Brand New Counterpoints Book on Hell by Zondervan - Interview witth Editor Preston Sprinkle

A brand new edition of the Zondervan 'Counterpoints' series is being released and they have put out some promotional interviews from the contributors as well as this one by the editor, Preston Sprinkle.

Jesus' Rejection of Universal Jewish Salvation: The background of rabbinic theology about hell and forgiveness - David Instone-Brewer

I'm back home after several days in L.A. for the Rethinking Hell Conference 2015. I've taken notes on all of the plenary speakers and today's post will cover the paper presented by David Instone-Brewer titled, 'Jesus' Rejection of Universal Jewish Salvation: The background of rabbinic theology about hell and forgiveness.' 

David is strictly a biblical scholar and as such he states his findings and refuses to answer questions that go beyond them. I know this, because I tried and his answer was, "I don't know because that information isn't available to us." This was refreshing, but also seemed nearly paradoxical after his apparent agreement with the claim that he never knowingly doesn't have an opinion on anything. 

The closing remark he chose to give after the roundtable was to echo the words of the German composer Johannes Brahms saying, "If there is anyone here whom I haven't offended, I apologize." Paradoxical or polarizing, here is what he said (based on my notes):

He covered four Jewish views: Traditional, Qumran, Rabbinic, and Jesus.

Teachings on Hell from intertestamental literature

Heaven for Jews

Hell for Gentiles

Imagery/Description: Eternal Fire, Darkness, Torment, Destruction (except angels), Worms

They called it: the Valley, Gehenna, Sheol, Tartars

Qumran

Heaven for Qumran Jews

Hell for Gentiles and other Jews

Imagery/Description: Eternal Fire, Darkness, Destruction (total, no escape)

They called it:  Sheol.

Rabbinics

Heaven for Good Jews

Novel "Third Way" for Middling Jews (a holding place before possibly going to heaven)

Hell for Gentiles and Evil Jews

Imagery/Description: Eternal Fire, Torment, Destruction (Body and Soul)

They called it: Gehenna, Sheol

'Hell' was 12 months for some, but 'eternal torment' for the really bad Jews in some writings

The Gehenna tradition already existed in Jesus’ day.

Some thought the 'Middling Jews' went to heaven, but faced rebuke

Jesus has a stark contrast to this teaching (eg: Yohanan as recorded in the Talmud).

Jesus' stories most like Yohanan are in Matthew: parable of the virgins, in Luke: man with servants, and in Matthew: parable of the king’s banquet.

Yohanan’s early career was in Galilee.  He and Jesus were contemporaries and probably heard each other teaching. Jesus regularly contradicted their claims through altering the story in the parables.

Jesus' teachings on hell in the Gospels:

Those who go to hell have no hope of escape

Taught there were only two ways therefore rejecting the third way.

Heaven for the Repentant (even Roman soldiers)

Hell for the Unrepentant (even law abiding Jews)

Imagery/Description: Eternal Fire, Darkness, Torment, Destruction (body and soul), Worms

He called it: Gehenna/Hades

Jesus never says 'Eternal Torment'.

Mt 25:46 could mean torment, destruction, or torment leading to destruction.

Jesus deliberately decided to use terminology that his audience was familiar with.

He upset the Jews by including Gentiles and excluding some Jews.

A Seat at the Table: An Appeal for Dialogue and Fellowship - Chris Date

I'm in L.A. at the Rethinking Hell Conference and so far we've had one plenary session with Chris Date. I had the pleasure of going for dinner afterward with several people including Chris and he's a great guy. We discovered a common love for 'Lost' and 'Survivor' so we got to geek out on something other than the fate of every human being who has ever lived.  Theologians don't agree on everything, but it is a fact that the best characters of 'Lost' are Locke, Faraday, and Desmond (And to those who deny this, let them be anathema).

