Hell Debate, Part 1: Chris Date Makes the Case for Annihilationism

What does the Bible actually say happens to the lost? Chris Date of ​Rethinking Hell joins the show to lay out the biblical case for annihilationism / conditional immortality, the view that the unsaved are resurrected, judged, and then die a second death rather than suffering consciously forever.

ABOUT THE EPISODE:
Chris spent his first years as a believer firmly convinced of eternal conscious torment, until an interview with the late Edward Fudge sent him back to the text. What followed was months spent trying to defend the traditional view and failing to find a version of it that held up exegetically. In this conversation, he walks through why.

A lot of believers are quietly wrestling with the doctrine of hell right now, caught between a traditional view that many find hard to square with the character of God and a universalism that abandons judgment altogether. Chris argues conditionalism is neither of those things: it takes judgment seriously while insisting the Bible describes that judgment as death, not endless suffering.

Wherever you land on after watching, Chris's closing word is worth sitting with: this is a debate the creeds leave open, and how we treat brothers and sisters who land differently matters as much as the conclusion we reach.

0:00 – Introduction
0:54 – Chris Date's Testimony
6:49 – Defining Conditional Immortality
14:50 – Tree Of Life Motif
19:37 – Why Hell Debate Now
35:37 – Daniel & Matthew 25
42:22 – Matthew 10:28 Apollumi
49:47 – 2 Thessalonians 1:9
57:21 – Revelation 20 Lake Fire
1:13:35 – Partial Conditionalism Debate
1:20:46 – Rethinking Hell Resources
1:30:52 – Closing Thoughts: Atonement

ABOUT THE GUEST:
Rethinking Hell: https://rethinkinghell.com/
Chris Date's website: https://www.chrisdate.info/
Chris Date's journal articles: https://www.chrisdate.info/journal-articles

RESOURCES MENTIONED:
Edward Fudge, The Fire That Consumes: https://www.amazon.com/Fire-That-Consumes-Historical-Punishment/dp/1608999300
Edward Fudge, Hell: A Final Word: https://www.amazon.com/Hell-Final-Edward-W-Fudge/dp/0891121498
Edward Fudge & Robert Peterson, Two Views of Hell: https://www.ivpress.com/two-views-of-hell
Rethinking Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism: https://rethinkinghell.com/rethinkinghell-book/
A Consuming Passion: Essays on Hell and Immortality in Honor of Edward Fudge: https://rethinkinghell.com/aconsumingpassion-book/
Concerning Hell (Copan, Date & Huff, IVP Academic): https://www.amazon.com/Concerning-Hell-Theological-Philosophical-Historical/dp/1514004976

Join Joshua Lewis, Michael Miller & Michael Rowntree for RemCon "Prophecy & Hearing God's Voice" October 1-3 | Houston, TX

Learn more & register: https://www.theremnantradio.com/remnant-fall-conference-2026

Subscribe to The Remnant Radio newsletter and receive our FREE introduction to spiritual gifts eBook. Plus, get access to: discounts, news about upcoming shows, courses and conferences - and more. Subscribe now at TheRemnantRadio.com.

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:47

Hey everybody, welcome back to the wonderful world of Remnant Radio. In this program, I've got Chris Date with us, and we're going to be talking about annihilationism. It's going to be an exciting program. You guys stay tuned. Hey guys, Joshua Lewis here. Thank you so much for tuning into this program. As you know, uh we interview lots of scholars and teachers from different churches and denominations here on the podcast. If you're interested in staying up to date on all those sorts of conversations, make sure to subscribe to the channel. If you want to get updates on all the various things we got going, conferences, courses, get discount codes on all that stuff. There's a link in the description for the newsletter. It's a great way to stay in touch with us. But I've got Chris State with us, who's going to be talking about conditional immortality. Um also I will refer to this kind of interchangeably uh as uh the annihilationist perspective. So I'll be using both of those phrases. Uh but guys, thank you so much for tuning in. Uh Chris, tell us a little about yourself and your ministry before we dive into the program today.

SPEAKER_00 1:41

Sure. Well, first of all, it's good to be back on. Thank you for having me. Um I uh oh gosh, where do I begin? I've been a Christian for about 25 years, roughly. I became a um Christian shortly after I got married to my wife. Um we were both um rabid atheists, anti-Christians at the time, even um insisted on having a justice of the peace marry us, um, which turned out to be something of a mistake because he showed up to our wedding drunk, forgot to have us read our vows, forgot to have us kiss each other. My wife's uncle had to shout, well, kiss her already, so that we would kiss each other. But anyway, um so we were married as atheists, but shortly thereafter, uh I became uh saved. I encountered Christ and and was saved. There's not a big profound story there or anything like that. A few years later, my wife was saved as well. Early on in my faith, I became very interested in and passionate about um careful biblical exegesis, um, good sound, systematic theology, um, effective apologetics, all that kind of stuff. Um, and uh shortly before 2010, I started public ministry in the form of a blog initially, and then a podcast. And it was as part of conducting that podcast that I began to rethink the doctrine of hell. I'd, since the time I became a Christian, been a believer in eternal conscious torment. Um, there were really, having not been raised in the church, having had very little exposure to Christian thinking, um, when I became a Christian, there were really only two things that I understood that I should believe as a new Christian and everything else I had to learn. One of them was I should believe the Bible, which ironically today isn't even a given for professing Christians, which is unfortunate. Um, but the other thing that I knew that I should believe as a new Christian, just by having picked it up from the surrounding culture, art, TV, cartoons, etc., is that the damned are going to suffer forever in hell. And I didn't have any particular problem with that, um, especially once I became a Calvinist shortly after becoming a believer. Um, you know, as a Calvinist, I had already wrestled with questions around the character of God and whether that was challenged by a Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election and so forth, and um not only became persuaded that those two views are in fact um, you know, compatible, they go hand in hand, um, but also I became um comfortable with not having a hundred percent satisfactory answers to questions about God's nature or God's character having to do with various doctrines. And so um I never had any moral or philosophical problem with the doctrine of eternal torment. I trusted in God's goodness um that he would do what's right, even if I couldn't fully understand it. Um but in the course of doing my podcast, I interviewed a gentleman uh now deceased by the name of Edward Fudge. I interviewed him initially on the Churches of Christ that he um was a part of. I was not in the churches of Christ, but it was my practice to have guests on to talk about issues where we don't see eye to eye, but I considered my guests' views within the pale of orthodoxy. I wanted to expose my audience to the breadth of Christian thinking on various topics. And so I had a number of guests on to talk about things I didn't necessarily believe in or communities I wasn't a part of. And Edward Fudge was uh on to talk about the churches of Christ. And it was at this time he had just published the third edition of his book, The Fire That Consumes. Um, and I learned that this was a prominent uh defense of annihilationism, and I had friends who were annihilationists, and so I invited Edward Fudge on to talk about that. And I spent the first hour of our interview letting him give a uh tell me about his life and his story. I had him give me a positive case for annihilationism. Uh, and I insisted, look, I don't want philosophy or morals or anything like that. I want the biblical data. That's what I care about. And I was very impressed by his case, and then I spent the next hour of our interview peppering him with every challenge I could think of, every objection I had or that I knew others had. And I found his answers to my objections uh pretty compelling. So by the time I was done conducting that interview and having read his book and preparing for it, I was solidly on the fence. I just spent my entire Christian faith up until that point, firmly believing in eternal torment and having no problem with it at all, um, to now finding myself on the fence because this guy's case was very compelling and his answers to the objections were really good. So then I spent the next several months pouring over everything I could find from the eternal torment perspective. I listened to every sermon, read every book I could find, every uh article. You know, um I really tried to become convinced of uh eternal torment again. Even to this day, I wish I could believe in it. Um, but what became clear, even as I um looked into those sources and tried to become persuaded of eternal torment again, it became clear that every defense of eternal torment is terrible. Every defense biblically, theologically, philosophically, falls flat and makes conditional immortality or annihilationism even more convincing. And by the end of that year, I think this was 2011, I found myself firmly convinced. And so I engaged in my first debate, uh, the first of what would become many since. Um, and uh in 2012, I think, went on unbelievable to defend uh the view, and um was around that time invited to become a part of a ministry that was just starting up called Rethinking Hell, um, where we are conservatives who have become convinced of conditional immortality or annihilationism through our study of the scripture. And uh the rest, you know, the rest is history. There, there's more I could say, but I I would just ramble on and on until you give me some more direction.

SPEAKER_01 7:40

So how about I have you define for me what uh conditionalism is, and as you see it, as that relates to the uh conditional immortality or annihilationist position is. Yeah, explain that for us and the nuances that some annihilationists aren't conditionalist. Is that right?

