Theology in the Raw - 778: Annihilation View of Hell: Q & A

Episode Date: February 10, 2020

Questions Covered in Today’s show: -Why has most church fathers and theologians held to eternal conscious torment? -What about the parable in Luke 16 where the rich man was suffering “in torment”? -What about Revelation 20:10-15, where it explicitly says that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet are being tormented “forever and ever”? -Does Genesis 2 really imply that humans are not immortal? -Aren’t the Old Testament passages about judgment thinking of “judgment in this life” and not some kind of afterlife judgment in the next life?

🎵 Hello, friends, and welcome back to another episode of Theology in the Raw. I'm so glad that you tuned in to this episode. and respond to at least most, if not all, of the many really, really good questions that I have received in response to the two-part podcast that I did on the Annihilation View of Hell. If you listen to those two episodes, you will remember that I was a bit nervous about releasing those. I have not talked about the An was a bit nervous about releasing those like that, you know, I have not talked about the annihilation view of hell and, and a while. And even though that's the view that I hold, it's not something that I have recently gone out of my way to advertise. And I know that for some people that might be troubling to hear that I hold to this

view for some of you, I would say for them, I don't know if I can measure it that for most of you, it wasn't a big deal for some of you, it was really encouraging. And for them, I don't know if I can measure it for most of you, it wasn't a big deal for some of you. It was really encouraging. And maybe for, I don't know, a small percentage of you, it might've been really troubling. I don't know. It's hard to measure these things. Anyway, as you know, if you've been listening to this podcast for any number of minutes, you know that my main passion, my main concern, my main drive is to

go with the text leads. I want to follow the scriptures. I want to understand what God has said about himself, the afterlife, the world, about us, about you, about me, um, through his word. That's my ultimate goal. I don't have any preconceived agendas that I'm trying to push. Um, and while we all have interpretive baggageive baggage, I have it, you have it, we all have it. I am trying hard to be very aware of that baggage and to interpret the Bible as honestly as I possibly can. So with that posture, I welcome, I beg you for your feedback, your questions, your pushbacks, your concerns. Like I really do want to get the text right. And we can only do that if we invite the community of other Christians into our interpretive process and interpretive reflection.

So I'm not at all scared about pushback. In fact, I welcome it because I want to get the text right. So all I'd say, I received a bunch of really good feedback from you guys, some great questions, some great thoughts, and some, I don't even know if I'd say pushback as much as genuine questions. I didn't get, I didn't get anything. At least Chris didn't send me anything that was like really skating or like, how dare you? You know, what about this? What about that? Most of your responses had to do with just genuine questions. What about this? What about this passage? Or how do you explain

this? Or what about that? So anyway, I want to take this podcast and work through those questions. So I want to begin with my, the questions raised by my Patreon supporters. So shortly after the podcast, I posted a, a post, posted a post on my Patreon page saying, Hey, what questions do you, do you guys have about my Annihilation podcast? And they, gosh, they, I'm looking right now at the page and there's probably at least 10 questions here. Some of them are kind of similar to other ones. So there might be five unique questions here. And then I also have a Word document open where I cut and pasted some emails that came in with some other really good questions. So I want to start with my Patreon supporters and some of the questions or thoughts that they had.

supporters and some of the questions or thoughts that they had. Number one, what are some resources for the best arguments for eternal conscious torment, annihilationism, and universalism? So great question. What are some good resources? I don't want to overload you, but so let me just give you some of the top ones that I think are really helpful. As some of you know, I edited a four views on hell book. I think it's called, I should know this. I should know the name of my own book. I think it's called hell subtitle four views. I think that's what it's called. Really short title by Zondervan came out a couple of years ago. Gosh, two years ago, was it three years ago? It's, it's, it's a, it's an updated version of an older kind of four views book they had, but I served as the general editor of that book. So I was able to handpick each scholar that I think would best represent their view.

And so I think that's a good place to start if you want kind of a one-stop shop that gives not know, good arguments for all three of these views. Plus there's also an article on purgatory. And the good thing about that, that book is you get, uh, you get to see how they, how these essayists, how these scholars respond to the other articles in that book. So you get to see a bit of dialogue. So that would be a great place to start. Two other books that I think are good defenses of eternal conscious torment against annihilation and or universalism is a book called Hell on Trial, a case or the case for eternal punishment by Robert Peterson. And then also another book called Hell Under Fire, which is a, um, compilation of a bunch of essays by some really well-respected scholars, uh, Daniel Block, Douglas Moo, Robert Peterson, J.I. Packer,

Greg Beal, Al Mohler, Robert Yarborough, Chris Morgan, and others. I mean, these are really top-notch biblical scholars. So Hell Under Fire is another good one. So those are two books that would defend the eternal conscious torment view. Annihilation, the classic text on annihilation is by Edward Edmund. Edmund or Edward? No, oh my gosh, I'm blanking on this. Hold on a second. I should have hit pause, but this book was like across the room. I was like, I'm not going to pause. I'm just going to go grab it. So Edward Fudge, The Fire That Consumes it's in it's, I believe it's third edition. It is the definitive kind of treatment and defense of annihilation. It's a big book.

It's not, I wouldn't say it's the most thrilling read, not the most user-friendly, although I wouldn't consider it like too scholarly. It's kind of in between like, you know, it's like an intermediate kind of book, but really thorough. I mean, 450, you know, it's, it's like an intermediate kind of book, but really thorough. I mean, 450, 500 pages. If you want a more user-friendly, free way to understand annihilation, I would go to the Rethinking Hell website, RethinkingHell.com. Is that the, let me just

make sure that's the, yeah, RethinkingHell.com is kind of a one-stop shop resource page for the Annihilation Review of Hell with podcasts, videos, blogs, short statements, responses to all the pushbacks. I mean, it's a fantastic resource for the Annihilation Review of Hell. I go, whenever I'm discussing these things, I often go to that page and see what they have to say. They always have great stuff to say. As far as the universalism position, Christian universalism, hands down, the best book that I recommend is called The Evangelical Universalist by Gregory MacDonald. Now that's a pen name. It's actually written by Robin Perry. I think that's public now. Well, at least it is now because it's on the podcast. Sorry, Robin. No, I'm almost positive. It's like everybody knows that

