole point of grace right it's not merited it's not it's not it's egalitarian

fairness it's not based on how smart you are or how righteous you are or how loving you are or whatever. It's, it's just God's grace. And so why, you know, why me and not somebody else? I have no idea, but thank God I am, if I am. But as for the second question, what if I'm not? Am I okay with God annihilating me? None of you are in my thought life every day. I am in my thought life every day and I'm really wicked, really wicked. That sounds harsh, but it's true. I'm prideful, I'm lustful, I'm greedy, and the list could go on and on and on. And so, yes, I have a very experiential sense of the fact that I deserve to die. Experiential, let alone biblical and theological. So, no, I would not

have a problem. I mean, yes, I'd be scared and I'd be terrified and I'd be, I hope I'm not gnashing my teeth in anger because I feel like I deserve it. But yeah, I do very much feel like I deserve it. And next question. First time caller, long time listener. I hope this is okay to sit here like this. I do have a question, but quite honestly, my heart really burned with this last question of yours. So who's someone who's not reformed, and yet I'm a conditionalist, will quickly say that a few years ago, after a routine surgery,

I had an artery rupture. And as they were rushing me, this is where it really meets the road, rushing me into the hospital, into the emergency room, or back into surgery, this thing played out in my heart. As I was praying, The first prayer was easy because it was a conditional. I mean, it was a routine surgery and I really was confident I was coming out the other side. Things were a little different as they were rushing me and I'm bleeding out and I'm praying, I'm talking to my God. And I told him, I said, you know what? I know how wretched I really am. I mean, I had honest time with the Lord. I said, I know how wretched I am. And as a conditionalist and someone not reformed, I said, God, I know how good you are.

I know how just you are. I know how holy you are. Whatever you deem concerning me, I have absolute peace. And I had absolute peace as they threw me over onto the surgery table and I woke up, as you know. Thank goodness. So my question is concerning presumed authority. Did I say that right? Presumptive authority. Presumptive authority. Although I think there was somewhere said presumptive privilege, kind of like that a little bit. And the question that was asked about how quickly this thing could turn around, my thought is, is just look at a model that we have. Do we have a model? The question is this, do we have a model in that throughout

church history, just as an example, the 70th week of Daniel was fulfilled throughout most of church history, people believed, and correct me if I'm wrong, and then yet in a short amount of period, or a short amount of time, we have a great portion, it seems like the biggest part of the church, that believes in the 70th week of Daniel being future. It was a quick turnaround with what I believe is a weak biblical case. For this, we got a strong biblical case. How much quicker could this be turned around? You got any thoughts on that? They're percolating.

Yeah, so I think that it makes a ton of sense if, as human beings, we were rational people. And I don't think we are very rational. we were rational people. And I don't think we are very rational. And so, when you've got peer pressure and social pressure and you've got professional pressure and all these pressures, and just the pressure of how could so many Christians that I hold in such high regard have been wrong on this? You've got all that pressure. Frankly, the weight of the biblical data may not play as big a factor as you and I are inclined to think that they probably should. So, I guess, so yeah, I'm not sure that the weight of the biblical evidence means it's likely to happen faster than dispensationalism, I think is what you're describing. I hope so, though. Yeah, I totally agree with Chris. And there's a,

one of the most influential books I've ever read is by a psychologist named Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind, Why Good People Disagree on Politics and Religion. It just shows that the most sound, robust, rational arguments will rarely convince anybody of something if they're committed to that position for it. And he shows, I mean, he's a secular Jewish psychologist. He shows, I mean, that psychologically, that's just how we are as humans. You don't start to question your ration. You don't start to ration until you first desire to do it or there's something going on psychologically that needs to kind of open up before you even sit a rational argument. So, yeah, I agree that I think as much as the biblical data, I mean, there seems to be clear, really clear passages like 2 Peter 2, 6 and many, many others that I show people and they kind of, it's like deer in the headlights and like, because the assumption is your view is unorthodox.