SPEAKER_00 7:58

No, it's not right. Um, that is a claim that um one or two people have made, but but they're they're just wrong. And I say that even, I think it's even John Stott who said he was an annihilationist but not a conditionalist. Um, but that was just a mistake on his part. Uh so let me explain. Um defining conditional immortality and annihilationism, I find to be most effective by contrasting it with a properly understood traditional view of eternal torment. So when we talk about the hell debate and the different views, what we're not talking about what happens after people die. Um what happens after people die is a debate over what's called the intermediate state. It's the state of people between their death, their first death, uh, and resurrection. And uh everybody that is a genuine Christian believes that both the saved and the lost are one day going to rise physically from the dead. They're gonna come back to physical life. Um, premillennialists might say that that happens to the saved at the beginning of the thousand years, and then the rest of humankind rises at the end of the thousand years. Premillennialists are wrong, of course. Uh, millennialism is true, either that or post-millennialism, but either way, eventually all humankind will have been physically resurrected, risen from the dead. And all sides of the hell debate agree that at that point the resurrected saved will be made immortal, um, physically immortal, physically alive forever and ever, without ever dying again. Everybody agrees there. Uh, believers in eternal torment, and for that matter, believers in universalism believe that that will be true also of the resurrected lost. So, yes, the resurrected lost in eternal torment will go to hell and remain um in torment there forever. But the point I'm making here is that they will be physically alive and physically immortal. They will never, ever, ever, ever, ever physically die. They will forever be physically immortal, albeit in hell rather than in heaven. Um, and then the universalist will say the resurrected immortals that get sent to hell are rescued out of hell by faith in Christ at some point. So the point I'm getting at is that both eternal torment and universalism are forms of what you could call unconditional immortality, which is to say that when God raises humankind from the dead, he renders them all immortal, physically immortal, physically incapable of dying, um, both the saved and the lost, indiscriminately, universally, without any condition having to be met by the people so raised. So unconditional immortality is something that is shared by both eternal torment and universalism. And it's precisely there that we conditionalists or annihilationists part ways, because we think the Bible teaches about as clearly as it does anything else that no, only the saved are going to rise physically immortal. Only the saved are going to rise unto everlasting physical life, remaining alive and immortal forever. The lost, by contrast, will indeed be resurrected, but they will be resurrected with their mortal bodies, but mortal every bit as much as you and I are right now. And they will literally be able to die, and their judgment will be literal death. They will literally die a second time, um, no longer physically alive. So our view is a form of conditional immortality, which is simply to say that God is only going to grant immortality to those resurrected who meet a condition, namely the condition of being saved. So that's conditional immortality. Now, why are we sometimes called annihilationists? Well, it's because if in the first if in the first death the body dies, but the soul lives on, which is, I think, a reasonable inference from Matthew 10, 28 and perhaps some other texts, we conditionalists believe that in the second death the body and the soul will die and be destroyed. Also a pretty straightforward inference from Matthew 10, 28 and other texts. So whereas in the first death, only the body dies, but the soul continues to live or at least be conscious in some sense in an intermediate state, Jesus says in Matthew 10.28 that in the second death, body and soul will be destroyed. So if you think about what it means for a body to be dead, it's inert, it's lifeless, it's inanimate, it's inactive, it's motionless, there's no activity, right? Um, and in the first death, none of that's true of the soul because it continues to exist consciously in an intermediate state. But in the second death, the body dies a second time, once again rendered inert, inanimate, motionless, inactive, etc. But if those, but if those things are true of the soul as well, because the soul also dies in the second death, unlike in the first death, well, then think about what it would mean for a soul to become inanimate, inert, inactive, motionless, right? All those things. The soul in in Christian thought just is consciousness, it just is conscious existence. Um, if your soul is conscious, then it is not inert, it is not inanimate, it is not inactive and motionless, etc. But if it is rendered all of those things, which is what it means for a body to be rendered dead, then the whole conscious entity comes to an end. There is no more activity. The soul, the mind, the consciousness becomes inert, inactive, motionless, etc. So the whole being comes to an end as a conscious entity. And that's why it's called annihilationism. Um, now, as for those who have claimed that you that they're one or the other, but not both, like I said, they're just mistaken. They're under the mistaken impression that conditional immortality or annihilationism have certain nuances that might be popular things read into those labels, but aren't actually part of those views. So, for example, some people have the impression that annihilationism means um that God sort of snaps his fingers like Thanos and instantaneously all the damned immediately disappear into the proverbial ether. But that's a mistaken understanding of what annihilation means in annihilationism. Um, all we mean to say by the word is that the whole conscious entity comes to an end. Whether the body is zapped into non-existence or just becomes lifeless remains is irrelevant to the definition of annihilationism and conditional immortality. So popular misunderstandings of annihilationism don't constitute what annihilationism really is. Uh, and by contrast, some people think that conditional immortality means that um, you know, has some kind of additional nuance that it really doesn't. All conditional immortality means is that when the lost are or when humankind is resurrected, only those who meet a particular condition will be made immortal. And whatever kind of annihilationist one is, whatever kind of conditionalist one is, one believes that the lost will fail to meet the condition required to be made immortal when they're raised, and will be annihilated in the sense I described earlier. They will die in both body and soul, thereby ceasing to be conscious, ceasing to exist as a conscious entity. So, no, they're really just two sides of the same coin. One refers to the positive um truth that only those who are saved will be raised immortal. The other side of the coin tells you what happens to those who fail to meet that condition. They will be killed, destroyed, and be consciously no more ever again.

SPEAKER_01 15:37

Yeah, so that that same theme all the way through, um, even going back to the Garden Eden, as I understand, annihilationists uh would understand this, is to say, look, Adam uh had to continue to eat of the tree of life, right? Like this was this, and maybe some would take that take, maybe others wouldn't. That that's not the strongest argument. Um, but to say that he was removed from the tree of life, he can no longer partake, he no longer can exist in this immortal sort of state because he's not rooted in Christ, I think is the picture that we have there. And then in the new covenant, hey, what must I do to inherit eternal life? Like, what is inheriting eternal life? Well, you're not eternal, is the assumption there. When Jesus is teaching, hey, uh, if you believe in me, you have eternal life, right? He's comes, Nicodemus comes to him. The promise is that you're not eternal, you're not immortal, and you actually have to come to Christ to receive that eternality. Um, that would be a kind of fair summation of this, yes.

SPEAKER_00 17:25

Yeah, I mean, I I I would pick at some nits. Um, I I I think it's straightforward reading of Genesis does, in fact, indicate that Adam and Eve would have had to have continued to have access to the tree of life in order to continue go on living. Uh, they weren't immortal, they were immortable. Um, they were able to be made immortal had they continued to remain, you know, having access to the tree of life, and and if God ever rendered them immortal. Um, but they weren't. They sinned, and explicitly in Genesis chapter three, God kicks them out of the garden so that they can't take from the tree of life and thereby live forever. So it's just straightforward. Their removal of their access to the tree of life guarantees their eventual demise. They eventually do die. And what's interesting, you didn't mention this, but but I think it's worth observing at this point that tree of life reappears. Um, the New Testament, at the very end of the Bible, this is one of the reasons why I say conditional immortality or annihilationism is literally from cover to cover, because at the first, at the front cover in Genesis, access to the tree of life is needed for Adam and Eve to go on living. And when they no longer have access to it, they eventually die. But at the other end of scripture in Revelation chapters 21 and 22, we see the tree of life again, but only the inhabitants of New Jerusalem have access to it, symbolizing that only they will live forever as Adam and Eve could have had they continued to have access to that tree. Um, you mentioned uh Nicodemus being told that if you believe you have eternal life. And some um critics of our view will say, see, clearly, if if people who believe in Jesus right now have eternal life, clearly eternal life can't just simply mean living forever, because obviously we as Christians do eventually die, provided Jesus doesn't return before we do. Um and so they'll say clearly then eternal life must mean something else. But but they're wrong for a couple of reasons. Well, one reason they're wrong is because um that's a that's a distinctly Johannine way of characterizing eternal life. What I mean by that is John's gospel is the only one that's that in such strong terms speaks about believers having eternal life in the present. Um what it what that means, I'll come back to in a second. But the reason I mention that is because the other gospels, take for example, Mark, um, I think it's in Mark, it might be in Matthew. Jesus says, to everyone who gives up family, who loses family and friends and you know, community and and lands and money in the here and now, it will be restored to them in the here and now, tenfold or hundredfold, whatever he says. And then he says, and in the life to come, they will receive eternal life. So eternal life isn't something we literally tangibly have right now, it's an inheritance awaiting us that we will receive in the age to come when we are resurrected uh at the eschaton. So then why does John speak in this positive way, uh, this strong way of believers having eternal life in the here and now? Well, think about the way one could speak of an inheritance. Um, somebody whose parents have not yet died has an inheritance. They just haven't received it yet. They'll receive it when their parents um pass away. In a similar way, we have eternal life as believers in the sense that it is awaiting us. It is promised to us. We have the guarantee of it as the Holy Spirit indwelling us. Um, but we will receive it, as Jesus explicitly says, in the age to come when we are resurrected. So those were just some.

SPEAKER_01 20:47

It's an already, but not yet.

SPEAKER_00 20:48

It's kind of an already not yet, not to mention the idea of prolepsis. You know, when you say dead man walking, you're not redefining death. You're you're talking about somebody who's on their way to death. And in a similar way, Christians have been brought from death to life in this proleptic sense that because we have embraced Jesus as our Messiah, we are promised life. We will one day rise unto eternal life, whereas those who do not will rise to to be judged and destroyed.

SPEAKER_01 21:15

Yeah, I'm curious, you know, I I know you're a text guy. Feel free to boot this question. I'm not interested in it. And I want to hang out in the text, I really do. Um, but I asked this question of Paul when he came on the program and we taped uh a program together on uh exegeting the culture. Because I know we're really good at exegeting the cat the text, but for whatever reason, there are certain theological things that happen or theological uh waves that come through, not not to be confused with waves of doctrine, but things that are like really popularized during certain moments in history. Um I think of like the sexual revolution happens. Well, now we're really questioning complementary and egalitarian conversations. Um hey, look, like this thing is happening, something's going on that's causing people to focus on this subject. And it's extremely clear to me that a lot of people care about this. A lot of people are, you know, I I see people going into Christian Universalism, I see people jive diving into uh annihilationism, really trying to figure out what they believe about eternal conscious torment. Um, obviously, the podcast that happened with uh oh, I can't think of it. Kirk Cameron, yeah, that blew up. Um, you guys were all on a panel discussion there on Rethinking Hell, which was fantastic. It was a great discussion. Um I I'd be curious what what what do you think is going on in the culture that is causing everyone's eyes to like come in on this subject? Because I do think there's a lot of attention on this right now. And I think the church needs an answer and to think critically about this for people who are searching. Um, but but I'm curious, do you do you have any insight into why this is happening now?