Robin Perry used the pen name Gregory McDonald. Anyway, the evangelical universalist is incredibly exegetical. So if you're a Bible guy, and if you're an evangelical, this book, well, it might be troubling to you if you're adamantly against eternal conscious torment, or adamantly against, sorry, adamantly for eternal conscious torment, or if you're adamantly against universalism, and you're an honest interpreter of the script, of the text, you might be a little bit thrown off of this book because it is absolutely saturated with really provocative. One might even say sound biblical arguments for an evangelical universalist position. Or if you don't want to read a whole book, uh, Robin is the guy who wrote the universalism essay in the four views of hell that I edited. And that essay is, is again, really,

really good. Uh, having said that, uh, some people don't get that. I like when I say something's good, they, they think that I, that I believe it or that it's true or, you know, I, I disagree with Robin on this question and, um, I can give you clear reasons why I think that the universalism position is inferior to the annihilation position. And we do agree to disagree, but I can still turn around and say, but Robin, you're making some really good biblically based arguments. Like I think he's being very honest with the text and is truly trying to understand what the text says about this question, which is why he titles his book, The Evangelical Universalist. Okay, so those are some resources that should keep you busy for at least several months. And there's other stuff out there, but I think those are some of the best stuff,

best resources you can read on each of those three positions. Next question, another Patreon supporter says, here's something to wrestle with concerning annihilation. Many of the early church writers believed in eternal conscious torment. And he lists here quotes from Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian. Uh, that that's a great, um, point. However, I would question some of these writers here. At least I would question Irenaeus. Here's the thing. Prior to Augustine, okay, late third century, early fourth century AD. Prior to Augustine, there was a bit of diversity on the question of universalism, eternal conscious torment, and annihilation. Several really high profile, powerful, influential early church theologians seem to lean more

towards annihilation. If you want some names, um, Ignatius, um, if you read some of the statements, he, he seems to be more on the annihilation side. Uh, Irenaeus, I would put, I mean, Irenaeus seems to be more of an annihilationist when I read him on this question. Arnobius, a lesser known figure, but incredibly influential. Arnobius seemed to be more of an annihilationist, possibly Athanasius. Athanasius was like the staunch defender of the deity of Christ and one of the most orthodox central figures in the early church. And there's a debate about his view on this. But some statements,

as several have pointed out, do seem to lean towards annihilation. Then you have other towering figures like Origen or Gregory of Nyssa that would lean more towards the universalism perspective. And again, I'm not defending that view, but I am saying that like, it's not, it's not as if like the whole early church were, you know, we're all just on the ECT side, the eternal conscious torment side. Like it was, it was, it was much more diverse than people realize, much more diverse than people are sometimes comfortable with. And when it comes to the annihilation view, there, there are several significant figures prior to Augustine that seems to, that seemed to support the annihilation view. Now,

clearly Augustine was the towering figure that, um, pervasively, uh, refuted or, well, attempted to refute the annihilation view and defended the eternal unconscious torment view. Like there's no doubt about that. Augustine, towering figure, ECT all the way. However, um, and I was, well, I was gonna, I might return to this and, and, um, tease this out a bit more. But, um, the thing about Augustine was that he had, as far as I can tell, I'm not an Augustinian scholar, but I've done some pretty good reading on him and reading other Augustinian scholars. And from my vantage point, Augustine held to a Neo-Platonic view that the human soul is intrinsically immortal.

It must live forever. The human soul cannot be destroyed. I don't think that's a biblical view. Most people don't think that's a biblical view. Most people don't think that's a biblical view. Most traditionalists, most people who believe in eternal conscious torment don't think that that's a biblical view. Okay. So I'm in the majority here when I say that, yeah, I don't think that the human soul is intrinsically immortal, but Augustine did have that view. And so he, when he came to the question of what's going to happen to the human soul in the afterlife, it seems that he couldn't have even entertained the possibility

of annihilation because he had a preconceived notion about the human soul that wouldn't allow it. The human soul by nature is indestructible. So it can't be annihilated. Again, everything I'm saying here about Augustine doesn't seem to be that debated. And I'm just, the only reason why I'm hesitant is because every now and then you get, you know, a minority position that challenges the majority. So I, you know, I, I want to leave room open for my understanding of Augustine to be in need of further clarification or nuance. But that seems to be the majority view on Augustine and his view of the afterlife and the human soul. So he didn't have, his presuppositions didn't allow him to even entertain annihilation as a legitimate biblical option. And Augustine, as you probably know, is just a towering

figure in Christian thought. Um, much of what Augustine believed about many different topics became the central cardinal mainstream beliefs in Christianity for at least a thousand years up until the reformation and even on in past reformation. Um, so, and, and this, I, and this will spill into some other questions that, um, I was asked about the, the dominance of church history and, and, you know, what do you do with the, the, the pervasive, um, position of church history being one of eternal conscious torment? And what I do with that is say, I think Augustine has a lot to do with that. And I think Augustine is wrong.

I don't think he defended ECT over annihilation very well exegetically. I think it was, I think there's, when you read him, to my mind, it just seems that presuppositions leap off of the pages of his argument and loads of neoplatonic assumptions about the human soul seems to drive much of what he says. I just, that's just from my vantage point, that's what it seems like what's going on. But you, you read Augustine and see what you think. vantage point. That's what it seems like what's going on, but you, you read Augustine and see what you think. So, so that would be my response to the question about, um, the dominance of later church theologians and writers and pastors and influencers being on the eternal conscious torment side. I think a lot of that has to do with Augustine's, um, influence, but when it comes to the early church, like pre-Augustinian thinkers,

which is what this first question has to do with, there's a lot more diversity than people realize. So some towering figures were, or seem to be on the annihilation side of things. Next question. The thoughts, questions I have was, was having, was, I got to reword this. Oh, okay. So my question,

I'm just going to paraphrase this question. Um, my question has to do with the, how ECT versus annihilation affects our understanding of evangelism and those that have perished, not having heard of Christ. Eternal conscious torment fits nicely with the practice of saving souls, but how would annihilationism affect our pursuit or understanding of evangelism? Okay. Well, to me, it doesn't really make a difference, honestly. I mean, whether you save your soul, save someone's soul from death or torment, you're still saving their soul from a miserable outcome of their life. See, I don't think it would really make a difference there. As a kind of a sub, maybe a footnote to this question that I often hear is, well, man, people aren't going to be out sharing their faith if they believe in annihilation.