It's radical. My pastor who's smarter than you, who, you know, was at my bedside when I was sick, doesn't agree with you. And there's so many, there's such complex psychological things going on to prevent somebody from seeing the text and saying, oh yeah, you're right. That's, that's exactly what it, what it means. And I know because, well, not only was I like that, but I am, I'm like that with probably other things right now. That's probably what am i committed to that you know when

i hear i'm like oh that's not right now tell me your view you know like explain it so i can show you why you're wrong but that's that's the mindset that we have um so i don't i don't know i don't know i think maybe the put in a post internet may age it might be different also with younger people i know very few people church planners and so on that know, are under 40 that are very open to Christians. Or even like, I'll explain it. They're like, oh yeah, it makes sense. Like, what about tradition? What about this?

Whatever. Like, well, I believe the Bible, this makes more sense of God. And yeah, that sounds good. You know, it's just that the resistance isn't really there. So, I don't know. It'd be interesting to see in the next 10 years what the weight of evangelical thoughts can be. By the way, before we come to the questioner, I know one thing I wanted to comment on earlier. You said you think there's more biblical evidence for universalism than for the traditional view.

I'm actually inclined to agree. I still think it's almost zero. But what I will say, and I've said this before, so this will come as no surprise to some of you, I think the debate of the future is between conditional immortality and universalism. So I think it's very plausible that in 10, 20 years, conferences like this will be primarily the kind that we had in 2015 between conditionalism and universalism. It'll be more that than the traditional view. Yeah. So regarding tradition, like even in the church today, we've, the predominant view of maybe soteriology is more Romanian, semi-Pelagian even. We had people leave our church because they accused the pastor of preaching heresy. They didn't understand that they were semi-Pelagians.

They were actually the heretics, right? So, things have shifted so much. But I wonder if this kind of Armenian semi-Pelagianism, a lot of that is driven by the doctrine of eternal conscious torment, right? Understanding, even trying to hold in your mind that idea, like I think Allison quoted Don Stott, just it's unconscionable. Like you can't even think on it very long. I wonder if just the very thought of it drives people into a realm of

saying, if that's true, then everybody has to have an equal chance, right? And then versus somebody who's more reformed, my struggle is the Bible drove me into reformed theology and I held this view of eternal unconscious form. And so, I'm like, wow wow now I'm reformed and I don't like Romans 9 but I'm going to believe what Romans 9 says and God is God that whole path now I'm like wow Bible led me to a reformed position which created tension and yet maybe the Bible is also leading me to a place I'm just wondering if you think that long way to get to the question that the doctrine a biblical doctrine of eternity could help lead a kind of heretical church that are semi-Pelagians into a more biblical view of God's salvation. I'll go first on that one. I think that's an interesting question.

and brothers and sisters in Christ who are not Calvinists, of whom most of you probably are, would say even if conditionalism is true and if it becomes the dominant view, it's still not going to make Calvinism any more palatable. So I want to say that. And having been said, if I'm not mistaken, one of the breakout speakers, I just found this out two nights ago, one of the breakout speakers I think did a paper on the incompatibility of eternal conscious torment and Calvinism. And he is a traditionalist. I mean, he's going to be advocating in hisatibility of eternal conscious torment and Calvinism. And he is a traditionalist. I mean, he's going to be advocating in his breakout session for eternal conscious torment.

Again, if I'm not mistaken and getting my wires crossed by who we're talking about. So on that thesis, it's very conceivable that yes, if conditionalism becomes more dominant, at the very least, even if they don't come all the way to the truth of Calvinism, at least they'll come, at least they'll come, you know, like you said, out of semi-Pelagianism and at least to something like an Arminianism or, I mean, depending on how you do open theism relative to semi-Pelagianism, maybe that too. I think it's plausible. I don't have anything. Okay. All right. Two questions. Very simple. The first one will be engaging someone with conditional mortality,

getting their colleagues going. The question would be, if you had one question or one statement to say to them to really get them thinking what would it be and the second one has to do with near-death hearings i'll wait yeah for me um i like to ask people why do you believe what you believe like so you hold to this view can you expect just explain to me why like what why do you believe and then if there is something there then then i would say well what would it take for you to change you again in most conversations with these kind of real tense illogical things that there's a lot of fear in people and everybody's going liberal in the slippery slope and everything um i want to know up front is this even worth a conversation