As it turns out, Chris' talk was right along the same lines as the one I'll be giving. Here are some of his talking points (Based on my notes):

He issued a three pronged challenge to Traditionalists:

1. To interact honestly with the actual arguments of the other positions. Traditionalists, for the most part, simply do not deal with the exegesis and arguments that Conditionalists and Universalists are making (For example, evangelical universalists are not liberal pluralists). For people who are convinced of the other views based on the arguments they actually hold, the Traditionalist approach thus far is of little use or help. If traditionalists actually care about changing the minds of the people who hold the other views then they haven't tried hard to do so. Traditionalists are actually pushing people further into the other views and even unwittingly giving support to Universalism through their definition of words such as 'destruction'.

2. To allow conditional immortality a place at the table in order to pull Universalists to a view that aligns with their concept of the beatific vision of the afterlife. They think that in the end there will be no sin or pain or evil or suffering. That there won't be some place on the earth or some corner of the universe where evil sinners writhe in torment. This view is shared by conditionalists, except they think this will be achieve by the destruction of evil.

3. To seek unity for the sake of fellowship and ministry. Even Christian Universalists should be included even if one strongly disagrees with them. We disagree on many issues like atonement, eschatology, the age of the earth, etc. yet keep fellowship. Why is this so different when all  universalists are saying is that the atonement is for everyone, salvation by grace through faith is something that everyone will choose, and that when Jesus searches for the lost sheep he never stops looking until he was found every last one.

He ended challenging conditionalists and universalists to exemplify the same charity and unity in their church context.

It's been a good start to the conference. I'll be posting more summaries over the next week including some of my talking points, which pick up right where Chris left off.

Why write about Hell?

If nothing else, can we agree that this is a pretty awesome wallpaper? I mean, look at it. It's a ghost ship from hell sailing toward a lava waterfall. Maybe there's pirates. I don't know...

I've heard through the grapevine and been approached by a few people this week who are concerned about my views on hell and where they are headed. So far it has been based in confusion and misunderstanding so I thought it would be good to remind everyone why I'm writing about this subject in the first place. Here is an excerpt from my first post on it:

I've been thinking about this subject on and off for over two years and have decided start writing and dialoguing on it. There are a few reasons for this, but I suppose the biggest reason is because there is a lot of fear and misinformation surrounding the subject. I want to be fair, clear, and help bring a charitable dialogue for those who have, are, and will ask questions about it. You can leave a comment, send me a message, or speak to me in person. I am aware that for many this subject is sensitive. For others it's quite controversial.

You can read the entire post here: The First Post on the Last Judgement

I've thought about this.... a lot. I've studied most of the relevant verses in the Bible and read plenty of the books written on the subject. I've searched the web and listened to hours of podcasts. And after doing all of this I'm convinced that one of the biggest problems on this subject is misinformation and misrepresentation. I think the church needs to have a conversation about hell and the vast majority have not yet had it in an open and honest way that takes the challenge of conditionalism and/or universalism seriously or examines the relevant texts from all angles. It simply doesn't happen.

What I'm attempting to do is present all three views clearly, fairly, and without bias. I completely understand why some would get confused and think that I am endorsing a particular view. But please don't misunderstand where I'm coming from. It should read as if I hold whatever view I'm writing about on any post you read because I've taken the time to understand that perspective and to present it fairly and accurately.

I trust that most readers have understood this and hope that this post has clarified any confusion. If not, There are plenty of ways to contact me. Feel free to leave a comment below. Tweet me @jm_schroeder or email me: jasonschroeder@gmail.com

Comparing the 3 Views: The Hell Triangle

Now that we have looked at each of the three views in brief, we can begin to compare and contrast them. One of the best aids to do so is the above diagram by Ronnie Demler of rethinkinghell.com. I hope you will find it as useful as I have. Here is a brief explanation to help navigate it.

Each point is a placeholder for a view with a description of the nature of the 'fire of hell'. Traditionalism thinks the fire causes suffering, Conditionalists think it is destruction, and Universalists think it purifies.