And I don't know, I have to kind of chuckle at that because it's like, and not chuckle, we're talking about serious things, but you know, my, my chuckling has to do with, well, how many Christians believe in eternal conscious torment and how many Christians are really good and passionate about sharing their faith? Like, I don't know, I know loads of Christians who would adamantly believe in eternal conscious torment, who are terrible at sharing their faith. Like, so I don't know. I don't know if there's like a lot of actual proof in the argument that, oh, if you believe in eternal conscious torment, you're just going to be a red hot evangelist, just telling everybody about Jesus because you don't want them to be tormented in hell forever. I just pragmatically, I don't see that happening.

So it's just that I think the argument kind of falls flat. Um, but also again, I I'm, I'm, I know it's ironic, but you know, I'm the annihilationist, but I, I, I'm such a Bible guy that to me, that's just all those kind of pragmatic pushbacks are, are not, they're not scriptural. Like I, I, for me, it's like, well, that's a secondary question. The, the pragmatic result or benefit of a particular view of hell is to me, is that distant secondary. The primary question is what does the Bible say? So again, I think I said this in the podcast, uh, my primary, one might say sole reason for believing in annihilation is the biblical exegetical support for it. Every other kind of like, you know, well, you're diminishing God's glory or what about evangelism and all these things. I mean, to me, all those are just secondary to me. It's like,

well, let's figure out what the Bible says first, and then we'll wrestle with kind of these secondary questions. So, so yeah, I don't think annihilation or ECT, um, really changes, um, whether or not somebody is going to share their faith and save souls. And plus, I think it should be the positive benefit of the gospel that should drive us to sharing our faith, to saving souls, to preaching Jesus. Um, I mean, when you look at the book of Acts and the early Christian writers, Jesus. Um, I mean, when you look at the book of Acts and the early Christian writers, early Christian apostles were, were preaching the gospel, it was, you know, uh, I don't even know if they mentioned hell. They mentioned judgment, but they don't mention like hell. They don't mention annihilation versus ECT. The early preachers of the gospel didn't seem to need

ECT, eternal conscious torment to, or they didn't seem to integrate a particular view of hell into their gospel presentation. Okay. Eternal conscious torment seems to be, oh yeah. So this has to do with the historical, the history of Christianity and the eternal conscious torment view. So ECT seems to be the overwhelming historical default view of Christianity. How do you explain that and push back against it? I think I already kind of did, so I can, I can move on again. In short, the pre-Augustine church was very diverse in the question. The post-Augustine church relied on Augustine for their view, um, largely. And I think Augustine's view had some serious flaws to it as, as we've already talked about. Um, then the next question is very similar. Um, how do you, well, if there's such overwhelming

scriptural evidence for annihilationism, how did ECT become the dominant view? Surely Dante and Plato can't hold all the blame. Well, I do think it holds some blame. I mean, Plato certainly holds some blame with his view of the human soul. And Dante came quite a few years later after Plato. I mean, about what? Gosh, is that 1500 years after Plato, maybe Dante? But yeah, I think Dante was a byproduct of the medieval church and the medieval church was a by-product of Augustinian thought. Um, Augustine's view was very pervasive. He was so respected, so influential that many people just simply didn't question Augustine's view. And, and I don't, this is, I'm going to wander outside of my, um, knowledge base here, but it does seem that by the time Dante comes around, there was some practical benefit within the church in instilling fear among its congregants in order to keep them to give lots of money to the church. And also it became a means of controlling the people. Now, I don't know much of anything about

Dante. I don't know if he was a cause of that or a benefit of hell, eternal conscious torment was being used by religious authorities in power to control people and make sure they give lots of money to the church. Like that's just not disputed. And I'm not, I'm not saying therefore that view is wrong. I'm just saying several writers and thinkers and authorities throughout church history do seem to reflect that kind of benefit or expediency in believing in and promoting the eternal conscious view of hell. Next question. One of the primary reasons of support you had was that humans are inherently mortal. I believe you said this came after the fall when Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden

to prevent them from eating from the tree of life and live forever. My question is how you would then interpret Genesis 2, 17, which says, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil for on that day, from the day you eat from it, you will certainly die. It obviously can't mean that actual death, actual death, it can't mean actual death since they didn't die. Um, but how would you describe it? Uh, how would you describe the meaning? And with that, hypothetically, if they hadn't eaten, uh, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, uh, would they have at some point died or would they fall within that conditional immortality you talked about? Great question. Great question. So the

way I take Genesis 2, 17 is that when it says in a day you eat of it, you shall surely die. There's two kinds of death that deaths that happen. Number one, um, they are kicked out of the garden of Eden from the presence of God. And that represents a kind of death, death from the presence of God. And number two, uh, they do end up physically dying. Now that doesn't happen the second they eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Um, but you know, the phrase on the day of, on the day you eat from it, you shall surely die. The phrase on the day is a, is it kind of a vague chronological statement on the day

in the day, those kinds of statements in the Bible are pretty, pretty generic. It could mean in the second you do this or in the general time period or in the lifetime of, I mean, it's a really broad statement. So I don't, I don't want to, I don't think that's too troubling. The fact, well, I mean, let me just say this, no matter what your view of hell is, we all kind of interpret the phrase in the day you eat of it, not in, not, not in the sense of in that moment. in the day you eat of it, not in the sense of in that moment, but this is going to happen because they don't physically die the second they eat from the tree. They don't even physically get kicked out of the garden the second they eat from the tree. And that happens over the next, what, several hours, several days, several months. It just says that the text isn't that clear. But there's several conversations that happen in between them eating the tree and then being kicked out of the garden.

