137 - Rethinking Hell with Chris Date - Apologetics 315 Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:01):
Hello, and welcome to the Apologeticsthree fifteen podcast with your hosts Brian Auten
and Chad Gross. Join us forconversations and interviews on the topics of apologetics,
evangelism, and the Christian worldview.Are you living in the studio mansion?

(00:22):
Yeah, well not anymore you're not. Hello and welcome to the podcast.
This is Brian Auten and I'm ChadGross, and we're looking forward to
today's interview with author, debater andprofessor Chris Date. We spoke to Chris
not too long ago in episode onetwo about eschatology and how to best understand
it. That was a really fascinatingand helpful interview, so hopefully we've got

(00:43):
another one for you today for youto sync your ears into talking about views
on hell. So what is thetraditional view of hell? Is it eternal
conscious torment? Or does it lookdifferent than the traditional view? What does
the final end of the wicked looklike? So we'll be talking talking to
Chris Date about this subject today andwe hope you'll find his views helpful.
Can be a challenging subject, soif it makes you nervous, we get

(01:07):
it, but fear not. Justgo back to scripture and check it out
and get your views from scripture.But it's a great discussion. We're looking
forward to it today. Ched anythoughts before we hop into the interview.
I am looking forward to talking toChris's Conditional immortality is the view he's going
to be representing, and I thinkit's an important one, and I love
his heart and just wanting to bringunity to the body of Christ. And

(01:30):
I agree with you. If you'rea little hesitant, if you're a little
intimidated, or even if you havesome red flags going up already, hear
him out and do like the Bahreansdo and search the scriptures to see if
what he says is true. ButI think regardless, you're going to learn
a lot. All right, let'sgo, let's get ready. Switch me
on, Chris Date, Welcome backto the podcast. Thanks for having me.

(01:53):
It's a pleasure to be back.Chris, tell us a little bit
about this subject and why did youdelve into studying. Yeah, so,
back in twenty ten, roughly Istarted a podcast of my own called The
Apologetics, which is just sort ofa combination of the words theology and apologetics.
And as part of this podcast,I would not only do episodes on

(02:15):
my own where I would teach aparticular view that I hold, but I
would also invite guests on. Andsome of those guests that I would have
on taught views different from what Ibelieved at the time, but I considered
them to fall within the realm ofOrthodoxy, and so I wanted my listeners
to be exposed to the breadth ofChristian belief that is out there. And
one of these guests that I hadon the show was a man by the

(02:38):
name of Edward Fudge, and EdwardFudge had just published the third edition of
his book, The Fire That Consumes, And the reason I got him on
the show is because I was friendswith somebody who's still a friend of mine,
Glenn Peeples. We sort of didministry together with a woman by the
who by the name of Dede Warrenwho hosted a show called The Preterists Podcast,
and he and I blogged on herblog, the Press Risk Blog,

(03:00):
and one time he and I weregetting into conversation. I was pushing back
on his belief in what's known asphysicalism, which is the view that humans
have our only physical creatures. Wedon't have an an material soul, and
in so doing, I brought upsome texts and he said, I think
I brought up Matthew ten twenty eight. I fear not men who can kill
the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather just fear God who can,
just fear the one who can destroyboth body and soul and ghana. And

(03:23):
I said, see, look,Glenn, clearly we have souls. And
he said, well, and youknow, we continue to have that conversation.
But he said, but notice thatthis also seems to teach annihilationism.
And I'm like, A, Idon't know, I don't know about that.
What about Mark nine forty eight andI and I you know, I
pointed to him where Jesus says thatin Gehannah their worm will not die and

(03:44):
the fire will not be quenched.And he said, and this is what
I'm getting. This is what I'mgetting to. He said, why don't
you look at what Jesus is quotingfrom? And it turned out it was
a passage in the Old Testament thatreally got me thinking, Wow, maybe
I've been misunderstanding this. I stillbelieved in eternal torment. I had believed
in eternal torment the entire ten yearsroughly that i'd been a Christian, I
didn't have any problem with it emotionallyor philosophically. I was, at that

(04:08):
time and still am, a Calvinist, And as you might imagine, being
a Calvinist, you have to accepta degree of God orchestrating reality in such
a way that we might it might, we might struggle to make things make
sense in certain ways, but wetrust that God is good and that He
is holy, and that He's goingto do it's right. And I took
that approach to eternal torment as well. But when Glenn brought my attention to

(04:31):
what Mark nine forty eight is quotingfrom, and I realized that maybe it
wasn't the proof text I thought itwas, I decided i'd have this Edward
Fudge guy on because he just publisheda third edition of The Fire That Consumes,
which remains to this day, treatisethe seminal work in defense of Conditional
Immortality to this day. And inpreparing for and conducting that interview, which

(04:53):
was a two hour long interview,I went from being firmly in belief in
eternal torment to finding myself on thefence. I found his case powerful,
and I found his responses to myobjections powerful, and so then I spent
the next several months. I knowit doesn't sound like a long time,
and I'm not excusing that, butI spent the next several months pouring over

(05:13):
every sermon I could find, watchingevery presentation, every debate, reading every
book, anything I could find onthe topic. And the vast majority of
these things I was consulting were indefense of eternal torment, because I wanted
to go back to firmly believing inthat, because I knew that if I
ended up becoming a believer in whatI am now, I'd become a pariah
in certain circles and it would makemy life difficult. But what I found

(05:34):
as I consulted all of those sourcesis that the case for conditionalism just became
even stronger and stronger and stronger.The case against from eternal torment weaker and
weaker and weaker. And so finally, right around the end of twenty eleven
early twenty twelve, I submitted towhat I understood by that point scripture to
be teaching and became a conditionalist.And then kind of the rest takes off

(05:57):
from there. So you mentioned twoviews. Their conditional immortality and eternal conscious
torment. Just for our listeners,can you kind of just get give an
overview of those two contrasting views.Yeah. So it's important though that we
first understand what they have in common, because what they have in common challenges
pop level understandings of the discussion aroundhelly so, and what I mean by

(06:23):
pop level discussions, and this istrue of heaven as well. At the
popular level. A lot of Christiansunfortunately think that we are going to go
to Heaven or Hell when we die, period, Right, that's it.
So we will forever be in Heavenas disembodied souls or in Hell as disembodied
souls. But that actually is anon Christian view. I'm not saying that

(06:43):
it's not Christian to believe that yougo, you remain conscious after death.
I'm just saying Christianity has never taughtthat that's the end of the story.
At some point in our future,all Christians believe that Christ is going to
return and raise the dead back tophysical life. If we have souls that
go that are di bodied after death, they will be reunited with their resurrected
bodies in the resurrection. I thinkit's so important that you're saying that Chris

(07:05):
about hey, we're not just goingto heaven, because I just hear this
from everyone like yeah, you knowif you're if the Lord Jesus saves you,
you'll be with him in heaven forever. And it's like heaven is the
end. And I'm like, waita minute, I know I held that
view too, but then I ridemy Bible, you know, and so

(07:26):
it's just like this popular thing werejust it's almost like if you were to
kick back on that view, ifsomeone said that comment, they might get
offended and be like, what areyou talking about? And I remember giving
a book to a family member atone point about heaven and they're like,
you mean, we're not going toheaven. There's more So then when you

(07:46):
talk about hell, like wait,there's other views and it's not like And
another thing is that people think thatwhen you talk about conditionalism, it's almost
like you're saying there's no hell,but it's no no the nature of hell.
I mean, that's how I understandit. It's like, you know,
hell is, we still believe inhell. We're just talking about what
is the nature of hell? Wouldyou say that's about right? Yeah,

(08:09):
absolutely. Yeah, I do believein hell, I just don't believe in
hell. If what one means byhell is everlasting torment, I believe.
I believe hell is a reference tothe final punishment of the resurrected lost.
Absolutely, And going back to thisconcept of resurrection, that's where these two
views agree. We believe that oneday all humankind will have risen from their

(08:30):
graves. They'll be once again embodiedand physical. And both sides also agree
that at that point the saints,those who are in Christ, will be
made immortal in a physical sense.Their bodies will become immortal, and they
will live forever and ever. Period. But that's but now is where the
two views diverge, because it's atthis point that the doctrine of eternal torment
could be characterized as universal immortality orunconditional immortality, indiscriminate immortality, meaning that

(08:58):
God gives this embodied bodily physical immortalityand everlasting physical life to all humankind universally,
indiscriminately, without any conditions that theyhave to meet. Okay, but
that's why the view that I havecome to be convinced of and have known
for defending, is called conditional immortality, because we believe that immortality at the

(09:22):
resurrection will only be given to thesaints. The lost will rise with bodies
every bit as mortal as they arenow, and they will be judged,
and they will be sentenced to death, as we ordinarily understand that word,
they will literally die a second time. It will be a second death.
Now. The reason that this viewsometimes is known as annihilationism is because if

(09:43):
human beings have spirits and or soulsthat continue to be conscious after death,
in the first death, we believeScripture teaches that that soul will be destroyed
along with the body and the seconddeath, and so the consciousness of the
entire person will cease. They willcease to exist as conscious beings forever,
and so all that will remain arethe saints and a perfected cosmos in which