right now if not we can just talk about football or something i just i hockey yeah um because again going back to that book i referenced the righteous mind it's like people simply will not change i've been in conversations about other debates you know know, Bible open, you know, English and Greek and sitting across the table and being accused of being unbiblical. And I'm like, okay, well, here's how I'm interpreting this passage. How do you, no Bible open, just like,

so you're a biblical Christian, right? Yep. Where's your Bible? Like I'm showing you from the Bible, what I believe, it's just, it's not going anywhere. And I used to really engage that and get frustrated and whatever. it's just like i kind of feel it out ahead of time can i see is there any room here for some sort of dialogue um if there's not then i just honestly don't so yeah why do you believe what you believe and and then what would it take for you to change you i'm going to ask greg that like i just can't what would it take would it take a more reformation

to happen or individually would you if you need to see certain things that happen? As a historical theologian, I imagine you'd say there needs to be something more than just. Right. Yeah. For me, I've had a lot of success with Isaiah 66, 24. I remember several years ago in the Facebook group. And by the way, if anybody's not a part of the Rethinking Health Facebook group, it's a ton of fun. There's also a little bit of sometimes there's more heat than light, but usually we do a good job of keeping it light. I remember one time there was a good week or so where we kept coming up with these memes, these conditionalist memes. And one of them was a picture of a koala bear on a tree. And he's holding the tree. He's looking at the camera

and his eyes are wide open. Like, you know, what was that? And I put on there, Isaiah 66, 24 talks about corpses? You know, and I've had people who will quote Mark 9, 48, that worm will not die, fire will not be quenched. I'll say, go read Isaiah 66, 24. What do you make of this? And they're like, hey, that's interesting. I don't know what to do with that. You know, some of the more staunch of them will be like, oh, well, that's just symbolism for the second death or something like that. But that's typically a good way to people to think, oh, maybe it's not quite.

In fact, I think Glenn Peebles might have been the one who, yeah, I think before I became a conditionalist, that was one of the things that Glenn Peebles got me to think about. As for near-death experiences, do you want to elaborate on the question at all? Basically, so after three years of investigating this, listening to podcasts, reading, I'm convinced of conditional mortality. I wanted to conquer the intermediate state, and so I read, I started listening to Glenn Peoples' podcast. I got overwhelmed.

The philosophical nature of it, I stopped. But non-reductive physicalism, soul sleep versus a conscious intermediate state. The Liberty professor specializes in this. Yes. He talks about evidential near-death experiences. And I've had some

very close people that have passed away and you hear about these experiences of people recognizing things on the rooftop of the hospital, things that there's

no way they could have known unless their spirit was separate from their body. I didn't know, to me, that's a pretty

strong pushback against soul sleep, but I wanted to talk about those evidential near-death experiences, not the ones that can be taken away with oxygen deprivation.

Before you answer that, I just want to caution. This is important because as a ministry, we've made a very conscious decision not to camp in this doctrine because the reality is as a team, we're mixed. I am a non-reductive physicalist and others in this very room on the team are not. So just be aware that what we're giving here is not really directly related to the topic, but we'll certainly share our thoughts. I just do. I do. As somebody who, again, is a continuationist, charismatic on paper, at least, I'm and I was raised in John MacArthur's camp, so very much wasn't raised in an environment. So I just want to qualify that before I say what I'm going to say, but I still do. I just have a hard time neither believing nor disbelieving experiences because my Hindu friends will say they died died and met khali and khali is the right guy you know whatever and like muslims and never

the atheists will say yeah i had a near that experience there is no god you know so i don't i i again i don't i would have a less enthusiasm taking somebody's experience because even just psychologically we we have the capability to have made up of all kinds of stuff that is stories wherever i mean like minds are weakened. I mean, any psychologist, you go to say, and your memories, you have the capability of forming memories that never happened. Whole stories just to cope with trauma. So, the complexity of the human mind makes me kind of, again, not distrust people as in that didn't happen, but not always trust them either. What I can do is I have a God-breathed out text that I can see these words and I can try