So there, so there's some time period. Um, there's a time period going on here that shows us that in the day you eat of it doesn't mean in that exact moment. So, yeah. So, um, what we do know is, um, well you quoted it. Yeah. So I, I mean, in Genesis 2 22, do I need to read that again? Let me, let me go back here, um, to get the whole context. Um, the tree of life

seems to be the divine means by which Adam and Eve will live forever. Oh my gosh. I'm looking at my Bible here and I'm missing Genesis one and two. Oh, but I have Genesis three here. Okay. I guess that's all I need. Anyway, I don't know where my two other pages went, but in 322, it says, then the Lord God said, behold, the man has become like one of us knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and live forever. Therefore the Lord God sent them out of the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. And he drove the man, drove out the man. And at the east of the garden of Eden, he placed a cherubim with flaming sword, with a flaming sword. And that turned every way

to guard the way to the tree of life. So here they must be kicked out of the garden of Eden. Otherwise they would have eaten from the tree of life and So here they must be kicked out of the garden of Eden. Otherwise they would have eaten from the tree of life and live forever, which clearly, I should kind of say clearly seems to suggest that they're living forever. And this was contingent upon eating from the tree of life, which is why we see the tree of life show up again in the new Jerusalem in Revelation 22, verse 1 to 2, we see the tree of life there in the new creation. Because it is the means by which God mediates his immortality to humans. So when we sin, we are cut off from that immortality. that immortality. And when we confess faith in Jesus, we regain access to that immortality that is only available in the presence of God. So here I would say death means both

cut off in the presence of God, which inevitably leads to not being able to eat from the tree and physically dying. You say hypothetically, if they hadn't eaten, would they have at some point died? The answer is as long as they kept eating from the tree of life, no, they wouldn't have died because they had access to the tree of life. I hope that makes sense. I don't want to keep going on and keep kicking the dead horse, but I, yeah, I just, I hope that's clear. Everything I said there. Next question. Where does the word hell, the English word hell come from in the first place? If English translators were decided on a word, why not use Sheol or Gehenna or Tartarus? I'm referring to the King James at the moment. I know some modern translations have made the

changes. I know the phrase forever and ever doesn't make sense logically because you can't have something longer than a forever. But then how did scholarly translators come up with that? Oh, these are great questions. As far as I know, hell, and you can, the wiki article on hell is quite good from what I know. I recently skimmed through some of it. And it actually deals with the origin of the English word hell to describe Gehenna.

I believe it comes from an old Norse language, which is related to old English. And that's the extent of my knowledge of that. So I think it has some mythological connotations to the english word hell um but it's not like all those mythological norse mythic norse myth myths i don't i don't i don't think there's a lot of norse mythology that come necessarily needs to come with every time somebody uses the English word hell. It's just, you know, when English was being formed and the word hell was being used at the afterlife,

that was the word that was available. And so it was, you know, being mapped on to the Greek word Gehenna. But some people, I think, read a little bit too much into the fact that the English word hell comes from Norse mythology. People say, yeah, our doctrine of hell comes from Norse mythology. I'm like, well, no, the English word might, but it's not like our understanding of Gehenna in the scriptures is influenced by Norse mythology, unless you are well acquainted with Norse mythology and are reading that back into the text of scripture. Okay. Um, and as far as, uh, forever and ever, I mean, some people just say that's just there for emphasis, you know, um,

and in the Greek it's, you know, unto, um, unto the ages of the ages. It's kind of worded differently in the original Greek. So even the English translation forever and ever is a way of rendering the Greek, but it's not like that's capturing exactly what is going on in the Greek. Next question here in Santa Cruz, other pastors telling me I'm just giving non-believers what they want anyway to fade back into the cosmos or nothingness. How do you reply to that? Well, that's not exactly what my position is. That's not what annihilation is. The annihilation view says that all people, believers and unbelievers will be resurrected from the dead so that they face judgment in the face of the Lord of all creation. And those who have trusted him in this life will receive a positive verdict.

And those who rejected him in this life will receive a negative verdict and they will face the death penalty. So if people just can't wait to receive the death penalty, then this argument makes sense. But otherwise just, Oh, just fade back into nothingness. Like that's just not, that's not, that's not the brand of annihilation that I'm advocating for. I mean, again, if you read the passages of judgment that I work through in those two podcasts, especially the second one, that I work through in those two podcasts, especially the second one, I don't know if anything in those passages sounds particularly attractive. Like, oh, I can't wait to be chopped into little pieces or, you know, destroyed like Sodom and Gomorrah. It's like, when I read this,

the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is a template for future destruction and judgment, it's not like I read that and say, Ooh, I wish I was there. I wish I was in Sodom. That sounds amazing to be in Sodom while God rained down fire and brimstone and annihilated the city. So yeah, this, this argument, I mean, I've heard it obviously many times and it just, it just doesn't, yeah, it doesn't understand what the annihilation view is trying to convey. Last question from my Patreon supporters. Can you address the claim that annihilation is on a slippery slope towards universalism? Also, why do you think Augustine's view took over and effectively silenced the annihilation view from

the fifth century onwards? Any thoughts on how your stance on annihilation would be received within Eastern Orthodoxy? I believe Eastern Orthodoxy has a lot of flexibility on their view of the afterlife, in particular, the nature of hell. Eastern Orthodoxy, as far as I understand, allows for ECT, annihilation, and universalism. One of the things I like about the Eastern church, one of the several things I like about the Eastern church is they don't seem to get so hung up on some of the doctrinal finer points that the Western church does. I think they have a lot more healthy flexibility in some of their views. I've already addressed the Augie, you know, you have kind of three questions here. The second part of your question, Augustine, I've already kind of addressed that.