(10:07):
in every single atom of which youknow, righteousness reigns. There is no
sin anywhere cordoned off in some dark, gloomy corner of the cosmos. But
anyway, that's why it's called conditionalimmortality. Only those who meet the condition
of being saved will rise immortal andlive forever. Those who do not will
rise mortal and will literally die asecond time and forever. So Chris,

(10:31):
that's a really great overview. Oneof the things I tell a bit of
a story before to lead up tothis next question. So, when I
was first a Christian, I'm fortyseven now, I was twenty five at
the time. I had written aletter to the editor when I was about
twenty six years old, and itreferred to eternal conscious torment, because that's
that's what I was taught. Andyou know, I was pretty new in
the faith, and this gentleman wholive locally sent me a rather long document

(10:58):
with the view that of condition immortalityor annihilationism, and I remember having just
this huge reaction to it, beingvery you know, put off by it,
and I remember thoughts like, thisis what the Jehovah's witnesses teach,
and this is false teaching. AndI remember sending him his email and telling

(11:18):
him how he was in error andhow I wanted to debate him. And
now, of course I look backon that, and if that gentleman's listening,
I'm so sorry. But I lookback and think, you know,
I blush and I'm embarrassed even asI tell the story. But it leads
up to my question. And thequestion, of course is I have noticed
when I try to fish this viewout to people, if you will,

(11:41):
and see how they you know,throw it out there to bait him a
bit and see how they bite.They bite back sometimes a little bit like
a shark. They they're very opposedto it, and a lot of people
almost see it as is false teaching, like I unfortunately did. Why do
you think that is? And beforewe start unpacked at what would you say
to somebody who's listening and right awaythat kind of the red flags are going

(12:03):
up because they haven't heard this.Yeah, well, I mean, I
think there are a few reasons whya lot of people have that kind of
visceral negative reaction that you're talking about. One of them is because defenders of
eternal torment have dishonestly characterized our viewas as something that is distinctly Jehovah's witness
or Christadelphian or Seventh day Adventists orwhatever, as if merely by virtue of

(12:26):
the fact that those other questionable groupsand in some cases cults like the Jovah's
Witnesses and Christadelphians, merely by virtueof the fact that annihilationism happens to be
something that they teach, or atleast something like it. Therefore it must
be heresy. But that's of courseabsolutely absurd. Islam teaches forms of eternal
torment, so does Buddhism. Youlook up Buddhist Hell and you might be
a little shocked at what you mightfind out. And then conversely, the

(12:50):
Jehovah's witnesses believe in inerrancy, right, So no, granted they've got a
really distorted translation in the New WorldTranslation, but the point is is that
they leave in on some things thatare Christian and some things that are not.
Believers in eternal torment in some casesare heretics or cults like the Westboro
Baptist Church or Islam, and inother cases they are Orthodox. So the

(13:13):
point is we can't dismiss conditionalisms orannihilationism simply because some questionable groups teach it
as well, because the reality isthat there have been Christians who've believed in
this view all the way back sincethe beginning of the Church. And we
can talk about that as we getinto our discussion today and in the nineteenth
century, that is the eighteen hundreds. Annihilation is a conditional immortality as it

(13:37):
was called in that era, wasvery popular amongst Orthodox Christians in both America
and in Europe. And this wasprior to the advent of the Jovah's witnesses
and others. So that reason forhaving this visceral reaction, I think is
illegitimate, and it's caused by apologistsfor eternal torment who do this dishonest thing

(13:58):
of the well or or guilt byassociation. But then there are other people
for whom it's much more understandable.Why would they would have that visceral reaction
If you've grown up in the church, and every single pastor that you've looked
up to, every single Christian teacherthat you've learned from, every single uh
you know, respected Christian thought leaderthat you've read over the sense you know

(14:20):
from their publications over the centuries,believes in teachers eternal torment. And then
you find out that there's this smallgroup of people that teach otherwise and want
you to say this is what Scriptureclearly teaches, as I believe is the
case. They're gonna say, okay, but so you're asking me to believe
that all these godly people that I'verelied upon and that I've learned from and
that have edified me are wrong.I mean that's so you can you can

(14:43):
understand why that might cause a bitof a viscerally negative reaction on the part
of people who encounter this. Andthen there are people who have bought into
mischaracterizations of annihilationism that would cause itto be heretical if it's in error.
So for for example, if onethinks that annihilationism is you are punished with

(15:05):
ceasing to exist, then it becomesdifficult the loss that is in hell,
then that becomes difficult to understand howChrist could have borne that penalty as our
substitute, because that would mean thathe would have had to have ceased to
exist. But of course that wouldmean that either the Trinity became a byanty
for three days or the hypostatic unionwas violated while the divine person continued to

(15:28):
exist without his human his human nature, and either those would be heretical.
So if you think, if you'veheard these mischaracterizations of annihilationism, like that
the final punishment is the cessation ofexistence, then you're going to think that
that has these heretical implications, whenit in fact does not. So those
are a few of the reasons,and there others as well. But what

(15:50):
would I say to sort of alleviatethose concerns. Well. Number one,
as I already said, orthodox Christiansfrom all varieties of denominations and communities in
the eighteen hundreds in America and inEurope believed in this view long before the
cults. Number two, the annihilationismdoes not, in any way, shape
or form, call into question,or cast doubt on, or challenge the
orthodox essentials of the faith as definedby the ecumenical creeds of the first few

(16:12):
centuries and the testimony of Scripture.And there are many trusted Christians who do
teach this view from the sort ofacademic world, people like John Stackhouse and
Terrence Teeson and Preston Sprinkle, althoughhe's a little bit with a more lay
level. So the point I'm gettingat is that it's many trusted Christians,
both apologists, from the apologetic world, from the professorial world, from you

(16:37):
know, biblical studies, theology,all across the spectrum. And by the
way, not just in particular denominationseither. It's not just premillennialists. It's
not just a millennialists and post millennialists. It's not just dualists or not just
physicalists. It's not just cessatianists andcontinuationists. Any intramural Christian debate, you're
going to find people who hold toannihilationism on every side of that issue.

(16:59):
So for so, don't I justdon't think that there's any legitimate reason for
having that kind of viscerally negative reaction. Now should that Does that mean that
they should immediately accept it? Ofcourse not, But there you have every
reason. Oh and then one morething. Those of us who believe it
believe it because we think scripture isteaching it. It's we're doing it because
of our commitment to biblical authority,not despite it. So for all those

(17:21):
reasons, I would encourage listeners tosay, Okay, maybe I can,
you know, consider it without havingthis kind of visceral negative reaction, even
if in the end I don't endup being convinced. Yeah, that's good.
One of the things I appreciated iswhen I first started contacting you a
few years back about it, youknow, and I told you where I
at the time, where I wasleaning, and you said, you know,

(17:41):
whether you end up on my viewor not, you know, that's
okay. Just make sure that youlook into it. And I found that
incredibly. I appreciated that so muchbecause it really didn't put any pressure on
me and also showed me the sincerityof your heart and the sense of I
just want you to believe what youthink scripture best teaches. Well. But
seven having become I'm convinced you'll neverknow if I was telling the truth.

(18:04):
But no, I was. Iwas. I tell people that, like
Mike Winger, for example, whomI consider a friend, he's going to
be embarking upon a study of helland then not to do some future,
and I've been encouraging him. Listen, please rely on me for a resource.
And if in the end you don'tend up becoming convinced, great,
but at least you'll know you'll atleast you'll be able to deal with what
our view actually is and not howit is misrepresented by its critics. And

(18:26):
yeah, yes, So before weget into the actual looking at a few
passages that always come up in thisdiscussion, the last kind of preliminary question
I have for you, and youhinted at it at the end of your
comments. There is one of thethings that I've heard from a couple different
pastors, and these are pastors whomI respect. When you begin discussing this
view, as they'll often say,well, those people are just trying to

(18:49):
soften God's wrath, you know that. Well, they just can't accept that
God would punish someone for eternity,and so they're trying to look for a
way out. And I of coursehave heard you respond to this, but
I would like our listeners to hearkind of your thoughts on that common accusation.
Yeah, let me just say aswell, I was I have wrote

(19:12):
a note here like, hey,does this soften God's wrath or his punishment
that you know, there's no fearnow for the inner because they just switch
off. You know. That wouldbe what I would think people would be,
like, what's the what's the danger? Now, what's the punishment?
Yeah, well, before I answerthat question directly, I'll just point out

(19:34):
that it really seems like it's theeternal torment side that is historically been softening
and air conditioning hell. Right.Historically, belief in hell was comfortable using
the word torture to describe a literal, literal burning and fire and hell and
all these kinds of things. Nowadays, the pretty typical common view, even
amongst scholars, is some kind ofmetaphorical separation from God, which is tormenting

(20:00):
for sure, but not the kindof vicious torture that some Christians seemed to
endorse in the past. And I'veeven debated somebody JP holding I think he's
the guy who runs tectonics Ministry,and he actually argues that hell is basically
it's akin to being forced to drinkwarm, flat beer forever. It's just

(20:21):
like a banal, boring existence,one of shame but not pain. These
are the kinds of views that strikeme as air conditioning Hell, not annihilationism.
But of course the tu coke ishow you pronounced the tucope fallacy,
the U two fallacy well anyway.But setting that aside, does my view
water down or air condition or softenHell? I don't think so. Number

