Hell Debate Part 2: Paul Copan on Eternal Conscious Punishment

Is hell a divine torture chamber? Dr. Paul Copan says no, and he's the one defending the traditional view. In Part 2 of our Hell Debate series, the Palm Beach Atlantic University philosopher and co-editor of the forthcoming Concerning Hell makes the biblical case for eternal conscious punishment while giving annihilationism the fairest hearing you'll find anywhere. Fresh off Kirk Cameron's viral Hellgate roundtable, Copan and Joshua work through the texts, the caricatures, and the question underneath it all: who is the God doing the judging?

ABOUT THE EPISODE:
When people think of hell, images of the devil tormenting souls with a pitchfork and eternal fire come to mind. Dr. Paul Copan defends the traditional view of hell, but he wants that picture gone. So if that's not hell, what is? And if the popular image is a caricature, what exactly has the church been arguing about?

Copan isn't watching this debate from the cheap seats. He was at the table for Kirk Cameron's Hellgate roundtable, the conversation that lit up half the Christian internet. He co-edited the forthcoming book Concerning Hell (IVP Academic) with Chris Date, the very annihilationist who made the opposing case in Part 1 of this series. Friends on opposite sides, writing the book together. Now he sits down with Joshua for the conversation Hellgate didn't have time for.

And the texts get harder the closer you look. Jesus calls the prodigal son "lost" with the same destruction language annihilationists build their case on, yet the son walks home alive. Smoke rises forever in Revelation 14:10-11 from something that supposedly no longer exists. Matthew 25:46 puts eternal punishment and eternal life in the same breath, and both sides claim that verse as their own. Copan walks through each one, and along the way he admits something scholars rarely admit on camera: a text he used to read wrong, and what changed his mind about 2 Thessalonians 1:9.

Then Joshua asks the question this whole debate keeps circling: at what point does our picture of hell describe a different God altogether? 

Watch Part 1: https://youtu.be/sVOQfKMB6RI

0:00 Introduction
1:09 Dr. Paul Copan Introduction
3:08 Eternal Punishment vs Annihilationism
8:53 Kirk Cameron Hellgate Discussion
13:50 Early Church Fathers
17:55 Matthew 25 Eternal Punishment
29:17 Destruction Language: Matthew 10
38:05 2 Thessalonians: God's Presence
41:04 Revelation 14: Apocalyptic Imagery
52:04 Worshiping a Different God?
1:03:48 Universalism and Orthodoxy
1:11:41 Closing Thoughts

ABOUT THE GUEST: 
- Concerning Hell: The Doctrine in Theological, Philosophical, Historical, and Biblical Dialogue (ed. Paul Copan & Christopher M. Date, IVP Academic, available for pre-order): https://www.ivpress.com/concerning-hell
- Dr. Paul Copan's website: https://www.paulcopan.com

RESOURCES MENTIONED:
- The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis: https://www.amazon.com/Great-Divorce-C-S-Lewis/dp/0061774197
- Erasing Hell by Francis Chan & Preston Sprinkle: https://www.amazon.com/Erasing-Hell-About-Eternity-Things/dp/0781407257

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_02 0:47

Hey everybody, welcome back to the wonderful world of Rimnit Radio. I am joined today by Dr. Paul Copan. We're gonna be talking about hell, uh, eternal conscious torment, annihilationism, that kind of stuff. It's gonna be a fun program. You guys stay tuned. Hey guys, my name is Joshua Lewis. I hope you are enjoying the content here at Rimnit Radio for the first time. Yeah, we come out with all kinds of content here on the podcast. We interview Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals. If they're a Christian and they stand on the other side of the theological aisle, we want to know how they understand the Bible, the spirits revealed to them through the reading of Scripture. And if you're interested in kind of breaking outside of your theological echo chamber, man, jump on, hear the podcast, subscribe, like videos, that kind of thing. You also do a whole lot of content uh surrounding church history and spiritual gifts. We are continuationist on the podcast, uh, meaning that we believe the gifts of the spirit have continued. So you'll notice quite a bit of our content is policing our own people. Why are you slapping that guy with a coat again? I don't have a Bible verse for that. So uh if you're interested in any of that kind of stuff, make sure to subscribe to the channel because we're coming out with content like this all the time. I have a guest who's come back with us uh today. He he's been on the program a couple of times before, at least one other time. I want to say it's two or three times though. Um but Dr. Copan, tell us a little about yourself and your ministry before we dive into our discussion today.

SPEAKER_01 2:07

Well, I appreciate it. I am a professor at Palm Beach Atlantic University in West Palm Beach, Florida, been there since 2004. I have a background in philosophy. It's my PhD, but also biblical studies and uh theology. And so I am part of the master's program in uh at Palm Beach Atlantic University, which is part of the uh School of Ministry, so the MA Philosophy Religion program. So we've got a program for both residential students, so come and join us uh and join our community, which is really wonderful and warm, and uh it really flourishes. And we also have a uh a hybrid uh program uh that's part of our MA Philosophy Religion program. So we've got students from all over North America uh joining us and coming twice a year to our campus. Uh so basically you prepare people for PhDs in philosophy, but also going into apologetics or philosophy or Christian philosophy-oriented uh work uh and ministry. Uh, we also are emphasizing public philosophy. So that's been a big uh push of ours. So we have courses in public philosophy and philosophy of literature and philosophy, technology, and ethics, and so forth. So, anyway, that's a little bit of the background there. I've been involved in uh various book projects in theology, apologetics, um, Christianity and science, uh, and philosophy of religion and so forth. So I've done work in these areas and have written or uh edited, uh written, yeah, I guess about 45 books or so. So anyway, this is that's a little bit of the background, and uh we can talk about how I got into this topic, but uh I'll I'll let you take things from here, Joshua.

SPEAKER_02 3:55

Well, yeah, uh before we even do that, because I think all that's really important, let's frame the discussion a little bit. Uh right now, there's been a big discussion between annihilationism and eternal conscious torment. So I want to start there. Give us a 30,000-foot, can be real brief if you'd like, description of those two views. So the the the first person's coming onto this channel who's never heard of those concepts before, maybe they're only familiar with the kind of traditional view of eternal conscious torment. Um, what I would consider the traditional view. I'm not saying that annihilationism isn't old, just you know, uh what I think is the kind of the mainstream evangelical position is what I mean to say by traditional. Um, can you give us the understanding of those two positions real briefly, and then we'll kind of get into how you got into the debate of this discussion, um, why this is important today, that kind of thing. So let's start with the definitions.