What about the slippery slope thing? If you move from ECT to annihilation, you're just going to move towards universalism. Well, logically though, I mean, I guess, I mean, that's sure. I don't know. I'm just not impressed with slippery slope kinds of fears. Again, what does the Bible say? That's what I want to know. What does the Bible say? And what evidence supports, you know, each biblical, possibly biblical view and, uh, pick the one that has the most evidence to support it. And the view that can, um, supply answers in response to the other potential biblical views. Okay. So, um, slippery slope, whatever. I don't know. I mean, some people could say, well, you know, Calvinism, if you go,

if you go from Arminianism to Calvinism, then you're on a slippery slope towards hyper-Calvinism or, you know, um, or if, uh, if you embrace Arminianism, then you're on a slippery slope towards open theism. And then you're going to be on a slippery slope towards being a non-Christian and, you know, being, uh, abusing children. I don't know. I mean, it's just people, the slippery slope arguments can just be thrown around so haphazardly that I'm just like, I don't, I don't know if we, we often throw them out as just kind of a, a fear tactic. Oh, if you believe this, you're going to go here. You know, it's like, well, I, I don't know. I'm just not impressed with slippery slope arguments. What's funny with this one though, is that if anything,

eternal conscious torment is closer to universalism than annihilation. You say, what are you talking about, Willis? So, I mean, annihilation by definition rules out universalism because universalism says that people go to hell and they are conscious, they are being tormented, but God allows for endless opportunities for that person in hell. Who's there consciously eternally or potentially God allows for them to turn from their wicked ways, repent and embrace God. It's almost like universalism is built upon eternal conscious torment. It just said the only addition addition is the, the, the thing, universalism isn't actually that far away from ECT in terms of understanding the nature of hell. We're all going to be there or not. You know, unbelievers are going to be there. We're going

to be conscious. We're going to be suffering. We're going to feel it. We're going to be talking and screaming and yelling and all, you know, um, the only difference is universalism says, but God's grace will still be available. Your, your ability to repent will still be an option to me that that's, that's, I mean, the burden of proof rests on the ECT traditionalists to say, yes, you'll be there forever. Yes. You will be conscious. Yes. you will be suffering in the presence of God because that's what Revelation 14 says, according to the ECT reading. Yes, all that's true. But even though you're conscious, even though you're fully aware, you either can't repent, like God's preventing you from repenting, which sounds like a brand of hyper-Calvinism that I can hardly even understand exists anymore. Or you can repent, but God won't accept your repentance. And that's like, well,

what kind of view of God is that? Like you're actually genuinely wanting to repent. I give up. I'm in. I'm sorry. I repent. I'll stop sinning. I'm consciously aware of my sin and I'm consciously accepting you. And God's like, no, sorry. Nope. I mean, that's an option. I mean, that's the dominant view of the church, right? So I don't want to say that that's not a possibility. It's just that that's a hurdle that traditionalists have to get over that somebody could genuinely repent, but God won't accept their genuine repentance. Or the other option is that for the ECT perspective is that people can't genuinely repent. Like God will prevent them from genuinely repenting, even though there are genuinely consciously in bodily form

suffering, but they will have the ability to acknowledge their sin and say, I was wrong. I am sorry. I want to turn from my ways. That ability is taken away from them. Both of those could be true. They're just, again, I would say the burden of the proof falls upon the traditionalists to hold to and defend one of those options. The annihilation view doesn't have any of those problems. You're resurrected, you face judgment, and you receive the death penalty for your sin. And there is no opportunity to get rescued out of hell because you're dead. You're, you're gone. You're annihilated. Honestly, one of the main reasons why I'm not a universalist is because I'm an annihilationist.

The annihilation view by definition rules out universalism. So I don't, the slippery slope thing, I don't, I think it actually goes in the other direction. If you hold to eternal conscious torment, I think you're going to be more likely, or at least you're closer to universalism logically than if you hold to annihilation. Okay. Next question. This comes from people emailing into the podcast and asking some really good questions here. Revelation, the book of revelation talks about hell being cast into the lake of fire. Um, there are only three beings mentioned that are tormented in the lake of fire eternally. And that's, um, the devil, the beast and the false prophet. But what about the parable of Jesus talking about the man lifting his head in hell and asking for a drop of water for his tongue, uh, because of the flames that tormented him. What is your thought on the parable of Jesus? Okay. Two questions here. What do we do with Revelation 20, 10 to 15? And what do we do with the parable in Luke 16? So let me just read this

real quick. Sorry. I got to flip over here. I'm in Revelation or Genesis three. You got to flip over to Revelation 20, 15. Okay. 20, sorry. Uh, Revelation 20 verses 10 to 15. Um, and the, uh, verse 10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and false prophet were. And the beast and false prophet were thrown into the lake of fire back in chapter, um, 19 verse 20. Okay. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. Let me keep going here. I'll come back to that verse. Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. And from his presence, earth and sky fled away and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead great and small standing before the throne.

The books were open and another book was open, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it. Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them. And they were judged each one according to what they had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.

This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. Clearly the devil, the beast and the false prophet are tormented forever and ever. At least that's, I mean, when I say clearly, that's what the text says. what the text says. A few things to point out. Number one, there are, you know, the book of Revelation is saturated with symbolism, with analogies, with metaphors, with non-literal things going on. I don't need to defend that because it's just true. There's way too many examples I can give. I don't know any responsible interpreter who wouldn't acknowledge that. I'm not saying therefore you see teaser on. I'm just saying like, we have to be considerate of the complexities of the genre of the book

of Revelation. That's number one. Number two, it does say that the devil, the beast and the false prophet will be tormented forever and ever. It does not say in verse 15, when it talks about anyone's name, not found in the book of life, it just says they're thrown into the lake of fire. It doesn't say that they're tormented forever and ever. So there's only, there's no explicit ECT statement about all people. There is an explicit ECT statement about the devil,

the beast and the false prophet. So some people would say, yes, the devil, the beast, and the false prophet, they get eternal conscious torment. But since the rest of the Bible talks about the annihilation of those who reject God, and because verse 15, when it talks about all people going to the lake of fire, it doesn't have an ECT statement. Therefore, let's just be true to what's clear in scripture. Devil, beast, and false prophet, ECT. Everybody else, no. That's one option that that's, you know, people refer to this as like partial conditionalism or partial annihilationism saying for some spiritual beings

or for some people, devil, beast, and false prophet, they will receive eternal conscious torment for everybody else. And it's annihilation. That's one option. I'm fine with that option. I think that's true to the explicit reading of the text. Okay. So I'm fine with that. If that's what the text says, and that's what it says. I do wonder though,

about the devil, the beast and the false prophet. From my reading of Revelation, and again, we're dealing with different ways of reading this book and lots of debates there that we just don't have time to get into. But man, I just think there's lots of evidence for the beast and the false prophet being symbolic figures or abstract entities or, well, if you read Revelation like 12 through 19, it seems that the beast is the political aspect of the Roman empire. The political ideology and the false prophet seems to be the religious ideology of the Roman empire. It doesn't seem in terms of my reading, or if I'm trying to be provocative,