SPEAKER_00 22:46

I mean, I I have my suspicions. Um I'd like to think that these are somewhat informed suspicions, but they are nevertheless suspicions. And so take these with a great big grain of salt. I think there's fundamentally two things going on. One is something that isn't, in fact, new. Um, it's something that's been going on for quite a while. Um, ever since the Reformation, increasing numbers of Christians have um struggled with the traditional view of hell as eternal torment. Um, in the Protestant Reformation, um uh some Anabaptists seem to have uh believed in Annihilationism. Uh and then in the 19th century, um, so the 1800s, annihilationism uh more popularly known at the time as Conditional immortality was extremely popular both in America and in Europe. So popular was it and so fast was it growing that one conditionalist by the name of Jacob Blaine, he was a Baptist minister in New York, I think, in the ninth in the 1800s, he published a book saying that the number of teachers in all sorts of different kinds of denominations who are embracing this view have become um so great in number and are so determined to spread the truth of this view that the traditional view must soon vanish, must soon disappear, must soon be defeated. Um so there was a huge number of people that were turning away from the traditional view of hell toward to be to embrace annihilationism and conditionalism in the 19th century. But toward the tail end of that century, there was the uh modernist fundamentalist controversy, um, where the fundamentalists they saw that liberals and modernists were rejecting a traditional view of hell. And so they circled the proverbial wagons around a traditional view of hell and called that a fundamental. Um, and anybody who refused to embrace that fundamental must be a liberal, a modernist, or a heretic. What they neglected to observe was that the liberals and the modernists were embracing universalism, not annihilationism. Um conservatives, maybe people who evangelicals were embracing conditional immortality. But nevertheless, because the fundamentalists were so um persuasive and popular and influential, um, they caused conditionalism to fade into obscurity, at least in America and to a large extent in Europe, such that by the early 20th century, the early 1900s, you just didn't see Americans uh affirming it, so far as I can tell. But you did have a few European holdouts, the likes of um uh Basil, uh Basil Atkinson and Harold Giabod, and they appear to have influenced John Stott and John Wenham and other British evangelicals. But anyway, and and then with Edward Fudge and um the starting around the 80s in America, our view really started to take off, especially with the support of people like John Wenham and John Stott. Anyway, the point of all of that is just to say that since the Reformation, so for the past, you know, 400 years roughly, um, more and more and more Christians have been questioning, if not outright, abandoning the traditional view of hell, turning for either universalism, particularly if they're more liberal-minded or progressive or modernist or whatever, or turning toward conditionalism or annihilationism if they're more conservative and biblically minded. Um, and why is that? Why have Christians ever since the Reformation been doing that? Well, I think it's because, you know, when the Protestant Reformation, part and parcel of the Protestant Reformation was a return to each individual Christian having to try to make sense of the biblical teaching and embrace what they believe it to be teaching, regardless of what their authorities tell them, you know. And in that kind of atmosphere, the the doctrine of eternal torment, whether we like this fact or not, strikes a lot of people, believer and unbeliever alike, as being inconsistent with the character of God or otherwise, clearly the um inventions of human beings who think really strangely. Because most people, um, it strikes most people as strange and inhumane that uh a few years or a few decades or even 150 years or whatever of sinning would merit um trillions of years of torment after which things have only just begun, you know, uh there's still trillions upon trillions of years yet to remain. Um, and so I think that people are desperate to find some alternative to the tradition because it strikes them as so um inconsistent with the character of God revealed in scripture. Now, before I move on, I want to make something clear. That is not my experience. I've never had a problem with the doctrine of eternal torment. I'm one of the minority of humankind, but nevertheless, a large number of us, who find the prospect of being annihilated far more terrifying than the prospect of living forever in a bad place. Um and uh and and I would much rather know that my loved ones will get to live forever, albeit in not great conditions, than believe that they're going to be destroyed entirely. Um, not to mention the fact that boy, if I could believe in eternal torment, again, I'd be in much better graces with the conservative reform people that I so closely identify with. So um, so that was not my experience, but I'm just trying to say that I think it is many people's experience, which is why it has, in the era of the Protestant Reformation, been so up for grabs and people are turning to alternatives to the tradition. And by the way, the only alternatives to the tradition are not just um universalism and annihilationism. There are also variations of the tradition that are being embraced because, again, people struggle um to make sense of the more literal tradition in which people are burning forever in flames. And so, for example, you've got people like N.T. Wright, who believe in a sort of dehumanization view of hell, where um those sent to hell over time lose more and more of the image of God to the point where they become essentially non-human. They're still tormented forever, but they're no longer the moral, moral, rational agents that they once were having borne the image of God. And again, I can't help but think that this is in part motivated by some of that internal struggle most people have with the doctrine of eternal torment. But that's the more historical explanation uh in answering your question. I think you're asking something a little bit different, which is is there something um distinct about our modern moment? Um, something going on right now that is causing people in it, you know, beyond the historical um trajectory uh that explains why people why this is such a hot topic, excuse the pun. And I think that there might be, um, and what I think it might be uh is a uh is a is a resurgence of at the very least a facile sort of superficial interest in Christianity. So what I mean by that is um with the uh advent of Trump presidencies, um it seems as if uh there's a lot of renewed interest on the part of a larger, larger population in Christianity. Um you have a lot of pundits, political pundits and things who I hear talking about Christian faith that I'd never heard talk about it before. Um now I think a lot of this renewed interest, if I'm right, um, is in fact, like I said, facile and superficial. Um I think it's sort of like what happened under the reign of Constantine, you know, when he made Christianity the empire's religion. You get a whole lot of people socially embracing Christianity because it's the thing to do or, you know, whatever, but it's not really rooted in their hearts. And I'll be honest, I think that's what's going on now. I don't think we're seeing a genuine revival. Um, we're just seeing many more people profess the name of Christ because it's consistent with the sort of shift in the overturn window that we've been seeing. But if I'm to whatever extent I'm right about that, I could be totally wrong. But if I'm right to any extent about that, then it's no wonder that a whole lot of people that haven't grown up in the church, haven't been super involved in Christianity their whole lives, but are now curious about it or interested in it, they're they're trying to make sense of this as faith in, you know, for themselves and and and believe what they're what they think is true. And particularly those that, you know, don't um don't aren't firmly committed to following where scripture leads, they're gonna be go, they're gonna be turning to what tickles their ears. And I have to be honest, there's an extent to which my view does tickle their ears a little bit more than the traditional view. Most people who find the traditional view irreconcilable with the character of God don't find irreconcilable and irreconcilable with the doctrine the character of God, the prospect that he would finally kill his enemies rather than torment them forever. Uh, and then of course you've got people that are also going toward universalism for similar reasons about tickling their ears. So, anyway, all of that is to say, I think one, you've got the historical reality that the doctrine of hell is always a hot topic and people are always looking for alternatives to the tradition because of how inconsistent it seems to them to be with the character of God. But then you've got the current cultural moment, which is a renewed, albeit I think, superficial and facile interest in Christianity. And so a whole lot of new converts to Christianity, again, if only superficial, are um they're now having to wrestle with the issue of hell and come to terms with one view or another. Um, there are probably other answers to your question, but those are the ones I can come up with off the top of my head.

SPEAKER_01 32:44

Yeah, and I think that that's fair. Uh, you know, people who are out there who are going, oh, he just said it's going to tickle people's ears. Well, listen, um, the idea that if you're an atheist, if you die and then you just cease to be, um, versus, hey, come to Jesus and have eternal life, some could argue that tickles the ear. Like it, I mean, you know what I mean? Uh so uh it and you could take that on uh a thousand different, it's not like we're trying to package the most offensive message, and whatever's the most offensive therefore must be true. Um it's to say that he's recognizing, like, look, uh uh there is something in our culture at this very moment, good, bad, or ugly, where we don't seem to punish evil. And um, and there's that too, by the way.

SPEAKER_00 33:25

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 33:26

We don't, like the the offender who's assaulted children, you know, gets you know a slap on the wrist and six months probation and they're right back out into the populace. You know, there are some really evil, heinous sorts of um turning a blind eye to to the consequence of sin. And I think for some people, um, you know, in a traditional view, they'll go, hey, look, it it just and right, you sinned against a holy God, therefore, an eternal holy God, therefore the punishment must be eternal. While others, you know, again with some modern sensibilities, go, well, guys, uh, that seems a little harsh. Um, and I think that, Chris, it's an extremely honest thing to say. Now, that doesn't make it less true. Um, because again, there are times throughout history where there was a cultural moment that actually primed good exegesis. The the Enlightenment take slavery, take, take, I think of the Enlightenment, Luther, go back to the sources. Like that, that that cultural moment, instead of just obeying the person that's above them, would have looked rebellious. It would have looked, you know, uh very, very anti-traditional, it would have looked very against all of those sorts of things. But this idea of going back to the sources post-Enlightenment caused Luther and them to go, hey, look, uh, here's the facts, and it's not popular, um, but I think it's true. And for lots of people who deceive to see, oh, wait, I don't have to be subservient to some kind of Lord over me. I I can solo scriptura this thing on my own. Um, it was very appealing. So I would just make the argumentation that there are cultural moments that arise like this that don't assume some kind of like evil intent. And I just want to be fair on both sides of this.