Written on each line connecting each point is a shared belief of the two  in contrast with the view that is opposite. In contrast to Traditionalism, the other two believe that suffering will end and that evil will be eradicated. In contrast to Universalism, the other two believe that the judgement is final and the punishment is eternal. In contrast to Conditionalism, the other two believe in universal immortality.

In the centre we see what God will do with evil according to each view. It will be restrained, converted, or destroyed accordingly.

There are also a few nuanced views with arrows coming from Traditionalism and Conditionalism which I have touched on in part. Each will need a full blog post in the future.

• Partial Conditionalism is the belief that human beings will be destroyed but that Satan beings will be tormented forever.
• Dehumanization is a growing view held by N. T. Wright and others who think human beings will become mere 'creatures' and no longer bear the image of God. A sort of 'un-creation'.
• Reconciliationism holds that sin will cease and torment will end yet the lost will never enter the new Creation/Heaven.
• Separationsim I have written about a lot. It holds that people choose hell apart from God.

Contemporary Conditionalists

Conditionalism is the lesser known of the three views and there have been several reasons suggested as to why that is the case. I think that it could simply be because it is a minority view and less controversial than universalism. However, that doesn't mean there hasn't been negative reactions against it or that there aren't significant conditionalist christian leaders and thinkers.

Perhaps the most prominent conditionalist in this past century was John Stott, an Anglican evangelical leader in England. He is considered one of the central figures of the global evangelical movement of the last century and famously 'came out' as a conditionalist in a debate book called "Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal Evangelical Dialogue." You can read his entire portion of the chapter on hell here for free.

Stott wasn't the only prominent thinker to voice his conditionalist view. Many of his contemporaries also came forward to state their position regardless of the potential backlash from their churches or loss of their jobs such as: Phillip Hughes, Clark Pinnock, Dale Moodey, RT France, and John Wenham. The most significant book on the subject, "The fire that consumes," by Edward Fudge was also published in the 80's with a foreword by FF Bruce.

Significant present day leaders and thinkers who are conditionalists:

• Richard Bauckham
• Richard Forster
• John Franke
• Richard Swinburne
• Michael Green
• John Stackhouse
• Anthony Thisleton
• Greg Boyd
• I Howard Marshall

Conditionalism in Early Christian Tradition

It is often claimed by the traditionalists that conditionalism (and universalism) are theological novelties; too new to be the original view of Jesus, the apostles, or the early church. But is this actually the case? Most of the earliest church fathers simply quoted scripture whenever they address the subject of hell, the last judgement, or final punishment. Therefore, since in many cases the meaning of certain passages of Scripture are in dispute, we need to find instances where the early fathers explained their view in their own words.

A number of research projects have been undertaken to determine where each church father falls within the three views and it is generally acknowledged by all sides that there is support for all three. Conditionalists have begun to be more bold on the assertion that Conditionalism was early...very early. Some even assert that it was the position before the influx of converts who were philosophers with assumptions foreign to Scripture (namely the immortality of the soul).

Here is an example of a common list of Early Fathers said to be conditionalists:

• First Clement (late 1st century) 
• Ignatius of Antioch (late 1st century) 
• Epistle of Barnabas (late 1st or early 2nd century) 
• Irenaeus (2nd century) 
• Arnobius (early 4th century) 
• Athanasius (4th century) 

It's a pretty impressive list, but conditionalists say this is a modest claim because the evidence is too thin (because most simply reused biblical language). I took it from a website called rethinkinghell.com,  which has a lot of resources on conditionalism if anyone wants to look into it further. Below is a video one of their contributors made that goes into a little more detail on why they think there is a strong case that many of the earliest church fathers were conditionalist.

The Basics of Conditionalism

In the coming weeks I'll be going into more detail on each of the three views held by christians historically on the nature of hell. This week we'll look at conditionalism.

The three main views historically held on the subject alphabetically:

Conditionalism - The belief that the unrepentant will experience a second death of both body and soul in hell passing out of being.