I might say, according to a responsible reading of the book of Revelation, the beast is not an individual or a beast or a monster. It's referring to Rome's political power or persuasion or ideology and the false prophet, even though it might be represented in a highly symbolic book with an individual as an individual in some passages, it seems that if you interpret, um, the idea of the false prophet in light of the genre, in light of the whole section of Revelation 12 through 19, um, that the false prophet is emphasizing kind of the other side of this ideology, the religious side of the Roman empire. Um, so, so that's, that's where I

would lean. I think that's, that's the most, um, responsible way to interpret Revelation 12 verse 11, um, and 1920 and other passages. Now, what about the devil? Because, um, you know, a cardinal evangelical belief is that the devil is a personal being. And I agree with that. So, so I'm fine. I think wild beasts and false prophet are more symbolic of, yeah, all the stuff I was talking about. I think the devil is an individual, maybe the, the power behind the personal being who is empowering, uh, the beast and the false prophet, these, these aspects of the Roman empire. Okay. So, so if anything, so, uh, and that's where I would lean in terms of interpreting revelation 20, that, um, the devil is a spiritual personal being who is tormented forever and ever.

While the beast and false prophet represent those aspects of the Roman empire that he is empowering. And so I don't think that the beast and false prophet are sort of tormented forever and ever in the same way that maybe the devil is because, because they're not personal beings per se. You say, whoa, no way. Like a personal being can't be said to be tormented forever and ever. Well, look at verse 14, death and Hades were thrown in the lake of fire. This is the second death or sorry. Um, yeah. So, so if you think that the lake of fire is a place where all things thrown into it are tormented, what does it mean that death is tormented? How do you torment death? Death is an idea. There's lots of times in the book of

Revelation where you have abstract entities or ideas or ideologies given sort of personified characteristics. So again, at the very least, I mean, if you pay really close attention to the language of terms, the idea is being presented in Revelation 20 verse 10 to 15, it should at least caution us from reading, um, reading too much into this passage, or at least not respecting and honoring the, um, highly symbolic nature of this passage. But again, again, and again, there's no clear statement in this passage that says that people will be tormented forever and ever. What did we do with Luke 16? This is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. For the sake of time, I'm not going to read it. This is Luke 16 verses 19 through 31. Poor man dies, goes to Abraham's side. The rich man dies and goes to a place called Hades. It's important that it says Hades, not hell. It doesn't say Gehenna. It says Hades.

And the rich man is in torment. And he calls out to Abraham that Abraham would send Lazarus to dip his finger in his cool in the water and cool his tongue because he's suffering. But Abraham says, nope, you had your chance. Plus, Lazarus can't cross over this great chasm to help alleviate your suffering. What is going on here? Well, I can quickly, the quick response is that Luke 16 is not talking about hell. It's talking about Hades. You say, what the Hades is the difference here?

Well, in the scheme of most afterlife, well, scenarios, you have what's called, well, when somebody dies, an individual dies, they go to a place called the intermediate state, which for the believer is heaven or here Abraham's bosom or Abraham's side or paradise, sometimes it's called. That's where the believer goes right after they die as an individual. And the unbeliever goes to a place called Hades. And in this intermediate state, called Hades. And in this intermediate state, each person kind of is there. Um, and they await the final general resurrection of the dead. When Jesus returns, which might be a minute after your personal death might be a thousand years after your personal death, maybe 10,000 years after your personal death. There's this intermediate time between your death

and the time when Jesus returns and raises all the dead. Okay, so you have believers and unbelievers and after they personally die, they're going to be in an intermediate state. And then Jesus returns, raises all the dead, Daniel 12, 2, John chapter five, and everybody faces judgment. And after the, and when they face judgment, those who believe in Jesus will receive a positive verdict. Yes, you are innocent because of your faith in Jesus Christ

and unbelievers will face a negative judgment. You are guilty because you're, um, you did not accept Jesus's, um, um, now I'm getting into all kinds of like atonement theory questions because Jesus doesn't cover your sin. Let's just leave it at that. Um, and therefore you, you must pay for your sin. And since the wages of sin is death, therefore the verdict, uh, pronounced upon the unbeliever upon judgment day is death, death penalty for, for sin. That's Genesis two. It's, it's Romans six, uh, 22, 23, and many other passages. So all that to say, whatever Luke 16 is talking about, it's not, it's not talking about hell.

It's not talking about that final day. It's not talking about final judgment. It's not talking about the final fate of the unbeliever or the wicked. Now, could there be actual literal torment in the intermediate state? That's possible. I mean, it is possible within the annihilation view that during the intermediate state, there is some kind of suffering, but that will, after the resurrection and judgment, they will be annihilated or destroyed or whatever. And there will be no ongoing eternal conscious suffering.