SPEAKER_00 34:59

I think you're right. And let's not forget that the gospel is called the good news because it is a ear-tickling truth. You know, and it it's it it it the the prospect that we don't have to die but can instead receive eternal life is itself an ear tickling proposition. And yet that's exactly what the gospel promise is. So not everything that tickles ears is false. It's just that we need to be careful about our motives when we embrace a view that tickles our ears. And as it turns out, I think if people are looking for ear tickling, they're going to be far more attracted to universalism than they will to a view in which the lost will rise, be uh ashamed and and and exposed to the world for their sins, and then be violently and painfully killed. That's that's not, you know, that's not a super happy uh story. It may it may be a little more ear tickling than eternal torment, um, but certainly not than universalism. And just one, just one quick clarification. I want to chime in on riff on something that you said. You said there are going to be those who think, you know, it's a every sin against an infinitely holy God, an eternal God, must therefore merit eternal punishment. And for reasons that we may get to explore in the course of our conversation today, I just want to make the point that annihilationism is, uh does hold to eternal punishment. Um, the debate between eternal torment and annihilationism or conditional immortality is not a debate over the duration of the punishment, it's a debate over the nature of the punishment. Eternal torment says the nature of the punishment is some kind of conscious misery, some kind of conscious negative experience, which therefore, and if that's the nature of the punishment, and if it's eternal punishment, it must by definition go on forever. But if instead the punishment is death, death in the sense of being dead after having once lived, um, this is what's known as a privative penalty, a penalty where something that you've once enjoyed has been taken away from you. If you're now dead, having once enjoyed life, and you remain dead forever, and that's your punishment, well, that too is an eternal punishment, even if it's not an ongoing conscious experience of one. And so I just want to make, I just wanted to make that clear that yes, there are certainly traditionalists who say God is eternal, therefore it must be eternal punishment in the sense of eternal torment. But we conditionalists are gonna want to say, well, if that's true that any sin against an eternal God merits an eternal punishment, our view still qualifies. So that that doesn't actually help the traditional view. But anyway, I just wanted to make that quick clarification.

SPEAKER_01 37:15

That's a helpful distinction because we're actually gonna go there. We're gonna go Daniel 12, 2, Matthew 25, 46. I'm gonna read the passages for those who aren't super familiar. Uh, I know that you are, feel free to pick this apart from the uh yeah, pick pick apart the uh eternal conscious torment position. So uh in many of those, this is Daniel 12.2, and many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall wake some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And then Matthew 25, 46 says, and these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. So I I'm gonna maybe not set it up the best because I'm not an ardent defender of eternal conscious torment, but they would say, Look, hey, look, both of those examples, you have eternal life qualified on one side and eternal punishment and eternal contempt. That sounds like the punishment is ongoing forever. You've already kind of telegraphed where you would go with that, but but but give us a good uh response from the uh annihilationist perspective.

SPEAKER_00 38:13

Yeah, I will. And I just want to point out you yourself observed that only one of the two sides in both texts are promised eternal life. So right off the bat, we should be suspicious of any view that claims that the damned are going to get to live forever as well. But uh, but but we'll we'll set that aside. So in in the case of Daniel, it's interesting. Um, the the warning that the promise, the fate that awaits the others, the the not the first group who rise unto everlasting life, but the group that rises to the other fate, they're promised shame and everlasting contempt. That's important because shame might, this is questionable, be a reference here to one's subjective experience of feeling ashamed for what one has done. That's possible. But contempt definitely is not. The word contempt, which is the only thing that this text says is everlasting, translates a Hebrew word dehraum, which is used in only one other place in all of the Old Testament, and that's Isaiah 66.24, where um God kills his enemies in that scene by fire and by sword. Um, and in in Isaiah 66.24, um, God says that all flesh will go out and look on the dead bodies of this of these people who have rebelled against me, and they will be an abhorrence to all mankind. And that word abhorrence is that same Hebrew word de Raon, which is translated contempt in Daniel. So the point I'm getting at is this word doesn't describe the subjective experience of the one who's shameful. Rather, it describes how that shameful person is perceived or remembered by others, right? That's the picture in Isaiah. God's enemies have been slain, their corpses constitute a disgusting, you know, inglorious pile of rotting, smoldering remains. And that's uh that causes contempt, it causes abhorrence in the minds of the righteous who see it. And in the same way, um, Daniel is saying the lost will rise to an experience of shame and then to being everlastingly held in contempt by those who still remain alive. That's not only compatible with my view, it actively teaches it, especially given number one, eternal life is promised only to the saved there. And number two, the only other place where this word contempt is used is in a scene where God's God slays his enemies and their lifeless remains are abhorrent to the still living righteous. Now, as for Matthew uh 25, 46, once again, only the righteous are promised eternal life. We should therefore expect the eternal punishment to be something that does not include living forever. And as it turns out, there is only one kind of punishment that could be forever that would that would qualify as forever and not include living forever. And that is being killed given the death penalty and remaining dead forever. You see, we don't measure, even Augustine recognized this. He he writes about it in The City of God. He says that when governments around the world inflict capital punishment, when they kill somebody for their crimes, nobody measures the duration of their penalty in terms of how long it takes to die. And this, and we just we know this intuitively because if somebody were strapped into an electric chair, the switch pulled, and they're they jolt on this on the chair for a few seconds and then they go lifelessly limp. But then moments later, after the switch is turned back off, the criminal gasps back to life in what scientists call Lazarus syndrome. If that were to happen, nobody in their right mind thinks genuinely that the state should let that criminal go. No, they're gonna pull the switch again until the person remains dead, because the penalty in capital punishment is not dying, it's being dead having once lived. So if the punishment is being dead, and if that state of being dead lasts forever, they're never resurrected again, then it by definition is an everlasting punishment. And importantly, it's the only conceivable everlasting punishment that doesn't also include everlasting life. And one more thing that I'll um observe is just that the word translated punishment, colossus in Greek, it's every bit as flexible as the English word punishment, which is just to say that it can refer to all different kinds of punishments. When we talk about corporal punishment, we're talking about the pain inflicted by spanking a child, for example. But if we talk about capital punishment, we're talking about the lifelessness that results from being killed, either by the electric chair, hanging, you know, stoning or whatever. Um similarly, the Greek word colossus can be used to refer to pain infliction type punishment, but several times in the Septuagint, the um Greek translation of the Old Testament that was completed in the centuries prior to Christ, several times in the Septuagint, the Greek word colossus refers explicitly to the death penalty. Um one emperor, for example, is said to uh, or king is said to um dispatch a criminal, meaning kill this criminal and thereby give the penalty he deserved. So the punishment was not pain, it was being dead, you know, being having one's life taken away. So Matthew 25, 46 promises eternal life to only the only the saved, um, suggesting pretty strongly that not everybody's going to live forever, contrary to the traditional view. Meanwhile, the only conceivable everlasting punishment that doesn't also include everlasting life is everlasting death, which is exact exactly what we believe awaits the lost in hell. And it's exactly what the traditional view says will never, ever, ever, ever happen to the resurrected lost. Our view is much more consistent with Matthew 25 than than the traditional view.

SPEAKER_01 44:00

So is let's dig in Matthew for a second, because this is one that is a stronger argument for you, as I see it. Uh, Matthew 10, 28. And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, fear him who can destroy both bod uh both soul and body in hell. Now, some on the uh eternal conscious torment position are going to look at this position or eternal conscious punishment position, I think is what Paul Copan prefers. Um, uh, is that this language uh could be loose, ruin, perish. Uh, and you say, like, hey, that's that doesn't actually give you an out. That doesn't, that doesn't actually scapegoat you in the way that you think it does here in this passage. I'm gonna give you a chance to kind of uh unpack this as you see it.

SPEAKER_00 44:42

Yeah, so it's what what's important to remember is that words have semantic ranges. Every word in every language practically has a range of meanings, and what meanings from within their ranges are even possible in any given context is determined by the context and how the word is being used. Um so you know, think for example, um the word uh I can give a really good one. Yeah, you go for it.

SPEAKER_01 45:09

Okay, okay, so so as far as uh I love this one. Uh, this is a hand. It can mean appendage, depending on how I'm speaking of it. Hey, look, this is my hand. I could say, hey, give me a hand. That means help. I don't want you to throw your you know body part at me. I could say, uh, hey, that person's a handyman, meaning that they're really helpful around tools. And I could say, watch out for Uncle Tommy. Uh, he can be really handsy, which means prevent yourself from getting sexual advances that you don't want at Thanksgiving dinner. Um, but the context of the phrase determines its Usage.

SPEAKER_00 45:39

That's right, exactly. Excellent, excellent illustration. Um, so the context and also the the various words around the keyword, um, the syntax and grammar, all of those things narrow a word's semantic field to the genuinely possible candidates. So in the case of the Greek verb apology in Matthew 10, 28, translated destroy, it is true that in some contexts um it means to lose or to ruin or to waste, to lose, or I said lose. So, for example, if the context explicitly uses the verb find in contrast with apolemy, well, that's a pretty good clear example that the sense that is in mind is not kill or destroy or whatever, but lose because it's being contrasted with find. Um we can also there's grammatical ways the word can be used differently. Um, when it's used in what's called the uh middle voice, um, Greek has so in English, we're familiar with active and passive. Active as I hit the ball, passive as I was hit by the ball. Uh, Greek has a middle voice as well, which is we don't have to go into the details of it, but when the when this word apology is used in the middle voice, as it is in many places, it it does have um often have a meaning of something like ruin or waste or lose, or for that, or die, perish. Um, and that's and the ruin waste lose examples are particularly true when the word is used of inanimate objects or non-human beings. Um so in the case of a sheep, for example, we know that the word is used to refer to a sheep that is lost, in part because it's a sheep, but more importantly, because the contrast explicitly in the context is finding. So the the word semantic range is narrowed to losing. Uh, or in the case of um wineskins, right? When a or or a coin, let's say, a coin when it is a polymede. Um, we also know that it's lost uh because the context says find, uh, you know, there's a contrasting between find and lost, or with um inanimate objects, um, the word can mean something like ruin or whatever. So it's true, the semantic range of a polymeme has room for things like ruin, waste, lose. However, what's critical is that everywhere in the synoptic gospels, that's Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and in most places outside of them, um, and but we're talking about Matthew, so I'm gonna look at the synoptic gospels here. Um, anybody who knows uh anything about the synoptic gospels knows just how incredibly similar they are, and it's because they're drawing on similar traditions and so forth. But anyway, in the synoptic gospels, everywhere the Greek word Apolemy is used in what's called the active voice, and transitively with human beings as a as the direct object, it means to kill, to slay. It's it's like in an it's like an emphatic way of saying kill. You didn't just you don't just kill them, you absolutely slayed them, you know, that kind of emphasis. So for example, when uh Herod um is trying to apolemy the baby Jesus, he's not trying to ruin or waste or lose the baby Jesus, he's trying to kill him. When the adult Pharisees um are trying to apolony the adult Jesus, they are not trying to ruin, waste, or lose Jesus. They're trying to kill him. And if you look up in any lexicon, Bedag, Lonida, whatever, you're gonna find that one of the standard meanings of Apolemy is slay, kill, that kind of idea. So now combine that with the very context of Matthew 10, 28, where Jesus' disciples are facing the very real threat of being killed at the hands of their human persecutors. And so Jesus tells them, don't fear men, because yeah, they can kill their body, but they can't kill your soul. Well, what would the natural um al what would be the natural alternative to be? The one that we should fear. Well, the natural what you would expect the other person to be that you should fear is the one who can do what you just said men can't do. Don't fear men who can kill the body but can't kill the soul. Rather, fear God because he can slay both your body and your soul in hell. That's what Jesus appears to be saying. It's how the word Apolemy is used in like manner elsewhere in the synoptic gospels and in most places outside of them. It um best uh uh reflects that contrast that you would expect. Don't fear men because they can't do this, fear God because he can. Um, and what it leads to is the conclusion that in the second death, unlike in the first death, both body and soul will be killed. And importantly, the soul will be killed in a way it's not in the first death. Well, what is the fundamental distinction between body and soul? In the first death, the body dies, but the soul continues to be conscious between death and resurrection. Um, James, I think, says the body without the soul or the body without the spirit is dead, implying that, well, the spirit isn't dead, you know, when when it's set when they're separated like that. But in the second death, if what's true of a dead body, inert, motionless, inactive, inanimate, etc., is also true of the soul because it's slain as well, well, there is no conscious activity any longer. There's no longer any thoughts or feelings or emotions. The whole conscious person has come to an end. That seems to be to be be the pretty clear implications of Matthew 10, 28. The only way somebody like my friend Paul uh or any other traditionalist is going to be able to get around this is is by leaning on um words within the semantic range of a polymony that don't fit the context and don't fit the grammar um based on how the word is elsewhere used. And that would be an uncomfortable place to find oneself, and thankfully I don't have to find myself there.