SPEAKER_01 4:44

Yeah. I work with the term eternal conscious punishment. I think the term eternal conscious torment uh can be misleading and uh sounds like a torture chamber uh that's forever, and that can be misleading. Uh, but the understanding of eternal conscious punishment has to do with God's uh judgment that is ongoing, uh, that this is uh for those who have uh excluded God from their lives, that they have basically uh said no, and so God says, have it your way. And so they uh they are judged neither too severely nor too leniently, uh, but it is a conscious awareness that they have, sometimes described as distress, as without rest. Uh sometimes the term torment is used and so forth. But uh but that's basically the uh the view that those who are condemned uh are are ongoingly uh judged, um, and it's a conscious awareness that they have. And um the you know the other the other viewpoint that I uh that uh that I'm interacting with in a forthcoming book that we talk about uh is uh what is sometimes called annihilationism or condition to mortality. Uh and the view is that one's possesses immortality uh only if that is one lives everlastingly, uh only if one is redeemed, that uh immortality is conditional upon that. And so if a person uh says no to God, rebels against God, then uh ultimately the end is extinction, obliteration, annihilation, uh, that this is captured in images such as death, destruction, perishing, consuming fire, uh, that these are the languages used. So it's so it's not a an ongoing punishing, but it is an ongoing uh punishment that continues on. So it is seen as everlasting in its effects, but it is not a conscious judgment, conscious uh you know, awareness uh forever. Uh so that is the kind of the in in a nutshell what we're looking at. And so the language that is used of torment uh or ongoing judgment by the annihilationist or the conditional mortality proponent, uh, he is the one who says that that is maybe for you know leading up to death or the annihilation of the person, but it is it is part of it, as it were, is kind of uh you know incorporated into that. But the the ultimate judgment is death and its finality. So that's a kind of a rough sketch of what we're talking about. There are nuances that we can get into, I suppose, but uh you know, some people say that annihilation is for all human beings, but uh but the the devil and his angels they continue to be uh tormented day and night forever, as uh Revelation uh 20 says. But uh so there's some nuances there.

SPEAKER_02 7:56

Well, that's uh that I think that's for for as brief as it was, very thorough. Uh I appreciate uh the way that you uh I would say steel manned both positions, uh, because I do think that it's uh a very common uh uh theological uh I don't know, polemic to just kind of uh articulate your position very well and then the other physician just kind of throw right under the bus. I was I was talking, and I don't think Shriner was doing this, but I was talking to Tom Shriner uh on a former interview, and I just said, hey, you know, I I think that uh some of the Annihilation's arguments are kind of compelling. You know, I'm still an eternal, an eternal conscious punishment sort of guy. Uh torment, I think you're probably right, is probably not the best word for uh what I view as taking place in hell uh perpetually. But I go, I think some of the arguments are compelling. And uh Tom was just like, I don't. I don't think I don't think there's any merit to it. I was like, man, uh you you should go hang out with Chris Date. I don't know. I I think I think he's got I I find a respect for traditions that have really done the legwork to make sense of all the little nuances. I uh I don't find myself to be uh Calvinistic in my soteriology, but I do find that some of some of maybe the vast majority of the guys that have inspired me, instructed me, uh I'm teaching through the Gospel of John. I think I have Keener and maybe one other guy who's like soteriologically homeless, but but everyone else is like very reformed in their understanding. And I think any time that I'm engaging with a brother and sister in Christ who's really done the work to make sense of the text, I have a lot of respect for it. Um now I think you can make argumentations, people have done a lot of work on justifying all kinds of wild things in the text, and that's not necessarily respectful. So we've gotta we've gotta uh you know thread that needle pretty carefully. But you you had mentioned how you got into this. I I I want to maybe do a tube on this question. First, why is this so important right now? It seems to have taken over the conversation of theology. There's a lot of important conversations on theology that are happening right now, but Kurt Cameron, you know, and his son had a conversation. He's he's engaging with this idea of annihilationism, and it just kind of went viral. I I want to know if before we start exeguting all these various texts, if you could maybe exegete culture for us a little bit and say, why is it that this is such an important discussion right now in First and Dunkir in the West? And then how did you get involved in this?

SPEAKER_01 10:12

Right. The yes, this has been a topic that is taking off. Uh, someone who's been involved in pushing the argument is my co-editor for this forthcoming book called Concerning Hell with IVP Academic. Uh, Chris Date invited me to a rethinking hell conference uh back in 2020 in Seattle. And uh, you know, he's been really opening up the eyes of a lot of people regarding the conditional immortality position. And so I got into the conversation and just realized that things are continuing to uh to simmer. But I but I think you're right that there that uh you know there there's kind of a high point uh at the turn of the uh at the turn of the year in in January or end of December, where uh you know you mentioned Kirk Cameron, who has this podcast and talked about eternal conscious punishment versus conditional mortality. And Kirk Cameron said, you know, I think these the position of conditional mortality makes sense. It fits. Uh it uh you know, I I yeah he didn't really raise any objections, but so he showed sympathy toward it. And then you know he had uh Chris Date and me and a couple of others, Gavin Bortland and Dan Patterson from Australia, uh, join in this round table discussion, uh, you know, and uh called Hellgate. And uh that was a very good, robust discussion. We went for over two hours in in conversation and a very cordial, uh brotherly uh conversation. I think everyone just expressed great respect and appreciation for the others around the table. And we also expressed how this uh the conditional mortality viewpoint was not to be understood in terms of heresy, in terms of a departure from scripture. It actually is rooted in uh the in antiquity, uh both in the intertestamental literature as well as in the early church fathers. So uh so this is not some sort of a new uh attempt to extinguish hell, uh to eradicate hell from uh from theology. Uh but uh then you know that was followed up with another conversation that uh we uh date Chris Date and I had with Preston Spreekle. And then just uh a short time later, uh we met up with Sean McDowell out in California at Biola and had a had a conversation with him, and there were some Talbot Biola students who were part of the audience at the studio, and we had a very good QA time after our uh our our again, lengthy uh conversation about the texts and the positions and how to understand them and so forth. So I think this is a uh a conversation that is really taking off. There's been a, in light of this forthcoming book that Chris State and I have done, I think just a growing anticipation of what we uh are involved in. And so, uh, but it is a pressing question. Uh, the leading question that uh Christians have to deal with is the problem of evil and the and the problem of hell is one of those questions. C.S. Lewis said that if there was one doctrine he could get rid of, uh it would be the doctrine of hell, but Jesus taught it that it's uh part of church tradition and so forth, and that this uh this is not to be uh we are not to get rid of this doctrine, even though maybe emotionally uh we may find sympathetic sympathy with a uh a viewpoint more might like condition conditional immortality or even beyond that universalism. But uh so that's uh that's a little bit of where things have uh have been simmering. Uh there'd been there's been some literature on this, but uh there's not been as much work on on the doctrine of hell as one might think. And so I think this new book that we have coming out, which has people from different disciplines looking at uh the the same topic, but again, arguing uh from from the conditional mortality and the eternal conscious punishment viewpoints. Uh so it's really a deeply engaged conversation. And so I think it'll be uh I think it'll really contribute to the literature in a very significant way. When does that come out? Uh it is coming out in January. Okay.

SPEAKER_02 14:20

Yes. IVP Academic. We'll have to link it if the link exists uh for free sales or whatever, because I know people are going to pick that up. Yeah, it is available for pre-order, yes. Okay. Well then I'll put the IVP link in the description of this video when we when we get it out. Let's uh let's you mentioned just a moment ago early church guys, and if I have to reference my notes because I can't refall them all off the top of my head, but like it was Polycarp, uh no, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, yes, Polycarp is in there, the DACA. At least Annihilationists will claim that these guys were the early church folks who were talking about this subject and they all seem to be annihilationist, then they would argue that um it was later in the second century before we start seeing um an intense uh focus on what would be eternal conscious punishment uh in the early church fathers. Um is that a fair critique of those two views um that man annihilationism might have been or conditional immortality? I I want people to know, I'm I'm not gonna be perfect with my terms here. I feel feel like those two can be interchangeable to some to some degree. Right. Uh but that those those views are in fact some of the earliest, or is it more of a mixture all throughout history? I'm curious what your take is on that and how much church history informs uh your reading and hermeneutica uh of of this topic.