So even a very literal reading of Luke 16 fits in well with a version of the annihilation view of hell. But even with the intermediate state here, we have to be really, really careful. It doesn't seem that Jesus's main point here is to give us a detailed, literal geography of the afterlife or of, yeah, I guess of the one's personal afterlife. I mean, think about the images here. They can see and talk to each other. Do we really believe that that's a literal description? Can people in Hades literally talk to people in heaven? Like, think about that for a while. Is that really what you believe? Like in those who believe in a very literal reading of this passage, that's what it says, right? They're talking to each other. What about the fact that the rich man has a tongue and Lazarus still has his fingers? Because most traditionalists or annihilationists

would say that when somebody dies, their body goes in the grave and their immaterial soul is in existence, either in heaven or in Hades. But here they're given body parts. So do you believe in like two resurrections or two days or like a temporal body that people are given in the intermediate state, both in Hades and in heaven? I mean, again, that's a possible view too. You know, Jesus is here talking to them. I mean, it's just the whole passage seems like it shouldn't be taken in a very strict literal sense. Many interpreters, aside from being the hell question or Hades question, many interpreters say, look, I think, you know, we have evidence of other similar parables in Judaism around this time. other similar parables in Judaism around this time, it seems that Jesus is simply using a familiar story to make a point about the inequality of wealth distribution. And this, this seems to be

Luke's main point here and throughout his gospel. The fact that it's a rich man and a poor person. I think that Jesus is making his main point has to do with wealth and poverty and marginalized people and apathy, caring for the poor and not caring for the poor. That seems to be his main point here. I don't think he's trying to give us an etch and sketch. I don't think he's trying to give us a real detailed portrait of an individual's afterlife experience. I don't think that's the main point. Again, most interpreters would say the same thing, even if they're not even thinking about the hell question. Okay. So then that's where I would lean. is referring to a familiar Jewish story about the afterlife and a rich man and Lazarus, or, you know, maybe they had other figures in mind and Jesus is using that kind of familiarity

among his audience to make a point about wealth and poverty. Okay. The next question is kind of a repeat From one we've already wrestled with This listener says Until I started listening to your podcast I believed in eternal conscious torment Because it's the only thing anyone has ever taught me And because I never spent much time looking at it It was kind of the default view

Why do you think this is? I listened to part two twice And while I don't think I'm totally on board, it seems reasonable. Why has annihilation ever been talked about? I mean, this is such a bigger question about why do modern Western contemporary American evangelicals cling to the views they have and not consider other views that they'd never been introduced to? I mean, this is a fascinating sociological and psychological discussion. Partly, I think that the traditional view has been so connected to this idea of Orthodox Christianity. And in the past, some people who questioned the traditional view have been liberal and they haven't given biblical arguments for questioning

the traditional view. And so any other view other than the traditional view, the eternal conscious torment view has been branded as a liberal or heretical view. So that even today, many churches, many evangelical churches have eternal conscious torment in their doctrinal statement, even though it was never considered necessary for Christian orthodoxy. ever considered necessary for Christian orthodoxy. And a lot of people, I mean, a lot of people who formulate and sign these doctrinal statements, it's not like they've done a deep dive, honest evaluation of the annihilation view versus eternal conscious torment with the mindset of, I'm going to go where the text leads, whichever view has the most exegetical support, that's the view that's going to go into our doctrinal statement. I'm sorry, am I being cynical or just honest? Very few people who have constructed these doctrinal statements have done the original work in evaluating the position, largely because anything other than the traditional view is

already considered heretical. It's just in the air of evangelicalism. So it's not even really up for grabs. Why study something if it's already heretical to hold to any other view than the traditional view? If that's the mindset you have, then you're not going to be very motivated to study alternative views. And we all have that. We all have kind of those non-negotiables. It's like, look, I don't need to be an expert in Trinitarian theology. The Trinity just kind of comes with Christianity. Okay. And I know some of my Unitarian friends might, might be upset or no, my Unitarian friends would say, see, that's exactly the problem. And we're actually going to have a dialogue between a Trinitarian and a Unitarian on this podcast coming up. So, so stay tuned. Um, should be awesome. Um, but again, it's just psychologically and sociologically, if a particular view is already considered not an option, then what motivation is there to

reconsider what the Bible has to say about it? I think that's why the annihilation view has not been widely considered. But although I think that's changing recently. I mean, I know if I had a nickel for every pastor, like even thoughtful, well-known, well, whatever pastor who says, yeah, the annihilation view seems to make more sense to me, but can't really, can't really say that because I want to keep my job or other pastors that just they're younger pastors, church planners, whatever, that aren't stuck in some of these deep traditions or like, yeah, annihilation view, totally on board with it. Seems awesome to me. And some of these younger church plants, you know, they'll preach a sermon and say annihilation and people are like yawning in the audience. Like it's just with, with certain generations and contexts, um, people that aren't super saturated in certain traditions, they,

when they look at the text and look at the arguments, they're like, yeah, it seems to make sense to me. And like, you know, um, so yeah. And with all the other, like, why is the traditional view being the traditional view? We've already talked about that a few times. So, um, next question, I didn't quite get a conditional immortality as he explained it from Genesis. I don't see the tree of life mentioned until the curse after they ate from the tree. Death is mentioned as a condition of eating from the tree of good and evil. I've always been told that Adam and Eve are created to be immortal and not as a result of eating from the tree of life. What am I missing here? Well, we've already kind of gone into this just to summarize. Well, the tree was there before the curse in Genesis 2.9 that the tree is mentioned,

tree of life. And again, I know we've been told by some people that Adam and Eve were intrinsically immortal. That's just not true. I don't think, um, at least you'd need to find statements in scripture that talks about humans being immortal. I mean, there's loads of statements that talk about, you know, God being immortal, like only God is immortal. Um, first Timothy six, like only God is immortal. First Timothy 6, 18 says, he who is blessed and only sovereign, the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, who alone has immortality.

This is first Timothy 6, 15 to 16. God alone has immortality. That means that only God has immortality. I mean, I'll just, it's not obtuse. This, this verse, um, who dwells in an approachable light whom no one has ever seen or can see. Um, second Timothy, if just leap across the pages here, um, second Timothy, uh, one 10 Second Timothy 1.10 says that Jesus Christ abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. Immortality comes through the gospel. It's not an intrinsic part of humanity. it is granted by the only one who's immortal, namely God through Jesus Christ toward the one

who accepts Jesus and is now in Christ. If you're in Christ, you are now in the immortal one and therefore have immortality. Uh, the other references from the old Testament relating to destruction of the wicked. Um, wicked? I've always read, oh yeah, okay, okay, let me summarize this. So this question, this questioner says that some of the Old Testament passages that I referenced, the questioner says, I've always read to these, I've always read these passages as life on earth, not their destination after death. Okay, their destination after death. Okay. What's going on here? So again, when it comes to the Old Testament, it's not like the Old Testament writers had a really ironed out view of the afterlife. They simply looked forward to God's intervention. When God intervenes, he's going to rescue, he's going to save, he's going