SPEAKER_01 51:18

That's fair enough. Fair enough. Okay, I I want to ask you at least two more questions. I know we've spent okay, you're not in a hurry. Great. Uh I wanted to ask. Um, so I want to I want to ask a question about Second Thessalonians. Um, and I'm gonna read from the extra snobby version and the non-inspired version. And I joke. Listen, uh it basically any modern translation that you have is a legitimate Bible translation that's been done by a committee. These are reputable translations. We we just like to joke around. I I know quite a few of the guys who uh translated the NIV and they'd be very upset hearing me calling it the non-inspired version. I'm just joking. Uh, but the ESV, the one that I preach from, says they will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might. But the NIV of 2 Thessalonians 1 9 says uh they will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might. Now you argue that this NIV, uh, not the greatest translation here. I won't I want you to explain why.

SPEAKER_00 52:16

Yeah, so 2 Thessalonians 1.9 is the verse you quoted from. And I was actually really um pleased and and um just uh have a lot of admira admiration for Paul because in the conclusion of our book he acknowledges, yeah, the conditionalist scene right about 2 Thessalonians 1.9, and that the the the idea of separation and being shut out just isn't there. Um what he explains in that conclusion is correct, namely, um even the exp even the translation away from is probably a poor translation. Um, away from, shut out from. There are even some even more perverse translations that will do things, say things like excluded, separated from, whatever. All of those things are translating one three-letter preposition in Greek. Alpha P Omicron, a pa. And this preposition just means from. Um, it's used, for example, in the book of Acts. Um, I can't remember exactly where in Acts chapter two or something like that, where uh the prayer prays that times of refreshing would come a pa from the presence of the Lord. Um, it just it's it's referring, it's just from, it doesn't mean away from, it doesn't mean separated from or shut out from or anything like that. Um and think about some of the ways that we can talk about you know we could use the language of from when talking about destruction. Um, the ship was blown from the water. Well, we don't take that word from to mean that like the boat was sort of lifted by a crane from the surface of the water and then taken to shore or something. No, it was destroyed and it's gone. You know, it's been obliterated away from the water. It's no longer on the water. We would just say blown from the water. Uh so from, as Paul acknowledges in in the conclusion, a paw, um, can mean from in the sense of uh the origin from which something you know disappears or is taken away without without communicating the idea of being separated and and wherever it's being taken to continuing to exist. The word from can also communicate source. So um Old Testament texts that are very similar to this one will say things like they hid from fear of the Lord. And notice what from is doing there. It's not saying that there's this thing, fear of the Lord, and I'm hiding from it. No, it's the fear, my fear of the Lord is what's causing me to hide. I'm hiding because of fear of the Lord, and and that works here as well. It's everlasting destruction from or caused by uh the presence of the Lord. That works as well. There's actually two or three different possible meanings of the preposition of Pa that are perfectly consistent with the idea that the destruction here is either caused by, issues forth from, or results in the disappearance for God. What really there's just no argument from uh uh from 2 Thessalonians 1-9 for eternal torment, at least not from that proposition. But there are a few other things that we should talk about. Uh so for example, some people have argued, and and I think my interlocutor in the book, Jim Wicker, I think he made this argument. Um, some people will argue that it makes no sense to call it everlasting destruction, if destruction here means annihilation, because if it's annihilation, it's already everlasting by definition, and then it would be redundant, superfluous to put the word everlasting before it. But that's just simply obviously untrue. Um, by destruction, we don't mean metaphysical annihilation, as we've already discussed. We mean being killed. And um, if one is killed and is later resurrected, then by definition, their destruction was not everlasting. Uh so for example, the words, the word, the words plural that are used for destruction language are used to say things like the Sodom and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. But of course, they're going to be resurrected one day. So clearly their destruction in Sodom and Gomorrah was not everlasting. But if the resurrected lost are destroyed in hell and will never be resurrected again, if they're slain and they will remain dead forever, then it is an everlasting destruction. In fact, um, in the book, uh, my co-um, one of my co-contributors, Glenn Peoples, he quotes a um passage from the uh rabbinic literature in the centuries after Christ, where somebody says something to the effect of if an earthly king um inflicts upon me the death penalty, that killing will not be for eternity, because of course he's going to rise from the dead one day. But if the king of kings were to give me the death penalty, his killing would be for eternity, meaning I would never rise again. So everlasting is a very critical adjective for Paul to add, because the penalty isn't merely being destroyed such that you might one day raise be raised again. No, it's everlasting destruction. You will never ever live again after you're destroyed in hell. So um, everlasting destruction just sounds an awful lot like our view and certainly isn't challenged by the traditionalist arguments. But I do want to add one additional um evidence in favor of my reading. And if you back up just a little bit prior to 2 Thessalonians 1:9 into verse 8, you will see Paul use a combination of terms, inflaming fire and inflicting vengeance. There might be some variations in the way those are translated between the ESV and the NIV and others, but nevertheless, inflaming fire and inflicting vengeance. And what's interesting is that that combination of phrases appears together in only one other place anywhere in scripture. And that's in the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 66, 15, um, where God says that his angels are going to come inflaming fire to inflict vengeance, and they will kill God's enemies by sword and by fire. So by using that combination of terms leading into this everlasting destruction language, Paul is giving us a pretty good clue that he's alluding to this sense of destruction being described in Isaiah 66. And what is that? It's a sense of destruction in which God kills his enemies. That is what everlasting destruction is. It's being killed and never living ever again. Um, you know, I've often said over the years that with virtually no exception, every proof text historically cited in support of eternal torment proves upon closer examination to be better support for conditional immortality. And I think this is a good example of that phenomenon. Not just Daniel, which we looked at, not just Matthew 25, which we looked at, but here 2 Thessalonians 1.9 as well. So often argued to be a challenge to my view, when in fact it just takes a little bit of closer examination to discover, oh, wait, these verses actually seem to teach my view and challenge the traditional view. And I just think that's a really important uh observation. Go ahead.

SPEAKER_01 59:03

Well, I'm gonna give you uh another option to uh prove your case even better. Uh, but we're gonna go to, and I think you can probably expect this coming, Revelation 20. Uh um, so so Revelation 20, 9 through 14 will be the full case, but I'm gonna read uh the first two verses here, nine and ten, uh, and then uh kind of allow you to give commentary on the dead who are then tossed into this lake of fire. Um, and they uh are uh marched up over uh the the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp and the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them. Verse 10 and the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. Uh then we see later on in this same text, uh the dead who are raised to life seem to be cast into that same place. And I think the eternal conscious torment guy, or eternal conscious punishment, however you want to coin the phrase, uh, is going to say, hey, look, uh, if these guys are being thrown into a place that torments them forever, would not it be also the fact that all of these who are being raised be torment tormented forever and ever? Uh, curious your take on that.