SPEAKER_01 15:36

Right. But the intertestamental period is interesting that you have a yeah again, the majority view is that there might be torment for the unbeliever for a time, but then extinction, uh being snuffed out, being annihilated. And then but there is a minority view that held to eternal conscious punishment slash torment uh for the most heinous of sinners. And so you have that is a minority view, and uh so that and again that carried the but the the notion of extinction at some point or extinguishing someone, uh that is like I said, that is latched on to by the early uh earliest church fathers. But uh someone like Craig Keener argues, of course, we want to take the scriptures as our primary focus, and uh not that the early church can't shed light, but uh but we want to look at what is going on in the biblical text itself. And so uh someone like Craig Keener, uh others like David DeSilva will maintain that, yes, the majority viewpoint, you know, they know again, it was a kind of a mixed view uh you know in the in the intertestinal period, but the majority view that uh there would ultimately be annihilation of the unbeliever, uh of the wicked, uh, that they Jesus and John the Baptist uh take the view that uh you know, against the kind of the minority view that the most heinous of sinners will continue to exist and be uh and be judged, uh, you know, conscious judgment, uh permanently, uh everlastingly. And uh Craig Keener, David Da Silva take this view that uh Jesus and John the Baptist adopted the minority viewpoint, uh, but as it were, democratized it, that this is for all who reject God, the all the wicked, and so forth, uh, that it's not just the most heinous. And so that this is something that has applied to all believers, and then they argue that the biblical text, the New Testament text, uh does make this clear, uh, that this is the viewpoint. And again, people like David DeSilvic, Craig Kinder would be sympathetic with the annihilationist viewpoint, but uh according to their judgment, they don't just don't see this being borne out in uh the New Testament scriptures. When it comes to the Old Testament, there isn't a whole lot on the afterlife. Uh you know, I'd say both for the when it comes to the wicked uh as well as the righteous, uh, there is there's uh little that is mentioned. I think you get hints of it uh in various texts, but it is not something that is strongly emphasized. You you see the emergence of this conversation in the in the intertestamental period and then uh elaborated on in uh the New Testament. And so So anyway, we can that's my the general layout of of where I think things are.

SPEAKER_02 18:42

Oh, that's great. Um and let's let's maybe dive into a couple of texts. Uh when we talk about uh eternal conscious punishment, one of the texts that you regularly looked to uh is Matthew 25. Uh and in Matthew 25, uh in verse 46, uh it speaks of eternal punishment and righteousness into eternal life. I'll read the text here in a moment. But to give context, uh there's this uh parable-like uh telling of the final judgment. I say parable-like, that's not accurate. The parable is with the talents, and then in the next section, it's final judgment. I just my eyes glanced at parable, so I repeated parable um in the Bible that I have open here. So it says, uh, you know, here's the story of the final judgment. Uh sheep and goats separated. Hey, you guys visited me when I was in prison, you guys didn't. Wait, when did we do or do not do that? It's like when you visited the least of these, you visited me. And then at the very end of this text, he'll answer them saying, Truly, truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me, and these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. That's ESV. So could you maybe unpack for us the significance of the use of eternal in both punishment and life there in that text?

SPEAKER_01 20:51

The there there is language of eternal, uh, where you might have it just as a solitary reference, like eternal redemption, uh, in the book of Hebrews. But the contrast, you have kind of in parallel uh the mention of eternal life, and then you know, eternal punishment, uh, and you go back a few verses and it talks about um the you know, the you know, to the place prepared for the devil uh and his angels. And so you see these in parallel in some like Craig Blomberg, who takes the more traditional understanding. So you talk about the traditionalist viewpoint, the conditionalist viewpoint. Uh Krait Blomberg says that if you just look at these in parallel and you see that the eternal is making reference, you know, for the believer is making reference to uh ongoing conscious uh you know, life, um, bliss, etc., uh, that it seems natural to take the parallel of eternal punishment as something that is also uh conscious. And uh so what is so it again, you can go back to various portions of scripture, not just from you know in Matthew 20 uh 25, but also going back into 24, the end of 24, and you see the repeated reference to the basic descriptor that Jesus uses to talk about that final state for the unbeliever. And he uses the term or terms that suggest conscious awareness, that it is the place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, that that is the uh you know, the ascription that he makes, that that is the label that he affixes to that final state, and it has terms related to uh conscious awareness, uh, conscious judgment. So this is where, you know and again, if we want to, and again, we can look more carefully at this uh later on when we get to say Revelation chapter 20. But if you kind of connect what is going on to the you know in Matthew 25 with say, you know, we can talk about Revelation 14, which talks about the uh those who have worshiped the beasts and they will have no rest uh day or night. And then you connect that to the uh Matthew 20, uh verse 10, where the the devil and his angels, as it were, uh that the they are cast into the lake of fire. And it says, and and again, this what is is a lake of fire extinction, annihilation? Uh well, that's what the conditional immortality proponent would maintain that the uh image is a lake of fire, uh smoke. Uh uh, etc., that these indicate annihilation. But it is very curious to say that that is the case about uh Satan and his angels, if they are in this lake of fire, but consciousness is connected to that, that uh they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. So if we link these passages, if we look at uh Matthew 25, uh Revelation 14, you know, 11, and also uh Revelation 20, 10, and then 2015 also talks about uh those who worship the beast will be cast in the lake of fire, then it seems that we've got something that indicates uh conscious awareness. Now I know the uh the uh, and again we can get into Revelation, so we can talk about apocalyptic literature then, but but I think just kind of at a glance, if you interconnect these, if you look at, well, what is that judgment that Jesus is talking about uh when he talks about the place prepared for the devil and his angels? Well, Revelation 20 seems to give to us uh a picture of that, and what is it? Well, it does have marks of eternal conscious awareness, day and night, forever and ever. So that's where I would uh land on that, though the language is one that uh does suggest that. And so anyway, but I'll turn it over to you if you want to follow up uh on any of those uh comments.

SPEAKER_02 25:04

Yeah, well, I'll I want to I want to maybe stick with Matthew 25 for a second, because I I like the idea that there is this, okay, consistent parallel, eternal punishment, uh, but the righteous to eternal life. And there seems to be a um consistency of duration here. But like the uh annihilationist, the conditionalist is gonna look at this and they're gonna go, well, um the duration of the punishment, if they cease to be, is eternal punishment. So they might even agree with uh who is it? I think you said it was uh uh Craig Blomberg when he was like maybe there's a uh a symmetrical duration of time. They actually go, Yeah, I I agree there's a symmetrical duration of time uh between the punishment and the eternal life, and that is that one is eternal death, a ceasing of being, while the other one is internal as in, you know, yeah, in the conscious sense. So um, and I know that you proof text other passages, but like when we look at Matthew 25, um uh what is this you know parallel of eternal punishment and eternal life? Um can we get from the text that this is conscious? Um and and again, I grant that there are other passages that speak of that. Um so I I think this is this is a difficult thing because in some sense we're we we're looking at one text, okay, what what can I glean from this text? But then also say there are other places that talk about this sort of thing. So I I know that we all need to do this. The conditionalists will do this, you know, so so will we. But um are you compelled at all by the idea of the eternality of the punishment being a ceasing of being?