(20:42):
One, most of us did notembrace this view because we didn't like we
didn't think that the eternal torment viewwas fair or just or anything. A
lot of people start to wonder ifperhaps they misunderstood what scripture teaches because eternal
torment strikes them as unjust or whatever. But that's not what convinces them that

(21:02):
what they end up being convinced byis the Biblical testimony. And in my
case and in the case of someothers, it was never an issue.
We never had a problem with eternaltorment being unjust or anything like that.
And the reason we even began reexamining the case the topic was because of
what Scripture seems to clearly teach Numbertwo. There are plenty of us who
actually think annihilation is the harsher penalty. That might strike people as strange some

(21:27):
people, but it wouldn't strike allpeople as strange. In the first century,
the Greek historian Plutarch said that hisGreek countrymen, if given the choice
between eternal torment and like hades,or annihilation, they would much prefer eternal
torment, because there was nothing thatthe Greek mind loved more than existence than
life. Augustine, a few hundredyears later, in the City of God,

(21:48):
said that if you were to offerto the impenitent sinner the choice between
eternal torment or annihilation, they wouldexuberantly choose eternal torment. And if you
look at the writings of atheists andagnostics over the centuries, you'll find them
terrified of annihilation. There's a twentiethcentury agnostic poet by the name of Philip
Larkin who wrote a poem called Albadand in it he writes in great moving

(22:12):
prose about a poetry about how terrifiedhe is of annihilation because that's what he
believed was awaiting him. Mark Bauerlinewas covered by about ten years ago by
Unbelievable by a premier Christian radio becausehe converted to Christianity, or at least
Catholicism, because he, as anatheist, was a terrified of ceasing to

(22:33):
exist. So the reality is thatlots and lots of people are terrified of
annihilation, even if they're not terrifiedof it more than they are eternal torment.
And so annihilation is a terrible fate, regardless of whether it's worse or
better than eternal torment. Some ofus think it's worse. And I'll just

(22:53):
give you one last example. Doyou guys know that? Are you guys
familiar with Clay Jones and the bookthat he published a couple of years ag
go called Immortal? Yes? Yes? What is his premise? What is
the whole point of his book?People don't want to die, They don't
want to die exactly. So,yeah, this idea that somehow being destroyed
in hell is going to neuter theGospel and you know, take the wind

(23:15):
out of the sales of the Gospel. As Greg Cochele used to say,
I do hope he used to say, it doesn't still because it's the most
ludicrous thing I've ever heard him say. Then you know it certainly does not
do those things. And in fact, I would argue it actually resonates with
the desires and fears that all humansalready have, which is a desire to
not die and a fear of dying. We are saying, as conditionalists,

(23:37):
the Gospel literally can save your life, and I think that's a pretty powerful
motivator. That's good. So,Chris, one of the things you do
in your debates, which I justabsolutely love, is you take the passages
that are most often used to arguefor eternal conscious torment and you demonstrate how
you believe they better DEMI and straightconditional immortality. And so what I thought

(24:03):
would be fun is if we tooka look at three or four passages.
But I also want you, becauseI know you're very good at steel manning
the eternal conscious torment position. Soif I leave one out that you're thinking,
Chad, you know, this iskind of one of their main verses.
We've got to address this when pleasefeel free to correct me or you
know, put me on the righttrack if I get off track. Now,

(24:26):
one that I was repeatedly brought towhen I was really in you know,
in the midst of investigating this wasMatthew twenty five forty six. And
this was one that most people whohold to conditional immortality, they seem to

(24:47):
think this was kind of a slamdunk, if you will. And so
just for listeners, I'm going tostart at this is the Sheep and the
Goats, and Jesus is talking here. I'll start in verse forty. He
says I was a stranger and youdid not welcome me, naked and you
did not clothe me, sick andin prison and you did not visit me.

(25:07):
Then they also will answer saying,Lord, when did we see you
hungry or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked or sick or in prison
and did not minister to you.Then he will answer them saying, truly,
I say to you, as youdid not do it for one of
the least of these you did notdo it unto me, and these will
go away into eternal punishment, butthe righteous into eternal life. And of

(25:33):
course what I was always told,the argument that was always made was,
look, there's that parallel with eternallife. So if life is eternal,
then the punishment also has to beeternal. What say you, I say
it is, Yeah, the punishmentis eternal. There are certainly some annihilationists
too, like universalists, want totry and change the adjective ionios to mean

(25:56):
something other than eternal, like longlasting or characteristic of an age to come.
But many, many of us annihilationists, certainly those of us are rethinking
hell do not? We think itjust means eternal at least here and in
many other places as well. Sothe question, see, the dispute really
isn't the debate really isn't the durationof the punishment. The debate is over
its nature? What is this everlastingpunishment? And the Greek word colosis that

(26:22):
is translated punishment there is just likethe English word punishment in that it's very
open to that there are a varietyof different kinds of punishments, and the
word punishment alone doesn't tell you whichone is in view, so you know,
you could you can think, forexample, of actively ongoing punishments caning.
Right, you're you're whipping someone witha cane and inflicting pain, But

(26:45):
then you've also got what are knownas privative punishments, where you are depriving
somebody of something that they that theyhave that's valuable. That's what a fine
is. Just think about this fora second. If the punishment of a
fine, we're just handing over money, then they could just give it right
back and you will have been punished. But of course that's not that.
The penalty isn't giving over the money. The penalty is not having that money

(27:07):
anymore. Right, So it's aprivative punishment. And the same is true
of the death penalty, and youare depriving somebody of life, the punishment
is not the dying. The punishmentis the result of the dying. It
is not being alive anymore. Andthis Greek word colossis is used in those
kinds of same ways in the relevantliterature. In the septuagen for example,

(27:27):
there are some texts in which colsisappears to mean some kind of infliction of
pain, but there are other placeswhere it refers to the death penalty.
So the question then is does verseforty six does this help arbitrate between different
kinds of punishments to tell us whichwhat kind of punishment he's calling eternal here?

(27:48):
And actually I think that there issomething there. There's at least two
things. One is, it's notjust a parallel between eternal punishment and internal
life. The duration is parallel,yes, but the fates are contrasted.
Right. These are two judicial alternatives, two alternative destinies, and they're mutually
exclusive. You don't get one orthe other. So if one group gets

(28:11):
eternal life, then what must theeternal punishment be? I would argue it
must be death, the death penalty, And of course the common response to
that is going to be well,but eternal life doesn't mean merely living forever,
and we can get into that ifyou want. But I don't think
that's true. I think eternal lifemeans exactly what it sounds like. It
means living forever. So yes,it does seem that if the punishment is

(28:33):
death, which seems to be suggestedby the fact that it's alternative is life,
and if that death is forever,then it is an everlasting punishment by
definition, and sure enough we haveplenty of other texts that support that reading
one of the most famous, themost famous version Scripture John three sixteen.
For some who God so loved theworld that he gave his only son,
that whoever believes in him would notlive forever in hell. Wait, sorry,

(28:56):
I got that wrong, would notperish, but have everlasting life.
Roman six twenty three. The wagesof sin is torment forever in immortal bodies
in hell. No, the wagesof sin is death. So No.
Twenty five to forty six does notsupport eternal torment, and it doesn't challenge
conditionalism. It is actually support forit. And just as a side note,

(29:17):
we could do a similar exercise onthe verse a few versus earlier Verse
forty one speaking about the eternal fireprepared for the devilments angels. But I'll
let you decide if you want togo there. I will tell you that
the first time I heard you talkabout John three sixteen from a conditional immortality
perspective was probably the first stone inmy shoe. So what about Mark nine

(29:37):
forty three through forty nine. I'llread part of it, and of course,
just I'm saying that for the reader, if they want to look at
the full context of the passage,it says, and if your eye causes
you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter
the Kingdom of God with one eyethan with two eyes to be thrown into
hell where their worm does not dieand the fire is not quenched, for

(30:00):
everyone will be salted with fire.And of course you know, the study
notes will say that this refers backto Isaiah sixty six twenty four, where
it says for their worm shall notdie. Yeah. Well, and I'll
just make the argument even clearer thanyou did just by reading the text,
which is the argument is typically lookif the worm, which is which is

(30:21):
a maggot feeding on the corpses,never dies, and if the fire that
is burning the corpses, well,actually, hold on, I'm I'm getting
ahead of myself. The first thingI understand about this text is that it
is quoting Isaiah sixty six twenty four, as you just pointed out. And
that's why I mentioned that the wormis a maggot eating corpses, because in

(30:44):
Isaiah sixty six twenty four it's explicitlysaid to be the pagarim, the dead
bodies, the corpses, the carcassesof the men who have rebelled against me,
for their worm shall not die andthe fire shall not be quenched.
So that's why I was talking aboutthis worm being a maggot that eats corpses,
and similarly the fire if it isif it never dies out, as
some translations will say, like theNIV, I think or the NLT,

(31:07):
then the only way if the fuelfor these worms and these and this fire
were to be exhausted because it getscompletely devoured, completely burned up, then
the worm would die and the firewould be it would go out. Okay,
So the argument is the reason whythe maggot never dies and the fire
is never never goes out is becausethe wicked forever continually provide fuel to these

(31:33):
agents. But the problem is,as I already said, in the text
that Isaiah that Jesus is quoting andIsaiah, it is explicitly said to be
the corpses of God's slain enemies thatare being consumed by the maggot and fire.
That's number one. Number two.The text doesn't say the worm will
never die or never dies and thefire never go never dies. It's just

(31:55):
not so. For example, whenJoseph before he reveals his identity to his
brothers and he plants some valuable itemsin their bags, and then he pretends
to catch them, and it's like, look, if you don't want to
die, you better go and bringyour youngest son back here. And he's
and what he says is, ifyou do this, you will not die.
Well, what is he doing.Is he promising them immortality? Of

(32:17):
course not. He's saying you won'tdie now, I won't kill you.
Right, So it's not die,not quenched, it's not never. That's
number two and number three. Thelanguage of a fire that won't be quenched
is just the language of a firethat can't be put out and so completely
burns up. And this is truein both Old and in the New Testament.