SPEAKER_00 1:00:16

Yeah, I actually think that's an extremely good and important inference, but it's actually an inference that works against the traditional view, and I'll explain why. Um, but before I do, I need to lay a little bit of foundation by pointing out what kind of literature we're dealing with here. Um the book of Revelation records uh a vision that John receives while he's in exile on the island of Patmos. And throughout the Bible, Old and New Testaments, when when prophets or seers are given visions of the future, the future is never ever literally seen by the prophet. I've challenged people and have yet to have anybody even try to meet the challenge. Give me a single example in scripture, Old or New Testament, where somebody is shown a vision of the future in which the future is actually depicted for them. You won't find one. All throughout scripture, the way God gives prophets visions of the future is by depicting the future in very symbolic terms. So for example, when Joseph in Genesis uh 39, 40, 41, that that range, when he's in prison, having been sent there by Potiphar because of his because Potiphar's wife falsely accuses Joseph of trying to hit on her, um, while he's in prison, uh, Pharaoh's cupbearer and baker are sent to prison. And while they're in prison, they have visions of the future. And they ask Daniel to or Joseph to interpret them for him. And in the cupbearer's vision of the future, there were these three branches, or this branch with three grape buds on it. And then in the vision that the buds blossomed forth and produced grapes. Um, and uh when Joseph interprets this vision for the cupbearer, he says that the branches are three days. After three days, you'll be restored to office and and you'll be serving wine to Pharaoh again. The baker, in his vision of the future, sees has baskets of head, uh baskets of bread on his head, three baskets of of bread, and crows or vultures or something are eating bread out of the baskets. And when Dan when Joseph interprets this vision for the baker, he tells him the three baskets are three days. And after three days, you you're you'll be taken out of prison and you'll your head will be lifted off of your body, right? So you're gonna be killed. So notice something here in these visions, the future is depicted by means of branches and blossoming grapes and baskets full of bread. But the meaning of those symbols has to do with something that's going to happen to these people after three days transpire. Or take, for example, Joseph's interpretation of Pharaoh's vision. Pharaoh has a vision in which seven healthy cows come up out of the Nile, and then seven sick cows come up out of the Nile and eat the first seven. But when Joseph interprets this vision for Pharaoh, he says the seven healthy cows are seven years of plenty, and then the set the the seven seconds, the seven sick cows are also seven years of famine. So once again, we see that what is shown in the vision is a moment in time of, you know, at one point in time where there are seven healthy cows and then seven sick cows that eat the first seven. But what Joseph says this actually symbolizes is actually a 14-year period of time, the first seven comprising years of um plenty, and the second set of seven comprising years of famine. And this is the way that visions of the future work all throughout scripture. You can look at Nebuchadnezzar's visions that Daniel interprets, you can look at Daniel's own visions that an angel interprets. It even happens in Joe uh in Revelation. So, for example, John sees golden bowls full of incense, but he says they're the prayers of the saints, meaning they symbolize the prayers of the saints. So when we're talking about what you just read in Revelation 20, what's being described to you is what John is seeing in a symbolic depiction of the future, one that for that very reason requires a great deal of care. This is not to dismiss the vision as if it has no relevance and we can just dismiss whatever it depicts, but it is to say that we have to exercise a great deal of care. Um, the way that even traditionalist GK G.K. Beale puts it in his commentary on revelation is that in other genres, it makes sense to follow the sort of use the literal sense unless it may unless it's nonsense, right? And only then uh go with some other reading. And he says you actually should turn that view on its head when it comes to revelation. You should first treat it as symbol and as metaphor, and only treat it as literal where you're actually required to. So, with that in mind, with that foundation laid, the point here is that yes, John sees a dragon representing Satan, a seven-headed, ten-horned beast representing something. We can we Christians debate that, and a two-horned false prophet also representing something, and then resurrected humanity thrown in lost humanity thrown into that lake of fire. We see all of those things, well, we see the first three of those things tormented forever in the lake of fire. And per your inference, which I agree with, we should assume the resurrected lost thrown into that lake of fire meet the same fate. But I've intentionally left one party out. The the parties that you and I have just listed are not all of the parties thrown into the lake of fire. Um, also thrown into the lake of fire are death and Hades. And this is really important because death and Hades in real life are abstract concepts. Death is this existential threat of death and the result of not being alive anymore. Hades is the intermediate state, the underworld, whatever. These aren't life, these aren't living conscious beings in reality, but they are in the vision. So if you go back to John chapter six, we have what's famously known as the four horsemen of the apocalypse. And the fourth one of them is death, riding a pale white horse, I think, and following him like a squire is Hades. So when we get to Revelation 20, these two horsemen, or this horseman and a squire, are also thrown into the lake of fire. And if we're going to follow the inference that we just talked about, we should assume they too will be tormented forever and ever in a lake of fire. But the things that those horsemen represent in reality can't experience anything at all. They're not conscious beings, as I already mentioned. So, what could the eternal torment of these horsemen in the lake of fire symbolize about the reality of the death and intermediate state that they symbolize? Well, we actually don't even have to speculate because just a few verses later, God answers that question. In Revelation 21, verse 4, I think he says, Hathanatas uk esti eti. That means death shall be no more. So what we see is one of the very entities thrown into the lake of fire and presumably being tormented forever and ever is explicitly said to symbolize the annihilation of death itself. When all of God's enemies have finally been destroyed and only his immortalized saints remain alive, nobody will ever die ever again. There will be no more death. So then, what about these other entities thrown into a lake of fire? Well, if the eternal torment of death and Hades in the lake of fire symbolizes the annihilation of death, well, then it's very feasible that the everlasting torment of the dragon, the seven headed beast, the two horned beast, and resurrected lost human. In that lake of fire also symbolizes the annihilation of the entities that they represent in reality. The dragon representing Satan and possibly the demonic realm, the seven-headed beast representing first century Roman oppression over the Christians if you're a partial preterist like me, or maybe some kind of future world kingdom if you're a premillennialist, uh, the and so on and so forth. Um, so what else, though, could we point to in support of this reading? Well, remember that when I talked about the way prophetic visions of the future work in scripture, um, I quoted a few lines and I did so purposely. I quoted Joseph telling the cupbearer the three branches are three days, and telling the baker the three baskets are three days, and then um telling Pharaoh the seven cows are seven years. And like I said, or like I said, even John, when he says, when he sees the golden bowls of incense, he says they are the prayers of the saints. Notice, notice the way this works. The interpreter of the vision says the symbol is or are, if it's plural, the reality. And what they mean by that expression is not that the two things are identical, but that the first thing symbolizes the second. With that in mind, look at what John says in Revelation 20, 14. He says, um, the lake of fire is the second death. Then God says the same thing in Revelation 21.8, I think it is, the lake of fire is the second death. So we know that what this means is not that the lake of fire, that the second death is like a name or a label or something like that, the way some traditionalists treat it. They'll say things like, if you want to know what death looks like or what the second death looks like, you look at the eternal torment in the lake of fire. No, that's the exact opposite of what John is doing. He's saying the eternal torment in the lake of fire symbolizes the second death. Well, so then what is the second death? Well, number one, if it's an interpretation, then it's gotta be plainer in meaning than the esoteric imagery that it's meant to putatively interpret. Well, the natural reading, anybody naturally is going to hear the expression second death and think it means the second time somebody dies. I think most, I think that's largely going to be true. So it so if it's just plain language and that's the way it's functioning is interpretation, it fits my view perfectly. Um, but as it turns out, second death wasn't an expression new to John. Um, in what are known as the Aramaic Targums, which are like the Old Testament um translated into Aramaic rather than Greek, which is what the Septuagint is. In the Aramaic Targums, the expression second death appears in several places. In fact, and this is really interesting, in some of those places it appears right next to the word gehenna, which is Jesus' word for hell. And in every one of those places in the Targums with which John's readers would have been familiar, because they would have heard them in their synagogues when the Aramaic translations of the Old Testament were being read, um, the second death in those places refers to literally dying a second time and not participating in the life to come. So, however, you understand the way John is interpreting the Lake of Fire, whether he's using plain language to explain what it symbolizes, or whether he's pointing readers to a familiar concept of the second death they would have already been familiar with. Either way, he's just plain, straightforwardly telling us the scene of the torment taking place in the lake of fire symbolizes the second time that people are going to die. Um, and that's consistent with uh death in Hades being annihilated. It's consistent with everything being annihilated, albeit symbolized in the imagery as ongoing protracted torment. So it's exactly as I said, you know, on the surface, especially if you already believe in eternal torment, you think you're reading straightforward affirmation of your view. But if you just look a little bit under the surface, if you just do a little bit of the hard work of exegesis that's particularly needed when it comes to genre like that um containing the book of Revelation, what you find out is that it's actually much better support uh for conditional immortality than it is eternal torment. In fact, it's in the very next chapters that the tree of life reappears and only the saved have access to its fruit.

SPEAKER_01 1:11:43

Yeah, you know, when you've existed in a specific world where certain words uh have prepackaged theology inside of them, it's really hard to reapproach certain texts with new lenses. I remember a friend of mine who came out of a word of faith background, and I was like, you know, we're on this program very in opposition to that whole space. Um it's it's another gospel kind of thing, right? And and I want to say that with uh some charity to say that not all word of faith guys are created equal because there is no statement of faith, um, but to say that certainly the guys on TV, they're preaching a word of faith, claiming that they're word of faith guys, are preaching another gospel uh more often than not. So uh anyway, all that to say uh, hey, this passage throwing mountains into the sea by faith and do not doubt, like how is that not psychological certainty? And then and then going, hey, hey, let's just remember faith is confidence in a person, not in an outcome, and now reread the text. And and just like helping them readjust the lens. So I think all the examples you've given really good to readjust that. I do want to make, I don't know if it's pushback or just ask for clarification because in the in the picture of the vision and all illustrations you gave, as I understood it, the the image corresponds with the vision. Sure. It's not necessarily the opposite of the vision. For example, and not to say that this would be the opposite, but to say, uh, hey, skinny cows ate the fat cows, skinny grains ate the fat grain. I'm I'm paraphrasing here. Um, so they seem to correspond with the interpretation. If the vision here is torment day and night, according to verse 10, how then is the and I certainly I can see, I'm I'm with you. I'm like, I'm seeing it. Cool, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, uh fire down here, it's the second death. I'm like, got lake of fire, second death. I'm on it. I can see it. It's a good thing. That's a good interpretive piece.

SPEAKER_00 1:13:35

There must be some, there must be some commonality, some some bridge that connects the symbology to the things it represents, is what you're getting at. And your question is, uh, what is that on an annihilationist reading? And I think there are at least two um two things that the depiction shares in common with the reality it symbolizes. One is that there is punishment going on. This is not, you know, one of the one of the themes of the book of Revelation is that the oppression that the Christians are facing, the injustice that the Christians are facing will eventually be rioted, and eventually God's enemies will receive the comeuppance that they deserve. And the depiction of their punishment in the end, um, fulfill that and uh it represents, it symbolizes a punishment as well. So there's punishment, that's one thing. The other thing is duration. So um, if it was a depiction of just a finite amount of torment or something like that, then feasibly somebody could say, well, yeah, there's some finite punishment, but then the punishment's over and they're saved, or something like that. But no, that torment is everlasting, symbolizing an everlasting punishment. Um, so just as the torment goes on forever in the depiction, the actual penalty that is symbolized, everlasting death, is also everlasting. So at least two things are true of both the depicted imagery and this the thing, the the real life fate that it symbolizes. One, it is a kind of punishment, and two, it is an everlasting rather than a finite induration punishment.