SPEAKER_01 26:46

Yeah. Yeah, and again, I I think the annihilationist makes a fair point that it is that the consequences are everlasting, just as they are for the uh for the believer. Um, but one is a you know, then again, they'll distinguish between punishment for the uh for the uh you know, you know, for the proponent of uh you know of annihilation, that it is punishment, but it is it is uh the the punishment takes place, but it is not a an ongoing punishing. Uh this also raises questions about well, what is the state of the unbeliever or the devil? Does the they stop sinning uh or does the sin continue? Does the rebellion against God continue? So there can be that added layer to be discussed. But uh but let's say this too, and I know that uh you know we Chris State and I have had many conversations, we've worked on this book together as well. I have a very high regard for the uh commitment to scripture that uh so many uh annihilationists have uh exhibited uh over the decades. Uh one of my heroes, John Stott, he was an annihilationist, uh, you know, Michael Green, uh Philip Edgecombe Hughes, uh, you know, again, uh the the list goes on, David Wenham. Uh so a lot of people whom I've followed, uh, you know, not just in terms of biblical studies, but also uh theology and philosophy, uh, that there are people who are solid evangelicals who just have been persuaded by the text that language of fire, uh consuming fire, uh destruction, perishing, and so forth, that that points to uh that points to annihilation. So and Craig Wahlenberg says, I we you one can see how they arrive at these conclusions. It's not as though these are really far-fetched and ridiculous. Um, but uh that you know, so I I I want to make clear that I I see the rationale. I I don't yeah, I don't see that there is a uh some anything heretical or anti-biblical here. I just think it's a matter of well, what is the where is the weight uh of evidence, what is the weight of evidence show? And I think too that there are going to be differing weights that we give to some of our um embassies, presuppositions will give greater weight maybe uh to the majority view of the intertestamental period, uh as well as the uh early church fathers, or you know, will we maybe say, no, let's know the minority view is is one that we should take because it's been a reflect of the scriptures in the New Testament. Uh yeah, there'll also be uh you know, how do we emphasize the how do we treat apocalyptic literature? Because I think that the two leading texts that uh annihilationists themselves will recognize are that uh Revelation 14, Revelation 20 are, you know, they do appear to indicate the uh the ongoing conscious punishment of the unbeliever as well as the Delama's angels. Uh, but then the question comes up, how do you handle the matter of apocalyptic literature? Is this something that is uh is this something that is uh to be maybe taken, you know, tempered and uh and and maybe taken with a grain of salt uh that we maybe need to back off of this, uh even though it looks like it's portraying uh eternal conscious punishment, but it's it's actually apocalyptic, and we need to uh be careful about uh inferring that. So again, there will be some presuppositions here uh as well. Uh one of the things that the annihilationists will point out, Chris Tate points this out, is that when you look at Revelation, sorry, we look at Matthew 25, 46, uh you have to also consider how does Matthew's gospel, for example, uh look at these sorts of uh text. Uh how do you know how or this sort of uh you know the you know what Gehenna or the final state is going to be? And uh and I say, yeah, I agree. And he would maybe point to maybe another text we can we can uh look at um about um you know the in you know Matthew.

SPEAKER_02 30:56

Yeah, I think Matthew 10, I've got Matthew 10.28 and Matthew 3.12 pulled up because I I I'm I'm trying to think of like if if Chris Dade is sitting on my shoes, like what questions would he ask? And I'm like, I'm trying to think that way. Uh so Matthew 3, 12, uh, you know, he talks about the windowing fork being in hand. This is John the Baptist speaking of Jesus, I'll gather wheat into his barn, but the chaff will burn with unquenchable fire. And then you've got Matthew 10, 28. He destroys uh uh fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Uh so that looks like destruction language. One is consumed, um, the other is destruction. Um so yeah, how how would how do you engage with those symbols and imagery there?

SPEAKER_01 31:36

Yeah, these are of course not the only portrayals of the final state. And and one of the things that I said is that you see repeatedly that Jesus is describing that final state uh as the major label is uh place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. And it's interesting that you know in in yeah, we can look at some of these texts that talk about destruction, but but there is destruction related to, you know, the language of destruction is related to say something that still continues to exist. Um, the lost sheep, the destroyed sheep, as it were, of the house of Israel Jesus came to. Uh, we we see that the prodigal son was lost. You know, that word again related to destruction uh is is using used to describe the prodigal son. Uh that uh you know, that you can see that something may be ruined, has more the sense of of ruin, ruination, uh, but uh but again, not uh not obliteration, kind of like a card that's been an accident, it's not uh obliterated, but uh but again it's it's no longer functioning, for example. Uh or we can even talk about how yes, you do see flame and often referring to consuming, etc. But there are sometimes flames that uh that are seen in terms of bringing about a purifying effect, but don't annihilate or obliterate. Uh so for example, the word destroy is used in in 2 Peter chapter 2 and 3, um, but chapter 3, where you see the the flood of Noah that destroyed the the earth um as it was back then. But again, it didn't annihilate or obliterate it, uh it was reinhabited. And uh and so but it also talks about a fire that is going to doesn't use the word uh you know Apollo Lee, uh, you know, but it uses eluo and other words for uh for kind of destruction language, uh this this fire language of you know the the elements being it burn with intense heat. And even Chris Dade would acknowledge that yes, you have a kind of a scorching, a uh a burning away of the things that don't that aren't suited to the kingdom of God, and so those things will be removed, but the the old earth and old heaven will give way to the new earth and the new heaven, but it's not as though those new earths and new the new heavens and new earths are created out of nothing, ex nihilo. Uh no, this is a transformation, a purification. Uh so there's a continuity between the two, and then this this compares fairly to the world that was destroyed in Noah's day, but was of course reinhabited. Uh and so so we can we can say that yes, there can be language of consuming, of perishing, and so on, but uh but you can see them occurring concurrently uh with language of uh of you know torment or uh conscious awareness, uh the those who are going to be uh destroyed, the demons, uh for example, in uh you know, it are uh you know are confronted by Jesus with the gathering demoniac. You know, are here are you here to torment us before our time? Uh as you know, and the parallel says to destroy us uh before our time. Uh you know, and then you have, as I said, you take a look at uh Matthew uh 13, uh you know, verses you know 41 to 43, where you have it harts back to Daniel chapter 12, where you have the picture of the two resurrections, the resurrection of the righteous uh who will shine like the sun, and that's again, uh you know, they will be uh Jesus quotes that. Um and there's also in Daniel chapter 12 a resurrection to uh again to to shame. Uh and uh and and so what is that you know, and again, is that simply the memory? And and Chris State would say it's it's their memory that as people look upon those who are condemned, uh that they will uh ultimately be obliterated, uh, that it is like rotting corpses, there's degradation, there's shame, and so forth. And so it's more the memory, uh, the the dishonor that comes to them because they've opposed God and so on. And uh and as the righteous think about them, that uh that that is what uh what they have in mind. But Jesus seems to emphasize the it says that these, you know, that the uh these you know the wheat and the and the you know the wheat is gathered, the tares of the weeds are then bundled together and then cast into the furnace. We think, well, okay, the the they're put cast the furnace, they're consumed. But then he goes on to describe that very furnace, that place, as the one that is weeping and you know, where there's weeping and gnashing of teeth. You think, no, there's gonna be weeping and gnashing of teeth first, and then there's there's gonna be the you know, the the the consuming of the furnace. Uh Chris would say, Chris Dake would say, well, yeah, there's the there's the weeping and gnashing of teeth, and then the destruction, the perishing, the annihilation, etc. Uh, but again, it seems to me that you have that repeated refrain of uh weeping and gnashing of teeth as something that is a descriptor of that place. Uh interestingly, you have in Luke 13 a passage where Jesus is talking about the Gentiles coming in uh and and sitting with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and those who are the religious leaders being cast out. And it says uh, and you know, and yeah, and it says, you will be cast into the place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth while you see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob seated together. Uh, and so it is kind of interesting that there's this language of consciousness.