(32:38):
In the New Testament, for example, in Matthew three twelve, John
the Baptist, speaking of Jesus,says that his winnowing fork is in his
hand, and he will clear histhreshing floor and gather his wheat into the
barn. But the chaff he willburn with unquenchable fire. But the word
burned there is the Greek word katakio. This is important. The Greek

(32:58):
word kyo just meant to but katakyo meant to burn up, to completely
be burned to ashes. And that'swhy in a septuagent rendition of Exodus,
when Moses encarannters the burning bush,the septuagent says, the bush was kyo.
It was burning, but it wasnot kata kiyo, it was not
consumed. Well, that's what Johnthe Baptist says. Unquenchable fire will do

(33:21):
to chaff, it will consume it. Why because the fire is unquenchable,
it can't be put out. Thisis important. To quench does not mean
to go out, It means toput out. And if some fire can't
be put out, then it completelyburns things up. The story I often
give, or the analogy is,imagine you're at work and you get a
call and it's the fire department andthey tell you better run home. Your

(33:42):
house is on fire. So youhang up and you drive home like a
bat out of hades, and youget home and you find your house is
burned to the ground and only smokeis rising from hambers. And imagine if
the fire department chief for whatever cameup to you and said, hey,
congratulations, I know you'll want toshake my hand. Quenched your fire,
you would spit in their face.You'd be pissed that they would, you

(34:05):
know, say something so foolish.It's clearly the fact that they were unable
to quench it. That explains whyyour house is burned to the ground.
Now, what about the worm thatdoes not die? Though, well,
this is you got to understand.Worm will not die, fire will not
be quenched. This is pretty stereotypicalHebraic parallelism. They are communicating the same
concept, but with different pictures,different words. Fire is an agent that

(34:30):
consumes, and if it is notquenched, it will consume completely. So
likewise, a maggot is a devouringagent, which, if not stopped by
virtue of death, will completely devour. And you can see that exact thing.
But instead of maggots, it's birds. In Jeremiah seven. In verse
thirty two of Jeremiah seven, Yahwehsays, behold, the days are coming,

(34:52):
declares the Lord. When it willno more be called Toefeth or the
valley of the son of Hinmham.That's by the way where we get the
word Gehenna hell or the value ofthe son of Him, but the valley
of slaughter, For they will buryin toe Feth, because there is no
room elsewhere. And the dead bodiesof this people will be food for the
birds of the air and for thebeasts of the earth, and none will

(35:14):
frighten them away. The significance ofnot being able to frighten away these scavenging
beasts and birds is that they willsuccessfully devour the carryon upon which they feed,
namely the corpses of God's enemies.It's the exact same kind of picture
as the worm won't die, butinstead of being beasts and birds, it's
a maggot. So literally, everysingle bit of evidence that you could possibly

(35:37):
marshal from this verse in Martin nine, and it's where it's been quoted from
lends. It lends these verses twoconditional immortality and annihilationism and challenges eternal torment.
There's literally not a shred of evidencefrom these verses that supports eternal torment.
Before Brian goes to the next passage, just in listening to you and
of course over the last few yearsand speaking with you and they, one

(36:00):
of the things that's always impressed uponme. How important do you think it
is when assessing these New Testament passagesthat talk about the fate of the wicked,
if you will, is it tolook at them in light of the
Old Testament. I mean, Idon't think that's of paramount importance, but
but it is important. And here'swhy. So let me let me caveat

(36:21):
this by saying, yes, ofcourse, New Testament authors, under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, cantake something that was said in the Old
and and repurpose it to mean somethingsomewhat different. No annihilationist denies that.
But if a New Testament author simplyrepeats the language from the Old Testament and

(36:42):
gives no indication that they are changingits meanings somehow, then then we have
every reason for thinking that they meanthat in the same way that it was
meant, or at least a comparableway as it was meant in the text.
Whence it comes if because the becausethey're the New test Arthur's aren't writing
in a vacuum. They are Jewswith the possible but not for certain exception

(37:05):
of Luke. They are Jews steepedin the Hebrew Old Testament, or at
the very least in the septuagen Greektranslation thereof, and possibly the Aramaic Targums,
which also translated the Old Testament.They are steeped in this language.
And if a New Testament person,writer, or speaker comes and speaks to
them the language that they recognize fromtheir Old Testament and they don't give any

(37:29):
indication that they are changing its meaning, what is the hearer going to think
is being said? What is whatwas said by what they're familiar with,
namely the Old Testament. Yeah,so, and if you don't do that,
then all you are doing is assumingthat the English translation you happen to
be reading is correct, and numberone and number two that it means what

(37:51):
you think that English expression means twothousand years after it was originally written.
And that doesn't seem like a verygood, a very solid way to understand
what's being said. But again,I want to reiterate, just because there's
some people who miss coons true whatwe're saying. We're not saying that the
Old Testament interprets the New and we'renot saying the New Testament can't change the
meaning of what was said in theOld We're just saying that in examples like

(38:14):
this, you know Jesus doesn't sayanything before or after quoting Mark nine or
quoting Isaia sst Six twenty four thatwould suggest that he's using this language to
mean something fundamentally different. That's helpful, thank you. There's this idea of
things being completely burned up, completelyconsumed, completely eaten up. That makes
a lot of sense to me,where these are word pictures to describe that

(38:35):
there's basically no rescue. You're gonnastart burning up, and you know it's
gonna this fire is going to accomplishits purpose without interruption. Same with the
worm, same with these birds eatingup the corpses. So visual representation of
there's no rescue, there's no comingback from this. It's going to be
complete now. But there's also theidea, though, and read another scripture,

(38:57):
you can respond to the idea oftorment. Not only is there the
traditional view one of being eternal,but it is one of torment and often
flame. So you've got something likeRevelation fourteen nine through eleven, where it
says their smoke of their torment goesup forever and ever, and they have

(39:20):
no rest day or night. Theseworshipers of the beast and its image,
and whoever receives the mark of hisname, and just maybe another one to
throw in there would be something like, I'm sure people could think of this
one the parable of the rich Manand Lazarus, where you know, the
rich man is receiving his punishment atthe same time Lazarus is receiving his reward,

(39:42):
and he's like, hey, I'mbeing tormented. Here, dap your
finger in the water, you know, just to ease my pain. And
so clearly you know he's being tormented, this is his punishment. The other
guy is getting a reward. Sohow can you have a view that takes
away this torment, this punishment thatseems to go on forever and ever?
Sure, how would you respond tothat? Well, let's take the easier

(40:06):
one first, and that's the storyof the rich Man, Elazarus, and
Luke sixteen. Chad introduced this bysaying that I often do this thing where
I argue from the texts that aretypically cited in support of eternal torment.
And the way that I introduce thatargument is by saying the following, with
virtually no exception, every proof texthistorically cited in support of eternal torment proves,

(40:29):
upon closer examination to be better supportfor annihilationism. This text here in
Luke is the reason why I putthe word virtually there, virtually no exception.
The reason I say that is becausethis text Luke sixteen nineteen to thirty
one is indeed one of the mostpopular proof texts in support of eternal torment.
But it doesn't, upon closer examination, better support my view. Why

(40:50):
because it doesn't have anything whatsoever todo with Hell. Now you might be
surprised to think that it sounds likeit. We've been sort of taught to
think that way. But just lookat some of the tales here verse twenty
two, the poor man died andwas carried by the angels to Abraham's side.
The rich man also died and wasburied, So this is after their
death, not after their resurrection.And then verse twenty three and in Haites,

(41:14):
this is not Gahanna, this isnot the lake of fire. This
is the intermediate state, the equivalentto the Hebrew Old the place of the
dead. And in Hades, beingin torment, he lifted up his eyes
and saw Abraham far off. Soalready we have every reason for thinking that
this is something that, even iftaken in a woodenly literal way as possible,
is taking place in the time betweendeath and resurrection, not what happens

(41:36):
after resurrection, which is when helltakes place. And if that weren't enough,
I'll add one more detail. Atthe end of the story, this
rich Man pleads with Abraham to gowarn the rich Man's still living brothers so
that they don't come to this fateas well. Now I'm telling you that
on a day of judgment, therewill be nobody who is still going about
their lives blissfully unaware of their impendingdoom. This is clearly in time prior

(42:02):
to the resurrection and final judgment.So this is this does not support for
annihilationism, but it's also not supportfor eternal torment. At best. It's
support for a conscious intermediate state andsome kind of substance dualism. Okay,
And I want to make clear noticethat I didn't there try to argue that
it's a parable even I'm saying,look, grant that it's a little historical

(42:23):
record or something happening. It's stillhappening in Haites, not Hell. Okay,
So now let's talk about Revelation,and I want to we need to
set the stage a little bit forthis, because I think a lot of
Christians misunderstand how a Biblical vision likethe one recorded in Revelation functions. Most
Christians, I think, think ofthis kind of vision as John sort of.