SPEAKER_01 1:15:07

Are are you or other conditionalists open to the possibility that again, second death picture here, but that the first picture in in verse 10 referring to the devil, um, the false prophet, and the beast? Now, if if I'm more of like an omel guy like you are, I probably read the beast to be like kingdoms of this world, not literal, but like the kind of governmental force, you know, organiz organizing things. Um I mean that's explicitly what it's said to be in Revelation, but anyway, go ahead. Exactly. No, no, no. I again, uh you you and me are kind of leaning into that one. So I I just I know that there are other people out there who have different views. Um, so so again, that's that's more of a uh a system, right, than an actual person. False prophet. Um, you know, I'm I'm not a uh black belt in Amel theology at this point yet in my life. Um still would be inclined to think that's probably a person, but I could be open to the idea of it symbolizing something else as well. The devil certainly has been known to can be the proper the that deceiver in the garden, the proper name, and it could also be more demonic forces. Well, would you be open to the idea that these uh certainly institutions cease to be more comfortable with that? But the devil, um, would would it be possible that spiritual beings be tormented forever in eternal conscious torment? Would that would that be even a possible reading of this? While while humans cease to be in that same state, in the same way that like you you toss clay and wax in front of the same lamp, and because of their their being, their ontology, one hardens, one becomes wax. Is it is it possible the lake of fire is the lake of fire, you know? It is the second death, though. That's the thing. Um I'm just I'm trying to make sense of it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So like I'm talking myself out of it. Verbal prophecy here, uh, Chris.

SPEAKER_00 1:17:03

Well, but but well, but here's the thing the Satan hasn't died a first time. And so no, I have I have my explanation for why this cosmic event is called the second death, because it's primarily about um the judgment of human beings who will have died a f a single time. But but but to your question, yes, uh it's possible in the sense that there are a minority, I think, of conditionalists who you might call partial conditionalists, meaning that they think that human beings are conditionally immortal um and will be destroyed in hell, but that uh demonic beings are not, they're unconditionally immortal and will live forever in torment. Um and, you know, I respect that reading, but I don't feel particularly inclined to acknowledge any feasibility in that reading, given number one, what you just said, which is that this event, the lake of fire, is is said to symbolize the second death. Uh, but number two, um, the arguments for conditional immortality and annihilationism aren't exclusively biblical. For me, they're almost exclusively biblical because I'm a bit of a biblicist. But um, lots of people have theological and even philosophical reasons for thinking that conditional immortality is um uh the the the likeliest option on top of the biblical evidence. And one of the philosophical arguments has to do with, well, or or theological argument if you see it that way, has to do with the final um, well, a couple of things. It has to do with justice and it has to do with um a world in which God perpetuates evil. So what I mean by that is um on the traditional view, uh justice is never fully satisfied. Um, in the doctrine of eternal torment, people suffer forever in hell, either because every single sin against an infinitely holy God merits infinite punishment, or because the wicked continue to sin in hell while they're being punished, thereby accruing further punishment, and it just starts like a vicious cycle that goes on forever, or a combination of the two. But no matter how you slice it, at any given moment into eternity future, there is still justice yet to be meted out. It's funny, um, I listened to William Lane Craig recently, who said some really good, kind things about Paul's in my book, but seems to have not read it because he got practically everything he said about it wrong. But anyway, um, one of the things he said was, I don't understand this argument because in my view, the wicked deserve eternal punishment, eternal torment, and that's what they get. But William Lane Craig is smart enough to know actually they never get that. Of all people, William Lane Craig knows that the definition of eternity.

SPEAKER_01 1:19:44

They never they can never receive it.

SPEAKER_00 1:19:45

They can never receive it.

SPEAKER_01 1:19:47

That's funny.

SPEAKER_00 1:19:48

So there is always injustice left to be uh righted. There is always justice left to be meted out. And in this partial conditionalist view, at the very least, Satan and the demonic host uh forever have justice yet to be experienced, just yet to be shown. So that's one philosophical or theological reason to think partial conditionalism probably isn't sound. And the other one has to do with the idea of God perpetuating evil. You gotta keep in mind that in any form of legitimate Christianity, God is the only being who is asse, which is just to say he exists in and of himself. He's he's the only being He's yeah, he's the only being that isn't contingent on the on some other being to continue upholding their existence. Um, so what that means is that um in it to at any point in the future, if there is evil being done or you know, experienced internally within someone's heart, the only reason that's even possible is because God is continuing to uphold that being's existence. Now, in the case of humans at least, this is particularly um relevant because humans, everybody agrees, are mortal, at least in their bodies. So if when we're resurrected, God makes even sinners, even the lost, immortal, he is guaranteeing that those mortal lost people sin forever. So God isn't merely tolerating the ongoing commission of sin forever, he's guaranteeing it supernaturally by miraculously rendering the resurrected damned immortal. Now, that argument might not sound as strong in the case of the devil and his angels, because arguably they are naturally immortal and that God would have to end their existence in order for them to cease to be. However, even there, you still have the reality that God is choosing to uphold via his sovereignty the existence of creatures that will go on sinning for eternity. And so the and so future eternity becomes an eternity in which sin and darkness and evil exist forever, in the sense that he has guaranteed that beings exist forever who will perpetually commit it, commit sin. So I think there are philosophical and theological reasons for thinking that partial conditionalism probably isn't true. But but yes, to answer your question, there are some conditionalists who hold it.

SPEAKER_01 1:22:21

Tell us a little bit of podcast, website, uh books that you're publishing, those sorts of things, so that people uh can can really study the resources. Here, here's what I'll tell you. Um, six years ago, Jordan Sutton came on my podcast. I don't know if you recall that name, but he came on talking about uh this this view from Fudge. And I it was either him or you who recommended I get this book, um, which was the book you just mentioned by Fudge, uh, The Fire That Consumes. I've had it on my shelf, you know, I've I've read through it quite a few times, just kind of not read it through it like that makes it sound like I've read the book more than once, but have gone to the necessary passages and looked at, okay, well, what about this one? What about that one? How would they interpret this? Because uh, when I first heard this position six years ago, I'll be just straight up honest, and I think a lot of people are experiencing this right now. I didn't think it was orthodox. I didn't like, okay, like you're I know your profession of faith, and and I had you come on and you're like, I'm a reformed Calvinistic dude. It's like, you guys are known for being like pretty uh straight laced with Christian Orthodoxy. So I was like, ah, is it historical? And I'm like looking up church fathers, and it's like, okay, like some of this has existed for a while. We're not just inventing new convenient doctrines to like get away from like the the the icky stuff. So I I think this is an important conversation for that reason. And that's why I would encourage you, tell us where where you can find your resources, books you've published, things like that, that kind of address those kinds of questions, not trying to convince people this is the position, um, but or I'm not necessarily trying to convince people this is the position, but I think that we really need to do the work to carefully hear out uh people on this side of the aisle to go, okay, uh, they actually have really good argumentation and defensible biblical positions. And and at minimum, what this does is give us the Christian liberty and charity to go, oh, these are my brothers in Christ. They're not a bunch of liberal, you know, uh wack-a-doodles. Because I do think that's the default position because it's so anti uh uh the norm right now. Um and I would argue I find these arguments more persuasive today uh than I ever have. And I haven't quite uh uh jumped the shark when it comes to this one. Uh but but man, I feel like I get closer and closer as the days go on. So people can continue to pray for me uh to come to the knowledge of the truth. Uh, but Chris, uh uh yeah, outline where we go to learn more.