SPEAKER_02 37:30

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 37:31

Yeah, and you see, and you you pick this up too in the in Romans chapter two, uh verses nine and ten, where you have, you know, glory on our immortality uh to the the for the righteous. Uh, and uh and then you have a mention of distress and you know, you know, and trouble for those who are the condemned. Well, distress sounds like conscious awareness. Uh, it doesn't sound like they were distressed and then they perished uh or were annihilated, but distress seems to be bound up with that. And we get into Revelation uh chapter 14, which also talks about the unbeliever being without rest day and night. Uh so there does seem to be that continuity, but but we're getting ahead of ourselves perhaps. But I just wanted to bring uh bringing Revelation 14 up.

SPEAKER_02 38:18

Uh it's it's my next uh question. All right, let's hit it. Well, oh, I know what it was now. Uh it reminded me of your other work on uh Old Testament Caterine extinction, harem. Right? It's like how is that word used? And you go back and you look at other times that that word's used, and it could be used at least polemically, you know. So I could say, you know, the the OKC, the basketball team just murdered the Dallas Mavericks. And no one hearing that thinks I mean that they went out and committed homicide. But then at other times I can say things like, you know, uh the armed gunman went into the store and murdered everyone, and then you go, well, that does sound like homicide. And the context clues sometimes help you determine that. But what you're doing is you're saying, well, at least within the semantic range of this word, it can be used in a more uh uh you know thorough, complete sense, and at other times it doesn't. I love that illustration used of the destruction of the world and the flood, because the world wasn't totally destroyed, and the way that you compare compared torment us before our time and destroy us before our time. I think that's really helpful for people to think, okay, uh, does the word destroy mean destroy the way that I think it does all the time, or is there a semantic range of usage? Um, and I think you just kind of demonstrated that. So I just I I wanted more to comment on that than to camp out on it for a second. I thought that was really insightful. Let's do Revelation 14, 10 through 11, unless there's anything you want to add to that in the I suppose.

SPEAKER_01 39:44

I mean, I I yeah, I suppose that we could we could also you know add the consideration where you look at um at uh first or sorry, 2 Thessalonians 1, 9, and 10 to be quote, away from the presence of God. Uh that this this is the put they will suffer the punishment uh away from the presence of God. I think that the the term the phrasing away from the presence of God uh is misleading. I think it just simply is to be translated to the Greek preposition apah, that you that is going to be that they will they will suffer punishment uh from the presence of God. And and this is uh harks back to or heart, you know, moves things ahead to, as it were, Revelation 14, where actually the judgment of the unbeliever, those who are restless day and night, uh, that they are the ones who are it's it's before the throne of God. And and and this is it happens in Eastern Orthodoxy, uh, where you have the view that God's presence brings, it's kind of like the sun, it brings, it brings warmth and comfort to those who love him, that God's love is ongoing, continuing. But for the unbeliever, they chase at the love of God. And so they're they are feeling distress and trouble and restlessness because they are confronted with the presence of God. And but because they refuse communion with God, this chafes against them uh and gives them that distressed, restless spirit. Uh, but it is again the presence of God that, like the sun can also scorch and burn and so forth. So it is the presence of God in in 2 Thessalonians 1, where it's kind of like a candle or kind of waxes being melted by heat, uh, that is again, it comes from the presence of God. So it's causative uh rather than being away from the presence of God. So I think that helps clear up things. And and again, I I changed my view on how to understand uh 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians 1, 9 and 10, uh, and have seen this not kind of a removal from the presence of God, but actually what the presence of God causes for the unbeliever uh as well as for uh the the believer. So that's something that may be helpful and maybe a nice transition that can bring us to uh to Revelation 14. But let me just say one more thing, because in 2 Thessalonians 1, it does use the same uh term uh you know of uh kind of the uh the punishment or ruination uh in that that's mentioned in the text. That is the same kind of uh language that is used in 1 Timothy chapter 6, where Paul talks about those who have have brought their faith to ruin uh through the love of money and so forth, and uh made a shipwreck of their faith so that they didn't lose their lives, they didn't perish or anything like that, but but that there is ruination that exists along with their ongoing uh existence.

SPEAKER_02 42:43

No, that is that is helpful. Yeah, let's let's do uh let's do Revelation 14, because I think that one's interesting. I have it pulled up. Let me let me jump over here. Revelation 14, uh speaking of the devil, he will also drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur and the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the lamb, and the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, uh, day or night. Uh these uh worshippers of the beast and its image and whoever receives the mark of uh of it, of its name. Sorry. Um I apologize for that. In this text, a couple of things strike me. Maybe let's talk about imagery for a second. Apocalyptic imagery is all over this, right? Uh drink the line of God's wrath. Like, I don't think he's got like a well-aged Merlot up in the heavens that just labeled wrath, you know, like uh a ported cup of his anger. Again, don't think there's a chalice of anger necessarily, symbolic language, uh tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels, like that maybe that's legit. Like, I don't know. So, like, how much do you parse out as like Hyper Wooden literalism, uh, which I don't know that any of us should do with apocalyptic prophetic literature? Uh and then how much of this is like, okay, what's the meaning behind the picture? And if the the the symbol, if the meaning behind the symbol is completely opposite of the symbol, then doesn't even make sense. And I I would love to hear you weigh in on that.