(42:45):
It's as if a camera in thefuture had recorded this series of events
and the recording of it was passedback in time to John, who sort
of popped it into a blu raydisc or driver or something like that and
put it up on a TV screenand watched it. But that's not how
this works. Biblical visions of thefuture like this one, they don't depict

(43:06):
the future at all. They presentall these perplexing and symbolic scenes that symbolize
future events. And these are sooften so difficult to understand that divine interpreters
in the vision itself have to explainits meaning. As an example, and
there are many examples of this,but I'll give just one, when Joseph

(43:27):
is taken out of prison by Pharaohto interpret his prophetic dream. And dreams
and visions in the Bible are interchangeable. There's no meaningful distinction other than perhaps
dreams or while you're sleeping, andvisions are why you're waking. But anyway,
Joseph interprets Pharaoh's dream, and inPharaoh's dream he sees seven healthy cows
come up out of the nile,and then seven six cows come up out

(43:49):
of the nile and eat the firstseven. And when Joseph interprets it for
Pharaoh, he says, the seventhe seven cows are seven years of prosperity,
and then the next seven cows areseven years of famine. You see
this and plethora of a plethora ofother examples in scripture are examples in which
the vision portrays perplexing scenes that symbolizefuture realities. And we see this even

(44:16):
in Revelation itself. You guys areprobably going to be familiar with where earlier
in Revelation Jesus is talking about theseven lamp stands and he says those are
the seven churches. He talks aboutgolden bowls full of incense, and the
text in Revelation says that those arethe prayers of the saints. Right,
this is stereotypical way in Biblical visionsof saying that what the seer sees symbolizes

(44:43):
this other thing in reality. Andso all of that is just to say
that the question when we come toRevelation fourteen, or Revelation twenty for that
matter, is not what is depicted, but what does it symbolize in reality?
Now, before I attempt to answerthat question, do you guys want
to push back on that at all? Or do you think you can agree
largely with what I've said so far? No? I think that's a good

(45:04):
So then consider the symbols that convergehere in Revelation fourteen nine to eleven.
You've got being made to drink God'swrath, You've got being tormented with fire
and sulfur, and you've got smokefrom their torment rising forever and ever.
Now, if I told, ifI could show you that all three of
those symbols converge elsewhere in this verysame book, and it clearly there communicates

(45:28):
a fate of destruction and death.Do you think that that would give you
at least reason to think that perhapsthat's what's going on here as well.
Yes, So, in Revelation eighteenwe have this picture of Mystery Babylon,
this blood drunk vampiric prostitute, which, by the way, is another T
shirt that I told I need tohave because I say that so often.
She's called Mystery Babylon. And inverse six God tells the church to mix

(45:53):
a double portion for her in thecup that she mixed, and scholars,
including traditionalists like GK. Beale,say that this is being made to drink
God's wrath. Just like we sawin Revelation fourteen, we see her tormented
with fire. We see that inplaces like verse ten, they will stand
far off in fear of her torment. We see it again in verse fifteen.

(46:19):
The merchants of these wares who gainedwealth from her, will stand far
off in fear of her torment.And we see her burning in verse nine,
the smoke of her burnings. We'vegot the burning in fire, just
like we do in a tormented infire. I mean, just like we
have in Revelation fourteen. And thenin Revelation nineteen, verse three, Hallelujah
chorus cries out, the smoke fromher goes up forever and ever. So

(46:43):
we've got all three of those samesymbols that we saw in Revelation fourteen applied
to this woman, this Mystery Babylon. So then, what we should ask
ourselves. Do these symbols converge tomean in this passage? Well, in
eighteen twenty one, a mighty angeltook up a stone like a great,
great millstone and threw it into thesea, saying, so will Babylon,

(47:05):
the great city, be thrown downwith violence and will be found no more.
So all of these symbols that tous evoke picture of ongoing burning symbolize
right here in Revelation eighteen and nineteenthe destruction of the city that this woman
represents and the deaths of many ofher inhabitants. So then why wouldn't those
symbols converge to communicate the same ideain Revelation fourteen, especially when there's a

(47:30):
relationship between those beast worshippers and thiswoman who's riding the beast. So all
of that is just to say thatthose symbols appear to converge your Revelation fourteen
to communicate the death and destruction ofthose who follow the beast, rather than
their everlasting torment. And by theway, that's assuming that it's about final
punishment at all, and not allannihilationists agree that it is. For reasons

(47:52):
that we don't have to get intohere now, Chris, I got one
more, and then I'll ask youto offer any that you think you know,
you guys should have brought this oneup if you want to argue for
your view. So I'm in Judedah. Yes, yes, you probably
knew this one was coming. Judeuh, particularly here five through seven.

(48:12):
But it says uh, just asSodom and Gomorah and the surrounding cities,
which likewise indulgent sexual immorality and pursuedunnatural desire, serve as an example by
undergoing a punishment of eternal buyer.Right there it is, so there,
yeah, there it is right,so yeah, actually there there, My

(48:32):
view is exactly, and let meexplain. So, first of all,
it's important to understand that Jude isnot here referring to something that is currently
befalling the people of Sodom and Gomorah. Some people try to argue that it
is because they have they know justenough Greek to get themselves into trouble.

(48:52):
And what they argue is that theverb translated serve as an example, which
is pro k may is in theis in the present tense, and so
too is the word translated undergoing theword Whopeco is also in the present tense,
albeit in a participle. And sowhat is often said by some people
who believe in eternal torment and whoknow just enough Greek to get themselves into

(49:14):
trouble is that undergoing is in thepresent tense. So clearly they are right
now being punished with eternal fire.Er go, eternal torment is true.
No, that's not quite right.So when a participle has a tense like
this, what the tense tells youis the if anything, it tells you
the relationship in time of the participleto the governing verb. And in this

(49:36):
case, like I said, it'sprockmi meaning serve as an example. So
what that means is, to bea little bit clearer, is that the
undergoing is happening at the same timeas the serving as an example. Okay,
now, it doesn't mean that it'shappening right now necessarily, it means
that it's happening contemporaneous with the servingas an example. But that doesn't solve

(49:58):
my problem because serve as is inthe present tense as well. So as
Jude is writing, Sodoma Gomora areserving as an example, and they are
serving an example in the present undergoinga punishment of eternal fire. So I'm
still in the same boat that Iwas in, And one would think,
but I don't, But that's actuallynot the case. So, first of
all, Jude is making a verysimilar case here to what Peter is doing

(50:24):
in Second Peter two. In fact, plenty and plenty of scholars acknowledge that
either Jude is drawing upon Peter orvice versa, or they're both drawing upon
some shared tradition. And if youlook through Second Peter two and Jude,
you'll see a lot of the samestructure, a lot of the same examples.
And what does Peter say in theparallel to what Jude says in Second

(50:46):
Peter two six? He says,if by turning the cities of Sodoma Gomora
to ashes, he condemned God,condemned them to extinction, making them an
example of what is going to happento the ungodly. So Peter is clearly
talking not about something that's currently happeningto the dead inhabitants of Sodom Angamora,

(51:06):
but rather to something that happened inthe past, namely Genesis nineteen, where
fire is sent by the Lord outof heaven to Sodoma Gomorah and destroys them.
And there's more than that. Thereare a lot of these kinds of
examples. It's a whole tradition inthe Intertestamental Jewish world of taking historical examples
of divine punishment and listing them andsaying, look at the examples that you

(51:30):
have, these should warn you notto be not to get yourselves into the
same problem that would result in youmeeting the same fate. And everywhere in
the Intertestamental period when these lists ofexamples include punishment of Sodom a Gomorah,
they always are talking about the firethat destroyed Sodoma Gomora in the past in

(51:52):
Genesis nineteen. So and so doesPeter, as we just saw. So
there's no reason for thinking whatsoever thatjew is doing something different. But then
how do we explain the fact thathe says they serve as an example in
the present. Well, the firstcentury Jewish historian Josephus, he also speaks

(52:12):
about a past to him event asserving as an example in the present,
and he does so using the exactsame grammar as we see, or relevantly
same grammar as we see in Judeseven. In Wars Are the Jews six
' one oh three, Josephus sayshe's pleading with John of Giscala to save

(52:34):
the Jewish Temple. Remember this istalking about the seventy eighty destruction of the
Temple thereabouts. And he's pleading withJohn of Giscala to save the Jewish Temple
by surrendering to the Romans. Right, So the argument is, look,
just surrender to the Romans and theywon't destroy the temple. And he gives
John an example of somebody who didsomething the same kind of thing and thereby