SPEAKER_00 1:24:41

Sure. So the ministry is at rethinkinghell.com. Um, there's a variety of articles there ranging from very accessible meant for the average layperson all the way up to much more erudite and scholarly for um more academically minded people. Um, and there's an explore section at the website where you can find frequently asked questions and lists of passages that you might be interested in um uh looking up and so forth. So there's a lot of stuff there. And you know, none of us are um working full-time in this ministry. We've all got day jobs and things, and so the website isn't super highly polished. And, you know, um, if anybody wants to volunteer to be our web guy, reach out because um we we need team team members that can volunteer their time to do stuff like that. But anyway, so rethinkinghill.com is a great resource. The there's a podcast there as well, although the podcast has largely, maybe not entirely, but largely um come to an end and been replaced by a um more or less bi-weekly YouTube show. So um generally speaking, every other Monday at 6 p.m. Pacific, 9 p.m. Eastern, I go live on the Rethinking Hell YouTube channel. You can find that at youtube.com slash rethinking hell. And I do a lot of things like response videos, um, I answer people's questions. I um, you know, I review debates and books and things like that. So a lot of really helpful material there as well. Um, I also have some journal articles that I've published on a topic. And for those, I would encourage people to check out my personal website. Um, also because I'm um doing all of this in my spare time. My own personal website is a bit out of date. Um, but it's chrisdate.info. So it's my first and last name, Chrisdate.info. And the menu has a um writing menu item and a journal article submenu item where you can get access to a journal article that I've gotten published in Evangelical Quarterly on this topic, an article that I published on the atonement, which I think is part of our discussion today, in the McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry, and then a journal article on the apologetics impact of annihilationism in a journal run by Stephen Bedard called Hope's Reason. Um, so people can check those out. Um, and I've got all the stuff that I've written and done on other topics are available at that website as well. As for books, um, in 2004, uh, I think it was 2015, possibly, maybe 2014. Anyway, we published our first book. You can see it here. Uh, it's this blue half blue top half book called Rethinking Hell. The subtitle is Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism. Um, you can buy it on Amazon. It's available on Kindle. Um, not sure if it's available on Logos Bible Software, but um, it is a what's called a reader. So it's republished works and excerpts from a variety of people, mostly conditionalists of the past, uh, including the likes of even John Stott, who might surprise many people uh was a conditionalist. Um, and then also there's a section with a few authors who are not conditionalists, but who are talking about why they see our view as within the pale of orthodoxy. Then the following year, we published our second book. It's this orange one, A Consuming Passion. The subtitle is Essays on Hell and Immortality in Honor of Edward Fudge. And it's what's called a festschrift. So it's an academic um uh book published in somebody's honor. This was published in honor of Edward Fudge. And it was um largely uh, well, roughly half of that book were papers that had been presented at our first annual conference, which was in 2014, um, and it from a variety of scholars, Glenn Peoples out of New Zealand, John Stackhouse out of Canada, and some others. Um, but then also the other half of the book is all brand new contributions from a variety of other authors, all of them conditionalists, but bringing a wide variety of argumentation to the debate. Um, and then uh I was able to publish with Zondervan, I got to publish a bunch of study Bible notes in their Upside Down Kingdom Bible. Um, it's a study Bible that uh is meant to contain um notes from underrepresented voices, and that's not just in terms of sex and ethnicity, but also theological background. And so, since most study Bibles don't have notes from annihilationists or people who believe in some kind of soul sleep, um I was invited to provide a note um on afterlife related topics there. So that's another resource people might find helpful. Um, but the thing I'm probably most excited about is a but a book that I'm um that I've put together with Paul Copan um that we're publishing with IVP Academic in January. It's called Concerning Hell. And we think it's a real Fresh new treatment of the multi-view genre. So most all other multi-view books, what they do is they'll bring together one author from each of several different views to debate one another. But the problem is each of those authors really only represents one or two specialties. A biblical theologian might come in and do real well defending their view and responding to others from the perspective of biblical theology, but if they have to engage in philosophy, they're going to be a little bit less effective because that's not their specialty. So what we did in Concerning Hell is we brought together six scholars on each of these two sides of the debate, the traditionalist or eternal torment side and the conditional immortality or annihilationism side, each scholar representing a different discipline. We have biblical theology, we have exegesis, we have systematic theology, historical theology, philosophy, and pastoral theology. Each of the scholars from those perspectives write a 6,500-word contribution, positively talking about their view from their particular discipline. And then they respond to their interlocutor within the same discipline in 2,000 words or so. So what you get are the two views and dialogue together, but also from you know fielded from each of these very important disciplines that each need to speak into this debate. The book is available for pre-order already at IVP's website or at Amazon.com, and I'd encourage people to check it out. It will be available on Kindle, and I'm going to be pushing really hard to get it available available on Blog OS Bible software. So those are some books, a YouTube channel with videos on it, journal articles, my own personal website, the blog articles at Rethinking Hell and the podcast, a lot of material covering all sorts of ground that um should provide people with the information they need. And then finally, I'll just say I'm pretty darn accessible accessible myself. Um the easiest way to get a hold of me would be to email me at uh chrisdate at rethinkinghell.com or just befriend me on Facebook and send me a Facebook message and I'll try to field any questions you have there. My only request is that you reach out, uh you ask questions or offer challenges in in a kind and respectful way. We at Rethinking Hell care very much about close, very closely second to our goal of promoting and convincing people of conditionalism is our desire to model and encourage healthy, agree agreeable disagreement, the kind of disagreement that Christians who disagree on non-essentials of the faith can enjoy without dividing from each other. And so all I ask if people reach out to me with questions or challenges is that you approach me as you would any other brother that you want to challenge on a topic we can disagree over.

SPEAKER_01 1:32:17

So we've got to wrap this up because we're at an hour and a half already. Uh and uh, but I I think we could hang out and and and do a lot of conversations on the subject. Uh thank you so much for your time. Any kind of closing thought you want to leave people with as they're walking away from this kind of conversation?

SPEAKER_00 1:32:31

Uh sure. I I think there are a couple of things I'd want to say. Number one, um, I know that we had kind of hoped to get to questions around the atonement and the personal work of Christ, and we didn't have time to. Um, if you can include a link in the show notes or whatever to the journal article that I published in the McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry, um, I write in great lengths about that very question. And I make the argument that not only is conditionalism consistent with the atoning sacrifice of Christ, but actually the doctrine of eternal torment is far more difficult to square with the atoning work of Christ. So I would encourage people to check that out. Um, the other thing I'll just say is um I understand that a lot of people, their their gut instinct when they hear about this view having never heard about it before, um, is that it's a weird, fringe belief that only cultic cults or hero or or liberals or something like that believe. And the reason why I understand it is because number one, they've never encountered it before. Uh, and number two, the people that they respect and admire have many of them claimed that annihilationism is the teaching of cults and liberals and so forth. Um, and and there are all sorts of claims that those critics of our view make about our view that are just simply untrue. So if you spend, you know, your whole Christian life under the tutelage of a pastor or listening to a podcaster who says, well, annihilationism is what those Jehovah's Witnesses believe, and those liberals, and you know, they believe that Christ ceased to exist when he died, or or they that they can or the damned can atone for their sins or something like that. All of those are lies. Well, I suppose it's pop in some cases, lie is probably not the right word. They're probably just mistaken. But a lot of them knowingly misrepresent the truth, and they are lying. But um, but if you well, I the point I'm getting at is don't assume that what you've heard about annihilationism or conditional immortality is true. The people you've heard from criticize are motivated to criticize it and aren't going to as faithfully represent it as its own adherents will. So, what I'm encouraging those of you to do who hear this and you're like, man, I've never heard this before. I've only ever heard of like Jehovah's Witnesses, you know, teaching this. Well, number one, Christians taught it long before um Jehovah's Witnesses did. The reason that Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, the Advent Christians, and Christadelphians, some of those four groups I mentioned are heretics, some are not. Um, they all got their annihilationism and their conditional immortality from stalwart orthodox evangelical Christians in the 19th century that preceded them. Um, people that spanned all sorts of different denominations, Baptist, uh uh uh congregationalist and Presbyterian and so on and so forth. Um, and then of course there are the church fathers like Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyon, and a whole host of others, all of whom who uh taught this view. So, number one, it's just not true that this is a view of the cult. The cults got it from Christians. And for that matter, think about the cults that hold to the traditional view. Mormons teach a form of eternal torment for the worst of sinners. Uh, Islam teaches eternal torment for um the unsaved. Uh, Buddhism has a pretty horrible view of hell. Look up Buddhist hell if you're ever interested in really getting some scary imagery for nightmare fuel. Um, the Westboro Baptist Church, that cult that says God hates you know who, they believe in eternal torment. The point I'm getting at is just because a cult believes something doesn't mean it's false. Um, Jehovah's Witnesses also believe in inerrancy. Now, granted, they have a crappy translation of the Bible they had to invent in order to, you know, but they believe in inerrancy. The point I'm getting at is that cults believing something doesn't make it untruth. What I would encourage you to do is check out the work of us at Rethinking Hell, the website, rethinkinghell.com, and all the blog articles that we have there, or the podcast, our YouTube channel. Read Edward Fudge's The Fire That Consumes, or if you want something more digestible, more accessible, check out his book, Hell, a Final Word. What you'll find, and importantly, watch or read debates between traditionalists and conditionalists. Read Two Views of Hell, which is co-written by Edward Fudge, a conditionalist, and Robert Peterson, a traditionalist. Um, read the book I have coming out with Paul Copan, um, concerning hell, published by IBP Academic in January, because you're going to get to hear the two views, duke it out. Um, watch debates. I've done several that are available on YouTube just recently with an excellent reformed pastor by the name of Brandt Brian Gunther. Um anyway, find out what we have to say in our own word and set aside the caricatures that you've heard from the gatekeepers. And I think that what you'll find is that we are every bit as committed to the authority of scripture as you are, we're every bit as committed to following sound principles of hermeneutics as you are and to following scripture where it leads. We've just become convinced that scripture leads in a different direction than you are convinced it does. And this is the kind of view that the creeds don't, they don't condemn one view or the other as heresy. They don't, they don't establish one view or the other as Christian orthodoxy. So this is a view over which Christians can, in good conscience, disagree over. And as you will remember, the the the proverb says that the first status case seems right until you come along and and hear him be cross-examined. That's why it's important that you hear what we have to say from our own lips, from our own pens, listen to what we have to say in debates, because what you've heard about what we believe might sound decent, but as soon as you start actually letting us cross-examine the people that have said what you've heard, you'll find out that things aren't what you thought. So show some grace to people who disagree with you on this topic, explore it with an open mind. If in the end you still come away convinced that the doctrine of eternal torment is true, great. That's fine with me. What matters, though, to me is how you treat your brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree. Because as Jesus said, the world will know us by our love for one another. And if you're not loving your conditionalist brothers and sisters in Christ, um, that's a dangerous place to be in.

SPEAKER_01 1:38:53

Amen. Hey, uh, would you ever be interested in coming on and just running through the church history on this subject with us? Yeah, very much loved. Dude, I that our our our our group would geek out on that. I think that would be uh our audience is a little bit more liturgical, I think, than some would expect because how much we try to point to church history that we talk, even my own local church is very um uh is very more on the liturgical side of things. Uh we we do uh Nicene Creed every Sunday, communion every week, prayers of confession, uh Lord's Prayer. Like we do a lot of the the no smells and bells, but everything short of that we're we're doing here uh at Kings. But uh guys, thank you so much for tuning in in this episode. Really great resources, lots of good information. If you're wanting to do a deep dive into this, uh Chris has got a one stop shop, so I encourage you to go over to Rethinking Hell, uh, try to figure out uh which of the many books and articles you want to read because I think it'll serve you all. Guys, thank you so much for tuning in. Chris, thank you so much for coming on once again. My pleasure. And uh yeah, we'll see you guys next time.