SPEAKER_01 44:14

Right. Yeah. The and again, just when it comes to metaphorical symbolic language, maybe just good to say a few things here about just even if we talk about what does it mean, you know, what is literal hell? Some people talk about I believe in the literal hell. Well, if you yeah, I'd like to know what that means, because one, if we talk, take the images of Jesus of flame as well as darkness, if we do take them literally, they would cancel each other out. So I think we're left with a metaphorical understanding here. Furthermore, keep in mind the devil and his angels are also going to be in that place. And they are spirit beings, they don't have nerve endings and so can't feel uh flame or anything like that. So so we need to keep that uh in mind as well. Uh I I would also uh add that even when it comes to weeping and gnashing of teeth, there is distress, you know, weeping. Gnashing of teeth, when you look at the parallels, say the Old Testament to gnashing of teeth, uh, as well as even Stephen before he's about to be stoned, he is, you know, those his enemies who are who are you know that they don't want to hear him, they they uh are angry at him. It says that they are gnashing their teeth and they rush at him and then they end up stoning him. So there's a picture of hatred, of hostility that uh that again is characteristic. Of those who are unbelievers, that they're they're gnashing their teeth at God is an ongoing rebellion. It's not as though everything is just all settled with the final judgment, but there is this kind of an ongoing rebellion, ongoing animosity toward God. So that might be helpful to keep in mind as well. When we look at uh the language of Revelation, yes, uh, it is highly symbolic, and we do need to urge caution here. Uh there are people who are interpreters of apocalyptic literature who will take an conditionalist viewpoint. There are others like uh G.K. Beale and David De Silva, who uh who understand apocalyptic literature very, very well, uh, who take an ongoing conscious punishment uh viewpoint. Uh and sometimes it's a matter of, you know, how do we understand this? Uh uh even in in Revelation chapter uh 14, uh, we do see the drinking of the cup of wrath. It's interesting that all who have worshipped the beast will drink from that cup. So there's this individual uh involvement uh that they participated in this false worship. Now, Chris Date will point out that uh that uh you know in in Revelation 18 it talks about Babylon, this system against uh against God. You know, they have the two cities, Jerusalem and Babylon, uh, that are pitted against each other. And uh it talks about this city of Babylon that uh you know that is cast into the sea, that breaks apart, and it it it sinks to rise no more, that that Babylon is no more. Well, does that mean that the individuals who constituted Babylon are no more? Well, I think it is a judgment on the system, kind of like in the Second World War, you have a uh basically through the victory of the Allies over Nazi Germany, you have a dismantling of the power structure of Nazism. The the flags are burned, the monuments are toppled, the hierarchy are uh judged, and some of them are killed. Uh you so you basically it's a removal of Nazism, but the Germanation survives largely intact. And I think that that's what we have going on here, that there is individual judgment for the that the cup of wrath, uh, that the individual uh who has been part of this system will be drinking, that uh uh that this is part of the judgment that is being beaded out. Again, the the imagery of God's wrath, drinking from the cup of wrath. We see this in uh in the old, you know, a number of prophetic books in the Old Testament, uh that imagery of a kind of a foaming cup of wine uh that is uh that it that symbolizes that uh that cup of wrath, uh that uh of a judgment that is to be experienced. But what is interesting is that you have a contrast, and again, it's a conscious, a consciousness contrast uh between those who are unbelievers who have no rest day or night. Then two verses later in verse 13 of Revelation 14, you you have mention of the blessed are the dead who die in the Lord. They will rest from, you know, for they have rest from their labors. So there is then contrast of restlessness and then rest, which again harks back to uh Romans 2, 9 and 10, that there is going to be distress uh and uh and uh and trouble for those who are separated or who separate themselves from God or at least try to and have no community with God uh permanently. That that is uh the kind of a picture of distress, restlessness, and so forth uh that is that is being pictured here. So that's that's the kind of commentary that I'd make on Revelation 14. Uh, but I I would say too, Chris Date will point out that the language of smoke, uh, of um you know burning and so forth of your heart, if you look back at the Old Testament, you will see that this refers to, you think of Sodom and Gomorrah, the smoke rising up. It's after destruction has already taken place. But the you know, Chris Dane would say, well, that just is a picture of annihilation, of obliteration, and therefore we uh you know don't let that fool you uh when you see the term restlessness uh or without rest that is being used here. It is a fundamentally a picture of obliteration. But then I I I guess I'd point to the the fact that uh you do have images of fire, of burning, like 2 Peter 3, uh, where it doesn't destroy, uh, it merely purifies. And so you have that picture, but also in Revelation 20, you have a picture of the one who is the head of the system, you know, uh the devil uh and his cohort that are cast into the lake of fire, and it says they that they're you know, they're tormented day and night forever. So, yes, you may have images of smoke and and even kind of lake of fire imagery from the old testament that that uh that seems to uh speak of consuming, destroying, perishing, etc. But uh, but it's an odd way, if you, if you will, of portraying extinction, obliteration, uh annihilation of the devil and his angels uh by you know depicting that as tormented day and night, uh forever and ever. Uh or you know, there yeah, and so that is just seems to be jarring here. And we could add to that too, that in Revelation, not just outside the apocalyptic vision, Revelation 22, uh 15, but you also have within Revelation 21, part of the apocalyptic vision, in verses 8 uh and 27, you have mention of those who are not in the new hems of the new earth, those who are in the lake of fire, presumably, described as being outside the city. It seems that there is an ongoing existence to those who are not part of the new hems of the new earth, again, the new picture of the new Jerusalem, uh, that this is something that I think is couldn't reflect kind of a parallel existence here, you know, the the cowardly, the dogs, the you know, the uh you know, the truth, the kind of the treacherous uh who are outside of the city who can't enter into it, uh, that there is this parallel existence of of others who don't enter into that bliss of uh of commute communion with God.

SPEAKER_02 52:13

It gives me this really interesting Edenic parallelism that I'm thinking of. That you have Eden and you have this temple complex, and you have protect and keep, and then you have the serpent who sneaks in. And now in the new Jerusalem, you've got this new Eden, new temple, and you have people on the outside who are unable to come in, right? Like it's the similar parallel, it's like it's truly kept now because the new Adam. Anyway, it's just an interesting, it's an interesting picture when you when you present it that way, that it it causes that in my mind to trigger. I hadn't considered that.

SPEAKER_01 52:45

Yeah, you certainly do see a number of those parallels, you know, the the beginning uh being echoed in the uh in the in the end in that uh in that final state. Uh so yeah, I I think that there is uh a riches of that language that is being uh recaptured. Of course, the God is meeting with human beings, the Garum, Genesis 3.8, God is walking with uh the you know, with Adam and Eve in the Garm. And uh and uh you know you see that in Revelation you know 21-22 that God is dwelling in the midst of his people and uh you know that uh they will, you know, you know, they you know he will be their God, they will be his people. Also there is that picture of that communion that they enjoy, and that those are you know that others are excluded from that communion. Uh so yeah.

SPEAKER_02 53:30

Okay, I've you've been extremely patient with me. Like the the other position, right? Like you're like, hey, uh not only extremely patient, you've been like, hey, this is totally reputable, this is reasonable, this is Christian, this is orthodox, like I don't think you're heretics. We can agree to disagree. This is where I think the text, the wait late leads. But I've got a question. And this question was presented to me recently by uh we'll call him a close friend. If he's watching this program, you know who you are. Um the the the question was circling around the idea of at what point are we worshiping another god? Okay, so like uh let's let's have a worldview of hell, okay? And then we've got way over here on the eternal conscious punishment side, you've got people who don't really understand the doctrine of justification. They're like, you've got to do everything just right to enter into heaven, right? And then you've got another group who's like, actually, we can't do anything right, we've got to receive righteousness from Christ. Um, it's imputed to us, he did everything right, that's why I get to go. And then you got this other group over here, we'll maybe call them the annihilationists. There's got to be a varying degree in between here. But but the conditionalist, the annihilationist is over here, and then you've got like the Christian universalist way over here. Um, everyone gets to go eventually, they're just gonna continue to be punished until they can receive the love of God, almost purgatory-esque. So the the question would be you know, if God's if God's actions flow from his nature, then at what point do we begin to describe a God whose actions are so different that we're talking about a different God? You know, you know, someone would come to me and the I think there's a Brian Zond, I don't know if you know this guy, uh really anti-PSA, not a big fan of penal substitution. And he'll describe penal substitution as, you know, the big angry father who comes down in drunk in rage, ready to beat the snot out of humanity, and Jesus jumps in and says, No, dad, beat me up instead, and he beats up the son, and he's like, ah, my wrath is satisfied. And I go, that's not the God of the Bible, guy. Like, uh, that undermines the doctrine of the Trinity, the unified will of the Father and the Son, that Jesus came of his own accord. Like, like that's not what you're articulating is a different God. Um, so it's a caricature. Yeah, it's a caricature. So, my my question though is with some of this, um, I'm I'm over here with this position of I'm the creature, he's the creator. I want to have a humility that says, maybe it is eternal conscious. That, if I'm gonna be honest, I think my sinfulness affects my heart to the point that makes me go, I'm uncomfortable with that. And I don't want to make a decision on my theology based off of like making God in my own image. And I would I would rather people be annihilated, right? So, like, I don't want to do that. But but do we come to a point where we go, uh a God who ends people versus a God, like I'm wrestling through this question. At what point do we change who God is when we change the actions of what God does? Um, I know that's a complex question. I didn't have a great answer for it. That's why I'm asking you, you've got a PhD. Come on, man, help me out.