to interpret them. So that's really where I want to focus. My answer to the question is I think it's interesting that the first thing we go to when we see this kind of powerful evidence is it must be some sort of a disembodied conscious state where they can see their surroundings and so forth. I think that's, I mean, let's put aside whether or not the evidence is in fact strong. I'm not convinced that it is, but let's assume for the sake of argument it is. Why should the first conclusion we leap to be people must be conscious in death? What about precognition? I mean, the mind is incredibly complex and we don't know much about it. Maybe there's precognition going on there. In other words, seeing the future,

right? I mean, we do have, prophecy has every bit as sound a biblical precedent as disembodied existence in fact i would argue more so being so he doesn't believe in disembodied consciousness so i i think that there are i guess i guess what i'm saying is let's let's be even if we accept the strength of the evidence let's at least explore other explanations besides merely just bodied experience so i have a question but if i could just speak that a little bit because i love that topic i've heard the same stories on str shout out to greg cokel and str interacting um thank you we'd love to interact with them yeah um but so i've and some of those are really entry cognition is one thing but i think something you have to take into account is a the assumption of our tool is which is not something it's just

something we think about i would say in the same way that most people think about it don't contradict the idea they're making their stay inherent in the whole truth when you just say so like there there are certain world views and i of a physicalism where it's not that the spirit is inside the body, but that the body is up here. And so the finiteness, the limitation body is something that you think of it as body, but they're a act of and a heart to wrap. And then my second question is kind of an observation and then a question on top of that. Because I find in most of the interactions I've listened to, there's a lot of nationalism with torment.

Your debate and debate previously on intellectual giants was embarrassing, in my opinion. I want to say a word about, for those of you who know who we've been talking about, if he had known, I think, what he was getting into, he would have done a much better job preparing. Right. And also, I think his argument was a little misunderstood. He wasn't saying we should just accept tradition. He was saying that tradition is the reason. So I just want to be careful. Yeah, for those of you who know i'm talking about he deserves more respect

than i think he sometimes gets which is not to say you're disrespecting him well that particular thing um okay all right and that's maybe because he was unpaired that's fine um so a logical fallacy is an ability also built and in my experience that's the only thing i ever hear met hearing from my form is a bill story like you have to blame why and if you claim to be vandalically same protestant not going to imagine and so like bill of authority. Like you have to claim why. And if you claim to be evangelical, if you claim to be Protestant, not going to act, imagine. And so like, you don't believe what you actually say. You're not going to admit that. Especially, and I don't,

I interact with lay people about this a lot. And I'm like, fine, lay people don't get that. But if you're an elder, you're a leader, if you're an intellectual and you don't see that, somewhat borderline shameful and really bad. So have you, so then my question on top of that is that, but then also what are the best on the subject? Like I know on your blog,

there's a very reasonable fictional argument. Outside of that, I don't even, I mean I know a reasonable fictional argument outside of that. I don't even know. I mean, that was right. But outside of that, I don't know anyone. What's that? Oh, well, yeah. For.

Yeah. So four views. Those are good ones. I'm assuming he doesn't meet in print because you also have the two views of hell with Edward late Edward Fudge and Robert Peterson. And you've got the four views that you edited in the previous one of that. So you do have some print ones. But if let's let's ask answer the question in the context of live debate or or blog debate or whatever um yeah as far as

specific texts i mean i think second peter 2 6 my favorite go to yeah like i did last night i asked a question what did peter believe happened to me precisely what he he answers that question on paper i just asked the question i just ask again it will become like the city's asana it'll be reduced to ashes is that what you're asking to clarify what? What I'm... Like, biblical texts? Or are you talking books? What I'm trying to ask is, in your experience, do you have reasonable interactions with people about the text? Have there been traditionalists that have argued with you from the text?