Traditionalism - The belief that the unrepentant will experience conscious torment of both body and soul in hell for all eternity

Universalism.- The belief that the unrepentant will experience conscious torment of both body and soul in hell until they repent and are saved.

The view most frequently called 'conditionalism' goes by two other names: annihilationism and conditional immortality. Many other suggestions have been made but, as with many things in this post, it's probably best to leave it for another day and not get bogged down. They are basically synonymous terms, but they are actually describing two different realities. Annihilation refers to what happens to the lost who do not receive Christ, whereas conditionalism or conditional immortality refers to what is given to the saved.

I think the most important thing to understand about this view is that it presents a drastically different anthropology than the other two views. Those who hold this view do not believe that all human beings are immortal inherently, by nature, or through God's unwavering sustaining of life or existence. They argue that the only people who are immortal are those who receive it through faith in Jesus and thereby through union with him. This immortality, which they take as basically equivocal with 'eternal life', is something that is only given to the saved and therefore 'conditional' as apposed to the other views which hold that all humans are immortal or live forever unconditionally.

They get this from texts such as

Rom 2:7 NIV, "To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." 

2 Tim 1:10 NIV, "but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel." 

1 Tim 6:15b-16 NIV, "...God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen."

They would also point to the fall of man and the punishment described there as proof positive, because when Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden, the punishment was clearly that they would no longer have access to the tree of life.

"And the Lord God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.'" (Gen 3:22 NIV)

This is the same tree of life said to be in the New Jerusalem/heaven/renewed earth in Rev 22:2. Something only the redeemed will have access to. What is disputed is what the tree of life provides and what the words mean.

Much is dependent on the definition of terms such as 'immortality', 'eternal life', 'death', 'perish', 'destroy' 'destruction', etc., which they claim to be taking in the most normative sense and, when found in Scripture, the most plain sense and meaning in context. They would ask how it is possible that when the Bible uses these terms they can never mean what we normally think of when we use these words in any other context. Something that perishes remains forever? Something that is destroyed remains intact? Something that dies continues on for all eternity? Eternal life never means living forever? A lot of linguistic debate is had between the three views on a variety of words and these are the ones the conditionalist pushes most often.

But what about those who do not receive this eternal life? What happens to them? There are a few ways conditionalists have put it and they often struggle to use language not already found in Scripture: Cease to be, cease to exist, cease to live or have life in any sense, die a second time, cease to be conscious, be no more, be annihilated, etc.. Some of these ways of describing what happens to the lost may be problematic if pressed, but the result in mind is clearly that the lost will not eventually be saved, nor will they be tormented for all eternity, but that they will experience nothing in any way. Life, in any sense, will be over.

The amount of places they draw from Scripture on this point is staggering and hard to choose from, but here are a few.

Mt 10:28 NIV "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. " 

Jn 3:16 NIV "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. " 

Rom 6:23 NIV "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." 

Jude 7 NIV "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

In combination with their view of immortality being conditional, it is clear how they read these texts and come to their conclusions about the fate of the unrepentant. They think that it is a very poor assumption to hold that all human beings will live forever when not a single scripture states it anywhere in the entire bible. They grant that some texts could imply the immortality of the lost if read a certain way, but they argue that this puts the cart before the horse.

The last reason they give that I will cover today, is the atoning death of Jesus. This is an argument that has gained a lot of traction recently. I have noticed the frequency of its use increase to the point where there is scarcely a time where it isn't brought up in debates or online articles. The reason should be immediately clear: Jesus died for us. He didn't just suffer, he died and the primary focus in scripture is his death. Even when it mentions his suffering it is in conjunction with his death. The argument basically says that since Jesus died for us, then those who do not receive this substitute have to bear that punishment themselves.

Conditionalists believe that all human beings are mortal. That we all die once. That Jesus died and was raised back to life defeating death for us. That we are all resurrected and will face judgment. That those in Christ will be given immortality and that those who are not will die a second time and be lost forever.