SPEAKER_01 56:30

Uh yeah, I think there are going to be some trade-offs here. Uh I think that we are both the the annihilationist and the uh conditionalist and the eternal conscious punishment uh proponent, the traditionalist, will uh you know, I think we're both attempting to portray the scriptures, the character of God, uh, as best we can. I know that there are some who, you know, John Stott says, you know, I can't hold to a view of eternal conscious uh punishment torment, uh, where you know he said if this is everlasting, that this he said it we would have to somehow cauderize our own emotions uh in order to espouse this view that we have to really kind of detach ourselves emotionally from this view. Well, maybe there are other ways that we can look at this uh as well. Uh when you think about, for example, capital punishment. Uh some people say it's more merciful to let a person continue to exist than to bring an end to his life. Well, there are perhaps some competing intuitions here. Uh, is it merciful for God to allow a person to continue to exist uh or to uh annihilate that person? Uh you know, um Chris Date would say you can come up with scenarios where it might be compassionate to annihilate someone who is uh in in torment, you know, maybe someone who's suffering, and you just, as it were, put that person out of his misery, that's showing compassion uh to some in in some way. Uh or we could look at it and say, well, and and Chris Date will point this out too. He's he's very frank about this. He'll say, Well, in the ancient world, in the Greco-Roman world, the worst thing that you could imagine was for there to be an annihilation of one's own being, that one would cease to exist. Yeah, put me through whatever you want to, whatever suffering I have to endure, uh that I would rather endure that than lose my very identity, my own existence. Uh, so could it be that in the love of God, he refuses to annihilate someone, that being is a good thing, insofar as one exists, one has being. Uh, and so to annihilate that uh persists, to actually remove something that has some value. Uh, so so again, how do we play this off? Uh, so it could be that you know God does not annihilate because he is showing uh or exhibiting that love here. Secondly, we could also say that there is a an ongoing rebellion on the part of human beings or the demonic beings, that they continue to resist uh and rebel against God, they continue to hate God again, the gnashing of teeth imagery, that there is ongoing hostility uh to God. And so hell would ultimately be seen as having, you know, finding pleasure, happiness, uh, one's own way. Uh, and we see that heaven as well as hell begin on earth, that we set our moral and spiritual compass to uh toward God or away from God, and in the end we get uh what we want. And uh, and so we are you know again dealing with some of these uh lingering sorts of questions, and we're trying to sense, you know, how do we make sense of this? Well, could it be that the judgment is ongoing, um, not merely because of what was done in a limited period of time on earth, but also because that that rebellion continues uh everlastingly. Uh, and another proposal here, N. T. Wright, uh, brings this up, and it's hinted at in C.S. Lewis's work, um, The The Great Divorce, where you have someone who is, you know, there's a woman who is uh not just grumbling, but she eventually becomes so dominated by that attitude that she has it were turns into a grumble, uh kind of a machine-like grumble. And so she's no longer, as it were, a you know, a recognizable human being, as it were, uh, who is grumbling, but has just become so preoccupied with grumbling itself that this is like a personified grumble. And uh and so we can maybe think of this as being a deterioration of the human condition uh in wanting to resist God, resist humility with God, so that one shifts from being a smeagal to being more like a gollum, that you become a more like a wisp-like uh creature that has so become de-humanized through resisting God's love and peace and so forth, uh, that you become less and less recognizable as a human being. I'm not saying you are not officially human, but you just functionally speaking, you just become less and less recognizable as uh as a human being. So there could be a number of these sorts of considerations as we look at this, uh, that rather than you, I think there are shades of consideration that we can bring into this picture rather than it's either this or that. As I said before, if the portrayal of hell that people have, you know, we didn't ask, well, which God are we talking about, which uh which understanding of God? This is not a divine torture chamber. A lot of people when they talk about eternal conscious torment, that is usually what comes to people's mind that, oh, God is just tormenting people. And it's not an externally imposed condition, but something that is more internal. Uh, and you know, the distress that comes by refusing to align yourself with God. Um, but there's also this, yeah, this picture of uh degrees of punishment as well as Revelation, as Duke 12, uh, 47 and 48 talk about that there are you know some those who know that the master is coming, they're beaten with uh with greater um stripes, and uh and those who don't know the master's coming with fewer. And so it's we do have a degreed kind of judgment, that it's not you know, that the devil has the same judgment as you know the maybe humanitarian atheist who lives down the street. It's not as though it's all leveled. Uh there are degrees of judgment, degrees of punishment, just as there are degrees of sin. And so you have a picture here of uh of a judgment that is not going to be more severe than is just, nor is it going to be uh too lenient uh for what is just. So these are some things I'd bring into the picture to help perhaps figure into how we're to look at this final state. So again, I can, as I said, I can see how the conditionalist arrives at his conclusions. And uh for, you know, I've talked to some people, I said, would you rather have, you know, would you let rather see this, it is from an emotional point of view, uh a conditionalist understanding versus a maybe someone who continues to rebel and continues to say no to God, who uh their degrees of punishment and so forth would, you know, which is in a sense more morally, uh emotionally satisfying. And if people see people told me, well, I think the uh the conditional immortality viewpoint, the the ultimate extinction of a person is more morally satisfying for me. Uh well again, emotions we have to be careful about, uh weighing them too heavily and uh overriding scripture. And and indeed, there are some things we don't know about who God is in terms of his holiness and so on. But but I think the the the end of the matter is this uh what Abraham's uh used to describe God, that the other judge of the earth is going to do what is right. Uh he is not going to overpunish, he is not going to uh punish in some sort of a mean-spirited or a vindictive way. He is going to do what's just. And everyone who, when you have when that person has the full picture, is going to say, no, God is truly just in doing what he has done. So those are some things that I would lay out before us uh that I think we have to have a humility of spirit to uh receive that and to be willing to adjust our viewpoint uh as we as as we think through these things. But uh but there may be just some some other considerations beyond which we can't go. That we there are some mysteries, uh some understandings of the just an understanding of the holiness of God. What does that entail? Uh we often had very watered-down understanding of the holiness of God. We need to be careful about that as well.