Honestly, in the world... Because I don't swim in, like, really far conservative evangelical circles. And so, I don't have a lot of resistance on this. And I think... Maybe, i don't have a lot of resistance on this and i think uh maybe i don't know i i've maybe i've developed a reputation of being honest as honest as i can with the text so when i say this is where i'm at the assumption is um oh well he must have biblical reason for it so i haven't met i mean there's some watching your debates i just cringe at the famine and just the real antagonism almost i'm just like i just that hasn't been really my world

i remember i had some students of mine at eternity bible college but a southern seminary oh no no i had a friend of mine who was at southern seminary very conservative uh school and um and he heard there he said oh you went to ebc oh did you know preston is an annihilationist now and his first response was well i sat under him and his first response was he must have really good biblical reasons for it because i don't probably agree with it whatever but that was his initial response so that's um so i but i haven't had i haven't had kind of like a lot of good success like aha moments talking people part i mean part of it because i haven't really planted my stake here until recently like i've been leaning this way for a while i've been waiting i've been waiting for this conference so

yeah maybe we'll see now after i've just got converted last night. So yeah. Yeah. Or it came out of the closet. Yeah. I mean, I don't, the only, the only one I can think of that I've had that I think was largely focused on the text was my debate with Len Pettis. And then that was, I don't, I don't have a high opinion of his interpretation of the text he went to and their relevance to the debate, but at least it was biblically focused. And I just want to use this as an opportunity. Many of you know that I'm an enormous fan of Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries. And I think that no debate on this topic would be more biblical and more focused on the text than a debate between Dr. White and myself. And he knows I want to debate him. So I just, in case he listens to this, you know,

hopefully he'll hear me and say, this would be a fantastic debate between- Has he said no or what's the, does he say anything? He doesn't want to become the apologist for hell. He doesn't want this to become the focus of his ministry. And he doesn't really want to touch eschatology more broadly either. I mean, it doesn't stop him from critiquing our view on occasion. I will say he's very respectful about it, at least in recent years. So, yeah, hopefully, you know, hey, why don't all of you email Alpha and Omega Ministries and say, hey, let's see James White and Chris to debate.

But that would be a good one. But in short, no, there typically is not a lot of good live or blog form interaction on this topic on the text itself. Next question. A big point to define immortality. So can you elaborate on how that compares? How are you defining immortality? I guess, yeah, you've done more thoughts on that on this. And I thought his response was really interesting. guess, yeah, you've done more thoughts on that on this, and I thought his response

was really interesting. Yeah, Chris, what do you think about that? Well, so it's clear to me that the absolute utmost respect for Dr. Allison, he's obviously wrong. I mean, seriously. No, no, no, hear me out. Hear me out. So he quoted 1 Timothy where it says immortality belongs to God alone.

Same word is in fact used to describe what the saved get. Just look at 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 5, if it's all over the place, and in other places where that language isn't used. So, it seems to me that from a biblical basis, clearly, immortality is something that we get when we become partakers of the divine nature. Some of us in here are either considering Eastern Orthodoxy or are leaning that way or whatever. One of the things, I'm not an Eastern Orthodox, but one of the things they, I think, have a lot to offer is their view of theosis and divination, not divination. That's something different.

That's the LDS. No, deification, thank you, or theosis. But that's actually coming into the Protestant tradition as well. You've got people like, what's the name of the guy, Richard Middleton, right? Who is arguing for that kind of thing. It's actually becoming increasingly popular. I think the message is clear from scripture that immortality is a communicable attribute, not an incommunicable one. And it's explicitly said so in places like 1 Corinthians. That's what was my thought. I just haven't done as much work on that. I don't know the historical i always assume that augustine had assumed some you know intrinsic immortality of

the soul and therefore bull can't be destroyed and i just i'm not an expert i would so my um i have wondered i know the conditionalist argument that um immortality is a gift given you know through the resurrection faith in jesus christ and therefore unbelievers aren't immortal i just wonder though if there's room there could be room this is i guess that an argument that would need to address room for some sort of existence ongoing it wouldn't be technically classified as immortal so that the idea immortality isn't just um never-ending existence it's something more about both never-ending but also quality kind of like we talk about you know eternal life isn't just eternal bios this is zoe just like a quality of life so that's one of my one hesitation with even the term conditional i don't i don't think

i i do think that the conditional immortality as it's taught in scripture which i absolutely believe in isn't quite enough to prove uh conditionalism i do this is where i do like to elevate the language deduction kind of like all we had was conditional immortality, there could be room for some sort of existence that wouldn't be classified as the biblical concept of immortality. I'm not saying I agree with that. I'm just saying, I think we would need to argue for that, not just... Well, let me try to argue that. So, first of all, historically, I'm trying to be funny. I don't know if I've succeeded. Historically, the traditionalists, and I'm going to quote a bunch of them in my talks today, they have very, very openly described the state of the wicked as immortality, explicitly.