(52:55):
save the temple. He gives theexample of Jehoiakim. What he says is
that Jehoiakin quote serves as and that'sthe present tense Prockemid, just like we
have in Jude, serves as agood example. Well, wait a minute,
how does jehoia Kin, who livedand died hundreds and hundreds and hundreds
of years before Josephus's writing, howdoes he serve as an example in the

(53:16):
present, Well, in the collectivememory of the Jewish people and in the
record of what he did in thescriptures. It'd be sort of like it's
you know that famous painting of GeorgeWashington crossing the Delaware. Imagine if you
pointed out painting and he said,look, we see here George Washington crossing
the Delaware. Why am I speakingabout that in the present tense? He

(53:38):
wouldn't. He didn't do it today. He's not doing it now. He
did it a couple hundred years ago. It's because it's being presented right here
before our eyes in pictorial form.And this is the same kind of concept
that Josephus and Jude are both doing. They're saying this event in the past
serves as an example now, andbecause that's in the present tense, that

(54:00):
he uses the present tense for theparticiple undergoing that right now serving as an
example in the minds of his readers, as because it's recorded in scripture,
and because it's serving as an exampleright now, he uses a present participle
to describe the eternal fire punishment thatthey're suffering in the pages of scripture,

(54:21):
which is the record of an eventhundreds of years earlier. If Jude is
talking and Peter are talking about thedestruction of Sodomagmora hundreds of years earlier,
and the deaths of their many inhabitants, and they say that is an example
of what awaits the ungodly. Infact, if Jude calls that punishment the
punishment of eternal fire, then whyshould we think that eternal fire means something

(54:44):
else when referring to the eternal fireof hell. We would have no reason
for assuming that, especially given asI said, Jude and Peter both say
this is an example of the eternalfire awaiting the wicked. So no,
these verses Jude Jude does not challengemy view, It teaches it. So
far, what we've been doing islooking at all the different scriptures that are

(55:05):
used for making a case, orwhen people would read it, they would
say, oh see, this isa clear scripture teaching about the traditional view
of nature of hell being a placeof conscious eternal torment. And what you've
shown is that no, these areactually better interpreted showing that the end of
the wicked is a snuffing out,an obliteration, final, full stop.

(55:30):
So I hate TikTok, and Ihate Facebook reels, and I hate you
know, YouTube shorts. But ifyou had to make a positive case,
because maybe someone's listening to this andthey're saying, okay, well, you've
done is deflected all the you know, change these around into things arguing for
you your view. But what ifyou read the Bible? How would you

(55:50):
and you weren't trying to just changethese verses for you in your favor,
how would you make a case foryour view? How would you put that?
Could you make a concise case?And then let us unpack it a
little bit more after sure, SoI would start with a couple of verses
that they already very likely know.For God so loved the world that he
gave his only son in the riverleisonim would not perish, but have everlasting

(56:12):
life. And indeed, in theverses immediately preceding that fourteen fifteen of John
three, Jesus compares himself to thebronze statue of a serpent that Moses made
in the Old Testament, which ifIsraelites, who had been bitten by otherwise
fatally venomous snakes looked at that serpentstaff, they would literally have their lives
saved. That is what Jesus does. He literally saves lives. Or Roman

(56:35):
six twenty three, the wages usin his death. The free gift of
God is eternal life. In ChristJesus, our Lord, so hopefully that
would pride the pump. And thenI would say, consider four bodies of
biblical evidence, and I won't giveI won't spend too long on this,
but consider these four independent but mutuallysupporting categories of texts. Number one text
to talk about immortality. So Adamand Eve are they have access to the

(56:58):
Tree of Life in Genesis in theearly chapters of Genesis, and they sin,
and then toward the end of Genesisthree, God kicks them out of
the garden of Eden explicitly so thatthey can't eat from the tree of life
and there by live forever. Andthen that tree of life reappears in the
closing chapters of the Bible in Genesis, where only the saved have access to
its fruit. So this seems tobe a picture that immortality is coming only

(57:21):
to the saved. And that's whyJesus says in Luke twenty to the sad
you sees that those who are countedworthy of resurrection will be unable to die
anymore, implying that those who arenot counted worthy, who are not the
sons of God, as Jesus callsthem, there, will be able to
die, and it's why. InOne Corinthians fifteen, Paul, talking about
the righteous alone, says that theywill put on immortality because immortality is needed

(57:45):
to inherit the kingdom of God,and on and on and I could go.
Second category is texts that talk aboutthe vision, the Biblical vision of
eternity. There is no evidence inscripture that the Biblical vision of eternity is
one in which sin and evil continueto exist in some dark corner, dark
gloomy corner of the cosmos. TheBiblical vision of eternity is one which,

(58:07):
according to Paul. I don't rememberthe exact citations, but Paul says that
God will be all in all Christ. In One Corinthians fifteen itself, Paul
says that Christ will destroy all enemies, including the last enemy that will be
destroyed, namely death, and thenhe will hand over the kingdom to God,
who will be all in all.So the language of scripture, or
take Isaiah sixty six, after thewicked are destroyed and their corpses are left

(58:34):
ingloriously exposed to fire and maggots,and are completely destroyed, then all flesh
there is no all flesh are therighteous there are no sinners left. So
the biblical vision of eternity is onein which there is nowhere where people are
sinning any longer. Number three,consider the biblical teaching of substitutionary atonement.

(58:55):
The Biblical teaching of atonement is thatit is substitutionary, meaning that what was
deserved by one person is meeted outupon another in their place. It's what's
going on in the Mosaic sacrificial system, including the Day of Atonement. The
Israelites deserved to die. A goatis killed, or sheep or lamb is
killed in their stead, and soit bears their punishment. And the New

(59:16):
Testament calls Jesus our sacrificial lamb,and it says repeatedly using these Greek prepositions
on tea and hupeer that mean,instead of in place of to say that
Jesus died for us, he diedin our stead. So what punishment did
Jesus bear on the cross in ourstead? It was not at least primarily,

(59:37):
at least primarily, but I wouldsay exclusive. It is exclusively,
but at the very least it isnot primarily torment. Is it is death,
and it's not if he had sufferedand then you know, for a
few hours and then gotten off thecross alive. He wouldn't have he wouldn't
have finished his work. So itis his death that is the substitute.

(01:00:00):
It is in dying that he substitutedfor us, not living forever in torment.
And so the picture and so Atonementitself is an argument for the final
death of the lost rather than theireverlasting life in torment. And then fourth
and finally, I would just pointto myriad passages in scripture that talk about
the fate of the wicked in termsof death and destruction. Matthew ten twenty

(01:00:21):
eight. Don't fear men who cankill the body but cannot kill the soul.
Rather fear God, who fear theone. And it's obviously God.
I don't know why Anti Right arguesotherwise, it's obviously God can destroy both
body and soul. And Gehenna.Peter says that the wicked will be destroyed
like animals that deserve to be destroyed, right, And nobody thinks they mean
animals deserve to be eternally tormented.It's everywhere we already quoted some of the

(01:00:43):
most famous ones will not perish,but have a livid, lasting life.
The wages of sin is death.So what I would say is, if
you look at all the Biblical dataon what happens to the wicked, ninety
nine plus percent of that data willtalk about the final death and destruction of
the wicked. And when you combinethat with what the Bible says about immortality,
what the Bible says about eternity,and what the Bible says about the
atonement, you have every reason forbelieving in conditional immortality and rejecting eternal torment.

(01:01:08):
Very helpful. I mean, it'slike it's probably about ten YouTube shorts,
but I'll take it. I know, for me, that's a short
thought. Oh yeah, I know, I know, but you know it's
all good. You know, forme, I really find that, you
know, starting at Genesis where they'reexpelled from the garden lest they eat and
live forever. To my mind,that's almost like almost like the foundation for

(01:01:32):
me. Could you talk a bitabout this role of the idea of people
having any eternal soul, what rolethat plays in them may be assuming the
traditional view without even thinking about it, it's like the default view because they
just assume you have this eternal soul. What are your thoughts on that.
Yeah, and if I could piggybackon that real quick, Chris. Yeah,
one of the things I was alwaystaught when, especially when I was

(01:01:53):
first saved, is you know,everybody has any eternal soul. It's just
a matter of will it be withJesus or will be in hell. Yeah.
So people tend to assume that wedo have eternal souls, and for
some of them, they will takethat pop level view that I described.
Your disembodied soul goes to heaven orHell when you die, and that's where

(01:02:15):
it will remain forever. We've alreadydiscussed how that's not Christian. The Christian
view is that even if we dohave souls that go disembodied into a conscious
intermediate state, they will one daybe reunited with their bodies. But somebody
could then make the argument, yeah, but the soul is eternal, and
it wouldn't make any sense for Godto destroy their resurrected bodies a second time,

(01:02:37):
you know, and then punish themas disembodied souls forever because they wouldn't
be fully human. They would onlybe partly human, right, They wouldn't
be the body soul unity that they'remeant to be in scripture, and so
the argument would go, so Godjust makes them immortal in body as well,
so that they can be punished forall eternity as a whole body and
soul person. But number one,the Bible never come anywhere even close to

(01:03:01):
suggesting that the soul is eternal.The closest I've seen people try is in
Ecclesiastes, where the writer says thatGod is hidden eternity in people's hearts.
But the picture there seems to bethat God has placed a yearning for eternity
in our hearts, not that hehas made us eternal. So no,