SPEAKER_02 1:05:26

Yeah, so I I'm I want to I want to push back just a little bit to get a little bit more clarity, because again, I go, Yeah, I'm with you. I I that was even in my question, I was trying to say, I know I'm the creature, he is the creator, and his ways are not my ways, and I think that he is going to things that are good and just that I would have never done that way. Right? Like I I think it was Preston Sprinkle and Francis Chand who wrote this book on uh hell, and one of the illustrations that was brought up was would I, to demonstrate my love, offer up my son and sacrifice him in such a way to atone for the sins of the world? No. So look, the mercy and the love of God is so great I can't quite comprehend it. Would it not also be the case that even the severity of God I couldn't comprehend I should receive as well? If I'm willing to receive that love and mercy, would I not also be willing to receive that that that picture of his judgment? So I I'm as the creature going, okay, God, I'll accept you on your terms, whatever you decide to do, I know is just, right? But but then I also go, is there a level of judgment that is so severe that is no longer the God of the Bible? Like the the six-year-old who, you know, is uh, you know, that the image of hell that people have is the six-year-old who never came to faith, you know, is in eternal conscious torment. And, you know, the vision of hell that is being pictured is angels, you know, stabbing this kid with swords and their bodies regenerating and you know, like just constant torment. I mean, that's that's a wildly cruel image. And I go, I just don't think that's the God of the Bible at that point. And then over here, there's like this universalist world where everybody gets in and there's no judgment. The the pedophile and the murderer and the guy, you know, Mao and Stalin and Hitler, and like they're they're all just hanging out with Paul and and the disciples. And you know, God hates workers of iniquity and those who shed innocent blood. And and it's like I don't see that as the God of the Bible either. So it's like it I agree that I man, I'm with you. Annihilationist um get get uh annihilationist, you know, eternal conscious punishment. I I see this as orthodox with. Within the image of God that I see in scripture. But like, do you think that there is a line that we cross on either side of the divide that's like, I can't make sense of that and and think that we're worshiping the same God? Because you and I can disagree on complementarianism and egalitarianism and still think the nature of God is secure and orthodox. And like we haven't we haven't violated the nature of God. But I it feels to me as if on these, maybe on these opposite ends, maybe we are. At the moment I go, Well, I think you might be wrong about God. Um, but if you look to Jesus, you know, as your justification, I think you can get in and be right. But then he goes, Well, but are we even worshiping the same God at this point? And I go, Oh no, I I don't know. Like I'm I'm actually I'm actually kind of uh uh and and and maybe this is just one of the mysteries that we what we don't know, but you're an ethicist, you know, like you you can help me out with this.

unknown 1:08:41

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 1:08:44

Well, I I don't want to presume that uh I have a you know a perfect handle on all of these uh yeah these questions and nuances, etc. I think we need to start as our fundamental, the the goodness of God, that we cannot escape the goodness of God, and that there are some things about the goodness of God that we may not properly understand. And I think we uh do the best we can with the knowledge that we have, but also not lose sight of the uh of the goodness of God, that if God has gone to such great lengths to rescue us from our own sin and shame and separation from God, that God has entered into this world, has gotten his feet dirty of hands bloody, that that's a God who can be trusted. And so if we say, Lord, I you know, I submit my eschatological views to you, uh, however they you know may be mixed up uh or inadequate they may be, uh I want to follow Jesus. And I think that's really where we uh where we must uh where we must land and not lose sight of the the goodness of God and the great lengths to which God has uh gone to rescue us. Um and uh I think we want to treat the essential things as as essential. And I think sometimes we you know it is eternal conscious punishment an essential doctrine. Is it something that is a non-negotiable well, I mean, I I think given the evidence that I've seen for the uh perspective of the annihilationist, I'd say, you know, the annihilationist is not uh heterodox here. I think that the annihilationist is doing an excellent job of addressing text. We may have differing presuppositions and so forth, but I think that uh we recognize that there is some variation within orthodoxy. And if it's not, if it is not eternal conscious punishment, which the text does seem to point to, then maybe something like annihilation would be uh you know, would be something as a, as it were, as a fallback. Um but I do see that both of them sit within the the the structures and the strictures of orthodoxy, uh, without having to say, oh, if it's if it's not this particular viewpoint of eternal conscious punishment, then uh then then the gospel is you know, then the goodness of God is uh you know, is is or the justice of God is somehow compromised or whatever. I'm not going to go that far, but I think keeping the main thing the main thing. Um and uh course in the the a notable um post-reformation dictum of you know in you know in essentials unity and non-essentials liberty and all things charity, it's I think that that's where we need to land and hopefully we understand what heresy is and and have I think have a greater understanding of what orthodoxy looks like and that there are variations within this theme. And so hopefully that's uh maybe enough for us to go on. No, that's good.

SPEAKER_02 1:11:52

Hey, I I I'm sorry for tangenting there at the end on some of these questions on you know the nature of God, but I do think this is part of why this is such a really serious problem for a lot of people today, is there is this picture of God that has been painted, and I think a lot of people have this um, and I'm not trying to be ugly, I'm evangelical to the core, but I think there's this kind of nominal evangelicalism that exists, where we just kind of know things about God, and then when we're pressed by like we don't have a like a deep study of theology and the nature of God, the character of God throughout scripture, which is kind of this easy believism. And when we're pressed on by the outside world about like, yeah, but you think people are gonna go to hell forever, be tormented there day and night. And then they go to the Bible and they see passages that say that, and they're like, ah wow, that seems like torturous and and wild and cruel, and like I don't know how to make sense of this. And I think really what it comes down to isn't man, what happens after we die? It's God's the one who's doing this. Who is God? Who is the God that I worship? And I do think it does come back to um that kind of haunting question of this merciful, ever-benevolent, all-loving God. How does this line up with his character? And I think that's why this discussion is so important. And it's it's why I'm super thankful for the work that you and Chris Date have both done on the subject, because I think it's going to be more and more important in the coming days as people deeply care about who God is and and how he acts. So uh thank you for your work, Paul, uh, for coming on again. And feel free to give some closing thoughts if if you have something you would like to add before we wrap up. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 1:13:26

I think it it is important. There's a lot of there are a lot of pastoral uh issues that also go into this. And I think a lot of people do have caricatures and misrepresentations about the state of hell. I mean, even in paintings like uh you know, the like the final judgment of uh you know Fra Angelico and uh and in Giotto, where you where you see pictures of actually you know, like the devil himself who's feasting on human bodies and Gorgi himself. Uh that is not the picture of how I mean Satan is being judged in hell too. It's not as though Satan is the boss of hell and he's getting to have uh a lot of uh what should we say, perverse pleasures uh in consuming human bodies and so on. I mean, it's again a lot of the mythology, a lot of the misrepresentations have just sprung up and have latched, yeah, and a lot of people have latched onto these pictures. And uh it's important that we disabuse ourselves of those false representations as well. And I think ultimately fundamentally seeing hell as a matter of the orientation of the will for or against God. And uh and also seeing other, you know, various factors that uh uh that have to uh that have to do with, like I said, you know, God is not going to be uh overly severe or yeah or overly lenient, that God is going to do what is just. And whatever that looks like, we we don't have the full picture, uh, but uh we can be assured the goodness of God, and that's where we need to uh direct people. That's where where our own hearts, when we have questions about this, uh, need to rest. Uh and so uh so anyway, that's perhaps the uh we've had a very robust discussion here, and uh maybe we'll just end with that.

SPEAKER_02 1:15:11

Amen. Yeah, praise God. Guys, thank you so much for coming, uh watching this program. Paul, thank you so much for coming back on uh the program to discuss this. It's super important to me. Uh, thank you so much for tuning in, guys. Hit the subscribe button if you want to keep up to date, all things remnant. There's a link in the description of this video. You can sign up for the newsletter there. Guys, thank you so much, and we'll see you next time.