And even lay people today will say, everybody gets eternal life. The question is where you live it. So, I mean, this is very, this is very, is it possible that there's some form of the tradition where they're not made immortal? that's possible, but that's more novel than the view that we have. That's more historical than the view that we have. But that's first thing. Secondly, um, we're upheld in existence right now, yet we're sure to die.

That's what makes us mortal, right? So, so if God, if we're going to say that the resurrected wicked are not immortal, God is just sort of upholding them in existence. Number one, how is that different from now?

And number two, if that's the case, why will we die but they won't? And if they don't, then they're immortal. And that was my third point, which is that the word immortal to us in English, I think, carries certain connotations that I'm not convinced biblical, the Greek word for immortality and incorruption, I'm not convinced they have those in common connotations. For example, athonitas. It doesn't mean immortal. It means not dying, not death. So, if the wicked are resurrected and however they're upheld in existence, if they're never going to die, that is by biblical definition, immortal. Athonitas,

not dying. That's my view. I didn't know if it was a semantics of a definition where his definition, the incommunicable, more like eternal, no beginning no no end versus you can have a beginning and no end when we talk about eternal life i didn't know if it's semantics or there was some greek stuff that i definitely know about things yeah sure anybody else have any questions want to come up and i just took a bite of my taco you know i wonder where dr evans went i was hoping we talked to him for a few minutes um i just want to say if there are any of you breakout speakers i know some of you are here who would like to come up and say a word or two about what your talk is going to be please feel free to come up and we'd love to give you guys an opportunity to encourage people to come to your session um i

certainly want some people to come to williams and mine i don't want everybody to so if you're please do consider going to adela's and zach manis's and rob's bob swans uh and i think i'm is there a fourth one i'm getting of course nick where is somewhere around here i don't know why i can't see him okay oh well did ever did all the breakout speakers oh i see zach there if anyway but anyway if any of you want to come up please do anadella say a word or two about what you're going to be talking about but in the meantime i'll let you ask a question real quick i want to the back of the immortal question okay um because okay yes i get the way it's been framed in church history i get that and then lay level but just going back to the bible is there any case that can be made for somebody um lives on and yet isn't classified as biblical concept of immortality i'm thinking um

you know that the shades and shield or something you know people some sort of afterlife yeah well so you're saying oh you're saying if you're if you're living forever in an embodied existence that means immortality that's all thanatos athanotos, not dying. Now, there are some who, so throughout church history, again, the wicked in hell have always been thought to be embodied, physical, resurrected people. I'm aware of no historical figures, no respected historical Christians have taught otherwise. I think that we're on the verge of, if the tradition is going to continue advocating for some sort of eternal torment, it's going to have to be in disembodied, a disembodied hell. Now, I have arguments against that too, but I think that's the direction they're going to have

to go because I think that's the only way to get around the biblical language of immortality. Okay, that's good. Preston, last night you were talking about the curse of Adam, and then you were talking about the curse of the law, and that's both of those deaths. Those curses came about at different times in Indian history, but they seem to, they're running parallel. I want to add this question. Do they converge then in Jesus' ministry where he talks about the fact that, you know,

rushing over from day to day to life? In other words, in Paul's discussion, in other words, do both of those converge into one? If I understand your question, I think yes. I mean,

my understanding of the Old Testament story is that what happens in the garden sort of happens again in the life of Israel. So, that Israel is kind of like viewed as the new Adam. You see a lot of parallels, for instance, between Genesis 12 and 50, which, you know, it's kind of like we're replaying the story of Eden again. Like, it didn't work out with that dude, so let's try it again with Abraham and that. It's not really working out. So, that there is a lot of correlation between first language, death language, life language, between Genesis 1 and 2, and then the ongoing story of Israel, so that when Jesus comes on the scene, he's both the new Adam and the new virgin. I don't have an ad. Yeah, come on up, Rhys, if you want to ask. Rhys is one of the members of the