(01:03:23):
there is no biblical evidence that Godhas given us eternal souls in that sense.
But some people, instead of sayingeternal souls, we'll talk about immortal
souls, and what they really meanis essentially the same thing. But here's
the thing. When people talk aboutimmortality, often what they mean is just

(01:03:43):
that it can't naturally die. Sothink for example, about the Highlander movies
right, or vampire movies right.In all these cases, people are called
vampires are called immortal, but that'sjust because they don't naturally die. They
can still be killed. You canbe head a highlander, and you can
put a stake in the heart ofa vampire and destroy them for good.
So they're not immortal in the senseof being incapable of dying. They're just

(01:04:06):
immortal in the sense of not naturallydying. And if that's what our soul
is, then that doesn't preclude Godfrom destroying it in the final judgment either.
So number one, the Bible doesn'tsay we have an eternal soul,
and number two, even if itsays we have an immortal soul, meaning
that it doesn't naturally die, thatwouldn't preclude God from destroying it, as
Jesus seems to say God will inMatthew ten twenty eight. Does that answer

(01:04:28):
your question, Brian? Sure?Sure. And one of the things that
maybe it was in the fudge bookis that you know, that's a more
of a I don't know, aGreek Greek idea or something like that.
Well, I mean, no,no, there is some truth to that.
So the Platonists believed in the eternalityof souls, and this is it's
important to note. They didn't justbelieve it was everlasting like future eternal.
They believe it was eternal in thepast as well. Not unlike what Mormons

(01:04:51):
believe. You know, Mormons believethat intelligences are eternal and they just go
from form to form or whatever.It's the most polytheistic religon in the universe.
But anyway, so they believe thatthe souls were eternal, both past
and future, and people like Gustinand others come into the Church and they
it's obvious that the past eternal natureof souls can't be true because only God

(01:05:15):
is eternal in that sense, andGod created humans, and so they're able
to reject that aspect of this platonicvision of the soul. But they don't
question whether the soul will be eternalinto the future, and they just read
that into texts about eternal punishment andeternal fire and so forth. And yeah,
I do think with Fudge that thatis a large part of what prompted

(01:05:38):
many converts to Christianity to understand scripturein the way that they do. Now,
do I think that that's what's goingon today. I actually don't think
that's going on as much as someannihilationists might claim it is. I don't
think most Christians that react negatively tothis view are thinking consciously or otherwise well,
annihilationism can't be true because the souljust is eternal, right, or

(01:06:01):
something like that. However, theyhave inherited a reading of the relevant text
from people who did think that wayin my view, namely people like Augustine
and others. So maybe that's kindof what you were getting at, Brian.
I'm not sure. Yeah, peoplewho do believe in eternal conscious torment.
One of the arguments that I wasalways kind of fed that I just

(01:06:23):
swallowed, hook line and sinker itwas this, and I think it comes
I think I've tracked it back toAnselm where he said, doesn't sin against
an infinite god merit and infinite penalty. And I'll tell you a really funny
story about this real quick, andthen I'll let you respond to that,
Brian. The first time I metBrian, I flew out to Michigan when

(01:06:43):
he was visiting his parents and hungout with them, and we were driving
back from the airport. I don'teven know if he remembers this, and
he was looking into conditional immortality atthe time, and this is when I
was still very like apprehensive to evenconsider, and so I was asking him
questions and I had read Norman Geislersay something like this, you know that,

(01:07:05):
you know, sin against an infiniteGod merits an infinite penalty or something.
And I remember Brian just casually,he's driving, and he kind of
kind of casually just looked over atme and went why. He just looked
at me and went why would thatbe? And I remember being like,
uh, I had no I hadno response, like, yeah, that's

(01:07:25):
a good question, like why wouldit? You know? But anyway,
I have heard that brought out agood bit, and so I know it's
not necessarily spelled out in the Biblethat way, but it is a common
point, and so I was justcurious of what you thought of that.
Yeah, so let's assume for amoment that it is legitimate. I've never

(01:07:46):
I don't. I don't make apoint to argue against that logic. And
the reason is because it doesn't challengemy view, and I want to and
I want to I want to approachit from that point first. See,
as we've already talked about, well, both sides of this debate believe that
the punishment of hell, the punishmentinflicted in Hell, will be everlasting.
Okay, well, if it isan everlasting punishment that it is by definition

(01:08:11):
infinite just infinite duration. Right,So I do believe in an infinite penalty.
And so if it's the case thatany sin against an infinitely holy God
merits an infinite penalty, well thenannihilation qualifies. Boom. I'm done.
I don't need to say more.But now, having said that, what
do I think about the argument?Well, I think it's got some flaws.

(01:08:32):
Number one, as I think Iunderstood you to be saying a moment
ago, it's kind of just abald assertion, right, that a sin
against an infinite old hill of Godmust be met with an infinite penalty.
Yeah, that's what. Yeah,that's what I realized when Brian asked me
that question of right. I hadjust bought it and not really thought about
it too much. I just don'tthink it does go further than that.

(01:08:53):
It's just a claim. I'm awareof no valid syllogism, for example,
that would lead to the conclue usionthat a sin against an infinite holy God
merri it's an infinite penalty. Butso that's number one. But number two,
it seems to me that that argumentrelies exclusively on the status of the
offend. Dead and completely neglects thestatus of the offender. And here's what

(01:09:16):
I mean by that. Very oftentraditionalists will say, they'll walk you through
a mind a mental exercise. They'llsay something like this, Imagine somebody kills
an aunt. What punishment did theyget? Well? Nothing? Well,
what if they kill a dog.Well, that's gonna be a little bit
harsher, but not too terribly severe. Well what if they what if they
kill a child? Well, nowyou're going to start getting much more severe.

(01:09:39):
What if they kill the President ofthe United States? Right now?
Okay, now we're getting really severe. Right, So they get this example
where depending upon the status of theof the offended party, the punishment gets
worse and worse and worse and worseand worse. But let's look at it
from the other way around. Ifthe president is assaulted by an adult,
a mentally competent adult, then penaltyis going to be pretty harsh. But

(01:10:00):
what if he's assaulted by a fiveyear old girl. What if the president
is assaulted by a free by aseven month old toddler? Right? My
point is is that the disparity betweenthe status of the offended and the offender,
that disparity also plays a role inwhat the punishment is that is deserved

(01:10:25):
by the offender. Just because thepresident has this incredibly high status doesn't mean
that a five year old girl isgoing to be punished every body as harshly
as an adult. Well, so, what is the disparity in status between
us and God? It's infinite right, It would seem like that should also
play a factor in how much punishmentwe deserve as well. The fact that

(01:10:48):
we are so infinitely inferior, soinfinitely less wise, and less smart,
and less knowledgeable, and less pure. In all these things, the punishment
that we would get arguably should beless harsh, just like the punishment coming
to the five year old girl forassaulting the penalty that the president would be

(01:11:08):
less than the punishment awaiting an adultwho did so. So what I consider
those factors. What I come awaythinking is I don't have any good reason
to accept this and sell me anargument. But if I were to will
my view still qualifies, and I'mhappy to leave it there. But I
will say just one more thing.I think it's interesting. I think it's

(01:11:29):
telling that this argument did not hasnever been an argument for belief in eternal
torment. It arose and continues toserve as a justification for a for a
belief that one already has in eternaltorment. If you believe eternal torment is

(01:11:51):
what awaits lost, you're going totry to come up with some way to
justify that. And this is howit is often done. And I think
that's the case with Anselm as wellwell. But of course I don't believe
in eternal torment, and so Idon't see any reason to try to justify
my belief using that argument. Yeah, it's more of a way to make
sense of it if it's true,rather than, oh, because of this
now I believe conscious torment. It'sjust sort of like a making sense of

(01:12:14):
it sort of an argument. It'skind of like a the odyssey, yeah,
sort of. Yeah. The earlyChurch, one of the things I've
heard brought up in a lot ofyour debates and discussions is, of course,
the presumption is always yeah, butthe Church is always believed in the
conditional view, excuse me, thetraditional view, eternal conscious torment. Whereas
you challenge that, can you talka bit about what the early Church believed

(01:12:36):
and when kind of eternal conscious tormentbegan to become what we know now is
the traditional view. Yeah, soit's fairly undisputed that our Nobias, so
Sika in what I want to sayis the fourth century taught annihilationism. So
and although our Nobias had a lotof other challenging or odd let's say,

(01:12:57):
questionable views, nevertheless, he isone of the church fathers and was respected
and continues to be so by insome circles. But he's not the earliest.
What I'm about to say is mysubjective assessment of the historical data.
People are welcome to push back onthis, but if people want to see
the conclusions I've come to and why, they can go to a playlist on
the Rethinking Hell YouTube channel called Conditionalistsin History and What. And I cover

(01:13:23):
a number of different Church fathers inthe course of that that I have come
to conclude, based on the evidenceavailable, actually tard our view. And
they begin at the very turn ofthe first century, right around one hundred
and eightd with Clement of Rome andIgnatius of Antioch. Both of them appear
to have been conditionalists rather than believersin eternal torment. Right around that same
time, give or take a fewdecades, are the de Decay and the