to forgive the righteous, and he's going to judge the wicked. They didn't have the detailed like personal death, intermediate state, Jesus returns, resurrection of the dead, judgment of all people, heaven and hell and new creation. They didn't have all that worked out. They just looked forward and it was kind of a fuzzy, hazy view of the future. But again, when the Old Testament writers looked forward, or let me ask you, if you ask the Old Testament writer, what is the final state of the wicked? Look as far down the corridors as you can of time, and it might be fuzzy, might be hazy, but what do you see? They would say death, consumption, destruction for the wicked. Some of these statements that I quoted in the second part of the Annihilation podcast,

some of these statements would seem to suggest more of a this worldly judgment, but other statements are more future oriented. If you want some passages, well, Isaiah 11, four, God will kill the wicked with the breath of his lips. If you look at Isaiah chapter 11, 4, God will kill the wicked with the breath of his lips. If you look at Isaiah chapter 11,

the whole context seems to be like messianic kingdom. The wolf would lie down with the lamb. It does seem to talk about what we now describe as the new creation where we will live forever. And in that context, when it talks about what's going to happen to the wicked in the final state of the righteous, it says that they will be killed. They will be destroyed. Isaiah 60, 12 says that the nation and kingdom that will not serve you shall perish. Those nations shall be utterly laid waste. Is that like a historical, this worldly judgment or a final judgment? I think, again, that distinction would have been really blurry

for the Old Testament writer. What's interesting is that the previous verse says your gates, Jerusalem will be open continually. What's interesting about that verse, again, this is the verse prior to the one about the destruction and perishing of the wicked. That verse about the gates being open continually is quoted in Revelation 21, 25 to refer to the eternal state. In fact, this verse is one that the universalists love because it says the gates will always be open forever. And, and, um, in the new creation, there will be opportunity to enter, reenter the new Jerusalem. It's actually a good argument. Um, but we're talking about annihilation versus ECT, not universalism. So I'm not going to respond to it. Uh, Isaiah 66 verses 16 and 24 is another passage that I mentioned. Uh, they will be slain by the

Lord. Look, the Lord will look upon the dead bodies of men who have rebelled against the Lord. the Lord, look, the Lord will look upon the dead bodies of men who have rebelled against the Lord. This passage, the last few verses of Isaiah is clearly, well, clearly, I mean, it is looking forward past some, just like God's judgment on Assyria in 701 BC or something like it's, it's actually looking forward to kind of end, whatever the end of time looks like from Isaiah's perspective, you know, it's fuzzy, it's hazy. It's not, there's no, the details aren't worked out. But if you were to ask Isaiah, what's the final state of the wicked, he would say they're going to be slain by the Lord. In fact, so this is Isaiah 66 verses 16 and 24. Um, but this whole passage,

I mean, it begins in Isaiah 65, 17, which talks about the new heavens and new earth. And Jesus even draws in his passage to talk about the nature of, of hell. Okay. So it's, it's more than just a, this worldly kind of, of, um, judgment. Okay. Last question. This comes from a good friend of mine, a fellow theologian. Didn't give me

permission to mention his name, but he lives in Oregon. You know who you are. You point people to my podcasts all the time. Just a mentor from a distance in my life and raised a good question. He said, when I listen to your podcast, seems like you're arguing for an extinctionist view of annihilation. Can you clarify this? In other words, extinction is like when you die, you just sort of pass out of existence. So, and I've, in answering several other questions, I've already addressed this, but let me just be really clear. No, I don't agree with the so-called extinctionist view of annihilation. I don't think when you die, you just pass out of existence. I think when you die, you probably go to some kind

of eternal or sorry, intermediate state. I'm still, I haven't talked about this too much, but the whole intermediate state thing is a lot fuzzier than people realize. And we didn't really get into that. We talked about a little bit in Luke 16, but, um, no, I don't think you just pass out of existence. When you die, you probably go to some kind of intermediate state, you await judgment. And then Jesus returns and resurrects all the dead. And those who have rejected him in this life will face, um, death, punishment, destruction, annihilation, slaughter. I mean, the images that I refer to that describe what I think is annihilation are pretty violent and gruesome. I mean, some people that say, oh, you're just dimming down God's judgment.

I'm like, I don't, I don't think I am like capital punishment. I'm not even for capital punishment in a political sense. Like I'm against the death penalty largely because of God's death penalty, which will settle all rights and wrongs perfectly in, in his, in his, on his judgment day, um, in his timing. So, um, anyway, but to answer your question, uh, dear friend, uh, friend, no, I don't think the extinctionist view holds biblical weight. I do think that all those who reject Jesus will be raised from the dead and face judgment. Okay.

It's been over an hour. Thanks so much for your questions. Again, just to qualify again and again, I am not saying that the eternal torment view or even the universalist view doesn't have biblical merit. I just think that the annihilation view has superior biblical evidence for it. And I've given you many reasons why and responded to some pushbacks against that view. But again, I think there is biblical evidence for various views of hell. And what I'm largely pushing for is a seat at the table for

annihilationism, a seat at the evangelical table for the annihilationist view, because it has much biblical credibility to it. Even if you don't think it's true, I love the honesty of several questioners saying, I'm not quite on board with your view here, you know, the annihilation view, but I can see, man, there's a lot more biblical credibility to it than I had realized. If that's how many or most of you are, if that's how you walk away from these podcasts, then I feel that it's been, my goal has been accomplished to show that the Annihilation View does have much biblical credibility to it. That's all folks. We will see you next time on Theology in the Raw.

If you want to support the show, you can go to patreon.com forward slash Theology in the Raw. That's patreon.com forward slash Theology in the Raw and become part of the Patreon community. That's patreon.com forward slash Theology in the Raw and become part of the Patreon community. And you can support the show and receive premium content in return, including podcasts, blogs, and just informal dialogues that I have with my Patreon supporters. So again, if you want to support the work that I'm doing through Theology in the Raw,

you can go to patreon.com forward slash Theology in the Raw. Until next time, we'll see you on the podcast.