Bethany Hill Facebook group, if you don't mind me saying so. How many people do you have in that group? It's like Greg said, it's over 2,000, I think, by now. Wow, that's huge. And just to be clear, it's all major views held represented there. So, it's not just like a conditionalism five-party, a lot of traditionalists and universalists yeah real briefly so you know i grew up having nightmares about general torment initially about me and then i think i got sort of resolved to my own salvation but it's the whole idea um and chris i've heard you say if i if i understood you i'm going to clarify some things that i've maybe or ask you to clarify what i've heard is that you think that i thought i've heard you say that you would rather be annihilated you'd rather be tormented

than annihilate and which kind of makes me well well, you know, what's your whole motivation? I mean, why is, obviously you're very motivated with all the stuff you do. Can you elaborate on that statement a little more? Sure. For whatever reason, I fall into the same category of people that Greeks like Augustine and Plutarch described for whom an eternity of torment would have easily been preferable to ceasing to be. And both Plutarch and Augustine, who, by the way, was not an annihilationist, but he said, and if I had time, I'd bring up the quote for you. He said that on the instant that a wicked person were offered these two alternatives, either ceasing to exist or living forever in

torment, they would exultantly, happily accept being tormented for eternity. And I know that seems bizarre to some of you anyway, but it doesn't to me. When I was a child, before I was a believer, I pictured what it would be. So I was an atheist up until I was about 20 years old. And when I was very young, I remember trying to imagine what it would be like to cease to exist.

And of course, there's no way to do that. It's impossible because even when you're imagining it or existing, you're conscious about it. The closest thing I could come to was just utter blackness, total blackness. Terrified. Absolutely terrified me. Thought, I'm almost coming to tears just thinking about it. The thought of, I mean, I don't care.

Look, I would rather smell the nasty aroma of a pile of dog doo-doo on the ground and never get to smell again. I would rather breathe in the smog of LA and feel air entering and exiting my lungs and never get to have a breath again. Now, maybe I'm not doing a good enough job making it sound as serious as I think it is, but I do think it's very serious. I think that annihilation is terrifying, but I know that many don't. And so that's why for me, it's make a big deal out of that when I'm talking about this is to show that what a person fears more is a very subjective thing. And it's a cultural thing. And it's a historical thing.

Where you land in history, where you land in cultures, these are the kinds of things that will determine where you come down on that question. And that's why we've got to go to the Bible. It doesn't matter if that's what terrifies me more. Any thoughts to add to that? Well, yeah, I don't. I wouldn't agree with you on that, but you framed it in a subjective sense, so we can agree to disagree. I guess I would say that as long as you keep it subjective, that this is how you feel, then I'm fine with it. But if you did make it more objective, I think that you kind of undercut the view of like, well, wait a minute, if annihilation, if ECT is so bad, it reflects the character of God.

If you actually flip it, they know actually annihilation is worse. You kind of are still left with a tension of God's doing something to take the view that this isn't as safe, as bad. Well, and some of the people on the Rethinking Hell team have made a distinction between what's objectively worse and what's subjectively worse. If life in and of itself is a good thing, and I think it is, and to be deprived of even that would be more severe than to give the wicked life forever, because then they're at least getting life, which is an objectively good thing. So I would argue that from an objective standpoint, what is real, regardless of how we feel about it, annihilation is severer, more severe than life and torment forever. But on the other hand, there's also the subjective element. How do we feel, you know, what would it be like

to experience that? And we all have heard stories and maybe even know people who've been in the most imaginable pain and would love to die to get it over with now i think there's an element of that of them thinking there's something on the side if they didn't think that i'm not so sure they'd be so quick to want that but putting that aside the point is is that uh subjectively it may be that eternal torment is more severe and objectively it's annihilation that's possible in which case it could be that might help us to better understand how these different feats are consistent or not with the character i also have a problem i mean again we're dealing with the subject of things so it's almost going but i mean there's plenty of people who would rather commit suicide and not live on