(01:13:44):
Epistle of Barnabas, both of thoseappear to teach my view. In the
latter half of the second century onehundred and fifty to two hundred AD,
you've got iran As of Leon,he's the author of Against Heresies, and
he is seemingly teaching conditional immortality orannihilationism. But it's also right around that
time, that one hundred and fiftyto two hundred time period when the other

(01:14:05):
two views that Christians identify with arise, namely eternal torment on the one hand,
and universalism on the other hand.And I know that we're not really
talking about universalism in the show,and that's fine, but the point is
it's in that second that latter halfof the second century that you get Tacian
of Aaddi Albene and Athanagaris of Athensteaching eternal torment pretty clearly. And then

(01:14:26):
on the other side you've got Clementof Alexandria and Origin of Alexandria both teaching
universalism. And this is right aroundthe same time that Iranaus of Leona's teaching
conditionalism or annihilationism. So up untilthis point, the history seems to be
one, and I've got other examplesin that playlist that I mentioned. It
seems to be that the post ApostolicChristians were Annihilationists for the next one hundred

(01:14:47):
years roughly, and then there continuedto be annihilationist Christians, but then also
alongside them arose eternal torment believing Christiansand universalist Christians. What's is interesting is
that as the ecumenical creeds were formedin the decades and centuries from then on,
they didn't land on any one ofthese three views. They didn't defend

(01:15:08):
any one of these particular views asthe orthodox view and or condemned the others
as heretical. Even Augustine, whenhe speaks about believers in universalism or annihilationism,
speaks of them with some degree ofdisdain, but not as heretics,
so that the Church seems to toleratethese three views for a while. And
then Augustine he puts his stamp ofapproval on eternal torment. And I'll talk

(01:15:31):
about why I think that was ina second. And you know, Augustine,
people don't know this, but heisn't just a church father. He's
one of I think four of whatare known as the great fathers of the
church. I think it's like twoEast and two West, and he's one
of the four. So he hadtremendous influence and I think rightfully so.
And I think that because he puta stamp of approval on that view,

(01:15:51):
it became the one that that becameto dominate. And you know, as
people are raised in a church ina community, teach which is that this
is how they should read scripture.That's how they're going to read scripture and
pass it on to their next generations. Now, why did Augustin put his
stamp of approval on eternal torment?I think that it's because of the baggage

(01:16:12):
that he brought with him from hispast. So, and I want to
be clear, I'm a Calvinist,I'm an Augustinian in the areas of so
teiology. So I'm not like throwinghim under the bus. I'm just saying,
sure, he was formerly a Platonistand a Manicheist, if I'm not
mistaken, and he brought with himinto his reading of scriptures as a Christian
a belief in the immortality of souls, and so when he comes to texts

(01:16:36):
that talk about eternal fire, eternalpunishment, smoke from torment rising forever and
ever. He's naturally going to readthose texts through the lenses that he's wearing,
having worn those lenses, lenses asa new convert to the church,
because he had dawned them in hisprevious world views. So I think he
was influenced to read the scriptures inan eternal torment favorable way by his pagan

(01:17:00):
past. I want to be clear, I'm not like condemning him for that.
I was when I became a Christian. I immediately believed an eternal torment
because the surrounding culture told me that'swhat Christians believe, and I did for
the next ten years. It's justthe water you swim in. So of
course, anytime you convert to anew worldview, there's going to be some
baggage you immediately are able to detectas not consistent with your newfound worldview.

(01:17:23):
But there are gonna be other thingsthat you never even realize that you continue
to believe until you know when Godreveals to you one day, oh,
actually, that you needed to changethat too, but you mistakenly didn't.
So anyway, that's my read ofthe history. It was annihilationist right after
the close of the Cannon up untilabout the latter half of the second century,
and then all three views compete forpopularity within the church, and then

(01:17:45):
eventually eternal torment becomes a dominant view. Chris, is there anything else we're
leaving out that you want to justtell our listeners we've left out and point
them to where they can find more. There are some texts that we didn't
get around to discussing Revelation ten tofifteen, where the devil to Beast and
the false prophet are tormented forever andever in a lake of fire, and
then human beings are thrown into thelake of fire as well. So that's

(01:18:10):
one text. But this again isa text that I think actively teaches my
view rather than challenging it. Butyou know, we've already spent a long
time and all just encourage people togo check out the YouTube channel a Rethinking
for Rethinking Hell, and they'll beable to find that. We also didn't
talk about Second Tessalonians one nine,where Paul says that the loss will be
punished with everlasting destruction from the presenceof the Lord. A lot of translations

(01:18:30):
do a disservice to the Greek prepositionupa and translate it away from or even
worse, separated from when it doesn'tcarry those connotations. And anyway, but
the point is they think, well, if it's everlasting destruction, it must
be everlasting torment, as if asif they were as if that even made
sense, and I don't it doesn't. But anyway, again, this is
a text that actively teaches my view, It doesn't challenge it. We didn't

(01:18:54):
talk about Daniel twelve two. Somewill awake to everlasting life and others to
shame and everlasting contempt. But again, this is a verse that I think
lends itself more to my view thanto eternal torment. So there are these
few other verses, and again lotsof resources at rethinkinghell dot com, at
the YouTube channel for Rethinking Hell,and at my own website, Chris date
dot info. But suffice it tosay that I think all those texts,

(01:19:16):
and whatever few others there are thatare cited in support of eternal torment,
they are better support for my view. I think. The only other thing
I would say is just that thereason why I have devoted so much time
and energy to this topic isn't becauseI care particularly much about it. It's
because I care about how the topicis dividing the Church. I have heard

(01:19:40):
from or know personally countless people whohave lost friends, who have been kicked
out of churches, who have lostjobs, or who, in order to
keep their jobs, have to keepsilent, people kicked out of their faith
communities, shunned by their faith communities, all because in some cases they don't
even It's not even that they rejecteternal torment, it's just they question it.

(01:20:02):
And I think that when so manyChristians treat this particular view mine on
Hell as cause for division. Whenit doesn't violate any of the essentials of
the faith, when it doesn't violateany of the historic creeds, when it's
advocates are firmly committed to the authorityof Scripture and to all the orthodox beliefs

(01:20:23):
that define Christianity, there's no reasonfor Christians to divide over it. And
I think when we do, Ithink it grieves God's heart because not only
does it make us unable to enjoythe blessed love and unity that we're called
to, but it also stymies ourattempt to carry out our mission in the
world. When we are united armin arm on the essentials of the faith,

(01:20:45):
We're going to be far better ableto take the life giving gospel to
a dying world that desperately needs it. And so my hope is that your
hearers, even if they aren't convincedby what I've said, even if they
think that I'm using verbosity right,maybe word salad they might say, or
something. Even if they think thatI'm jumping through hoops to make the text
sound like it teaches my view,Fine, you can think that, But

(01:21:10):
consider the possibility that what I've saidis evidence that this isn't cause for division,
That if it doesn't violate any theessentials of the faith, if it
doesn't violate the creeds, et cetera, et cetera, Then even if you
don't hold my view, why can'tyou accept me as a brother and be
willing to fellowship with and minister alongsideof me. Amen. And that's what
I hope your hearers take away now. If they go on to accept my

(01:21:33):
view, that me's fantastic. Ifthey go on to better understand and remain
firm in their own view, that'sawesome too. As Chad said, that's
all. That's the main thing.I want from people is to just go
and research scripture and better understand whatyou think it teaches, whether you end
up believing me or not. Butif those things happen, great, I'd
love for those things too. Butif all that happens is that they're more

(01:21:55):
willing than they were before they heardthis to think of me as a brother
and be willing to fellip with aminister alongside of me, then I've done
all I could hope to do superwell. It's been super fascinating discussion.
Chris, It's been great having youon the show again. I'm thinking what
can we talk about next? Somaybe we'll hit you up for something in

(01:22:16):
the future, but we'll point peopleto your resources rethinkinghell dot com and Chris
date dot info. Thank you somuch for your time. You've been very
generous and again, great discussion.Yes, it's been my pleasure and honor,
and as I've said, i've youknow, I've been a fan of
Apologetics three fifteen for quite some time, and so I'm grateful that I get
the opportunity to be on it again. Thank you for having me, Thank

(01:22:38):
you, thanks for listening to thepodcast. If you have a question,
you'd like us to address or justa message for us. Feedback good or
bad. You can either email usat podcast at apologetics three fifteen dot com
or leave a voice message for ususing speak Pipe. Just go to speakpipe
dot com slash apologetics three fifteen toleave us a message. And remember,

(01:23:00):
if you include a ghostbuster's quote inyour question, we guarantee that we'll read
it on the podcast. We alsoensure up to fifty percent better quality answers.
Also, if you've enjoyed today's podcast, please leave a review in iTunes
or the podcast platform in your choice, and please share this episode with a
friend if you've found it useful.Remember you can find lots of apologetics resources
at apologeticspree fifteen dot com, alongwith show notes for today's episode. Find

(01:23:26):
Chad's apologetic stuff over at truthbomb apologetics. That's truthbomb dot blogspot dot com.
This has been Brian Auten and ChadGross for the Apologetics three fifteen podcast,
and thanks for listening.

All Episodes

137 - Rethinking Hell with Chris Date

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}137 - Rethinking Hell with Chris Date