in a life to be more miserable than that even do things that we take them out of his misery or if how is a frame we feel it for humane reason not because we think that's first that he suffered because even white power and i just read with that i'm not living on a farm um but i don't know i don't i don't know if that really i My assumption is most people aren't going to buy that. Tell that to Augustine and Plutarch. I mean, it depends on where you live in time. Maybe the ancients. Yeah. The ancients didn't get everything

wrong. Please, go ahead. I am one of the presenters. I just want to say something quickly. I come from a Roman Catholicism background and also Reformed theology. In Reformed theology, holiness of God and the sovereignty of God is a huge thing. So, when I heard Professor Allison say, when he put up the nature of God, I was like, oh, he's going in a good direction. But I heard him say that somehow suffering is satisfying for

the sin of a holy God. That totally strikes me the wrong way as opposed to death being what has always been the case for the satisfaction of the remission for sin. So, it's something we will talk about is what i wanted to say that really you want to tell the people hear your name so that if they want to listen you're talking my name is uh upswan i'm from massachusetts but i've avoided the massachusetts accent i can give it to you if you want i'll leave that out of the podcast okay all right thanks any other uh questions or anything we've got a couple more minutes before we got to go back downstairs and start breaking out to breakouts. But if there's anybody who wants to ask one more question or a breakout who wants to come say one more thing, come on up. Otherwise, OK, we got one more.

I mean, this maybe goes beyond, again, the scope here. I'd just love to hear your comments on the work of Peter Enns. I spoke at a conference with him a few weeks ago and first time I met him in person. Wonderful guy. Well, I just don't like to give general comments. You have anything specific? I hate to. yeah yeah yeah yeah so to repeat he you know specifically about pete ends he's less concerned with getting it all right he's more okay with kind of the messiness of not getting it right he's okay with tensions in scripture he would say

flat out contradiction in scripture and and um i i'm i would be more bent that way i'm very okay with messiness for instance i would be more reform that way i'm very okay with messiness for instance i would be more reformed like chris but i'd also say i think prayer moves god changes history even and like oh yeah both i'm like i think scripture teaches both and it really doesn't bother me so i'm very okay with that um i do believe the bible is malleable um i don't and i think it is historically accurate but i don't need perfect accuracy for it to be authoritative i'm okay with some of that but but i would still land on i think there's a lot more um uniform i think it's the bible's not as messy as he makes it out to be and it's there's not as many contradictions i think he does he loves to i think some of this is his trajectory he really raw bad experience

with really conservative evangelicals i think that he's rolling his trajectory um and so i would i would uh i would i would uh i would say okay he brings up all these tensions and contradictions like well there there's been good responses to those you know he highlights all these contradictions whatever and like okay maybe some of those are really hard to work through other ones are like well you didn't you didn't acknowledge this this and this that people have said solve that contradiction like contradictions between kings and chronicles and numbers you know the numbers don't match up and i'm like there's about 220 times when there's numbers mentioned and there's only like 11 of those where there's

disagreement between kings chronicles maybe fix out over the disagreements numbers and there are some disagree and the disagreements go in like both directions sometimes chronicles is higher sometimes it's actually lower so there's not a clear agenda and so all if all you do is expose the messiness of these contradictions without saying it's almost like he emphasizes a little little all that to say i very much appreciate his work um i just don't line up on several things but yeah i appreciate it i'll just say i'm an inerrantist i'm formed and i'm a young earth creationist so you can imagine i don't have a lot of positive things to say about that but i don't i'm just kidding a little bit i don't know enough about him to say anything meaningful and besides it's it's uh we got about you about 10 minutes or so before we got to get to our breakout session.

So Preston, thank you so much for doing this with me. And thank you for coming and speaking at the conference and emceeing it today. And I just want everybody to know here, I'm so thankful you guys are here. It's been such a blast for me. I get, this is like, I mean, I live in the Pacific Northwest where there's not a whole lot of this kind of depth of conversation. And so when I get to have these kinds of conversations with people, it's like finding an oasis in the middle of a desert after you've been walking, you know? So thank you for being here. Thank you guys for

being here. And I hope that you guys enjoy the rest of the conference. Preston, do you want to say a word before we go? Oh, thanks for listening to Theology in the Raw and the Rethinking Hill podcast. Thank you.