[BBC List] the annihilation of annihilation

Wed Nov 8 17:05:10 EASST 2006

A Kinder, Gentler Theology of Hell?

by Larry D. Pettegrew

Annihilationism has, as the Niagara Creed of 1878 foresaw, become a doctrine
that plagues the evangelical church of the late twentieth century. It
comprises a multifaceted compromise of biblical systematic theology,
affecting most major doctrines of the Christian faith, not just the area of
eschatology. Its compromise stems from the influence of postmodernism as
proponents of annihilationism bring to the text unwarranted theological
preunderstandings. Their emphasis on God's nature to love disregards His
many other attributes such as holiness, justice, truth, grace, and
omnipotence and thereby sentimentalize God's love. Further, their
preunderstandings distort biblical teaching about man's immortality of the
soul that is derived from God. A third affected area is the doctrine of sin
when they assert that God would be vindictive to mete out eternal punishment
for finite sin. In addition, the system of annihilationism undervalues
Christ's atonement for sin by claiming that His death only paid the price
for man's temporary rather than our eternal punishment.

* * * * *

In midsummer of 1878, several hundred enthusiastic Christian ministers and
lay people gathered at a hospital in Clifton Springs, New York, for a week
of Bible conference. The founder of the hospital, a Methodist layman named
Dr. Henry Foster, had erected a 50x80 foot tabernacle that seated about 650
people. Dr. Foster invited missionaries, teachers, pastors, and evangelists
to stay in the hospital facilities free of charge for the purpose of rest
and relaxation, and to use the tabernacle for Christian services.

The Christians who conducted the Bible conference in the summer of 1878 were
known as the Believers' Meeting for Bible Study.
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note1> (1) They continued to
meet at Clifton Springs for two more years, but eventually held their annual
meetings at Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, Canada, and became better known as
the Niagara Bible Conference. Some historians consider the Niagara Bible
Conference, and the First and Second American Bible and Prophecy Conferences
which it spawned, to be the primary sources from which the American
fundamentalist and premillennial evangelical movements came.
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note2> (2)

Unfortunately, the Bible conference at Clifton Springs in 1878 was somewhat
of a disappointment to the leaders. Among other reasons, "there were those
hanging upon the outskirts who had no sympathy with the objects of the
meeting, and there was danger of controversy, which always grieves the Holy
Ghost."  <http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note3> (3)
Postmillennialists and annihilationists had apparently caused the
controversy. So in the following months, the Believers' Meeting for Bible
Study adopted a fourteen-point confession of faith, later known as the
Niagara Creed, as a basis for their meetings.
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note4> (4) Significant for this
study of annihilationism is Article 13 of the Niagara Creed. It reads,

We believe that the souls of those who have trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ
for salvation do at death immediately pass into His presence, and there
remain in conscious bliss until the resurrection of the body at His coming,
when soul and body reunited shall be associated with Him forever in the
glory; but the souls of unbelievers remain after death in conscious misery
until the final judgment of the great white throne at the close of the
millennium, when soul and body reunited shall be cast into the lake of fire,
not to be annihilated, but to be punished with everlasting destruction from
the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power: Luke 16:19-26;
23:43; 2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23; 2 Thess. 1:7-9; Jude 6-7; Rev. 20:11-15.
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note5> (5)

In one of his reports of the 1878 meeting, Niagara's president, James H.
Brookes, gives a summary of the participants' doctrinal position and
concludes with this admonition to those who might want to participate in
future conferences:

Such in brief is the simple ground on which we meet, and any who accept it
are welcome to attend. If they do not stand upon it, and yet choose to
attend, they are expected to keep silent. We do not deny the right of those
who hold what are known as "annihilation views," to assemble when and where
they please; but we do deny their right to thrust these views upon a meeting
that rejects their dangerous errors.
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note6> (6)

For the leaders of this historic Bible Conference, annihilationism was
considered such a "dangerous" doctrinal error that it excluded its adherents
from participation with them.

Were these nineteenth-century evangelicals justified in their fear of
annihilationism? In recent years a renewed effort has arisen among some who
call themselves evangelicals to reassert the doctrine of
annihilationism-that the wicked who reject Christ will not have to spend
eternity in hell, but after some time of suffering will be annihilated. This
is somewhat puzzling in light of the many Scriptures that teach the eternal
punishment of the wicked in hell.
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note7> (7) "If exegesis is the
final factor," writes John Walvoord, "eternal punishment is the only proper
conclusion; taken at its face value, the Bible teaches eternal punishment."
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note8> (8)

It is the purpose of this paper, therefore, to demonstrate by a survey of
the doctrinal categories that annihilationists often come to the Scriptures
with cultural and theological preunderstandings that negate the
historical-grammatical meaning of the passages. The result is, in fact, a
multi-faceted compromise of a biblical systematic theology that infects most
of the major doctrines of the Christian faith.
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note9> (9)

Prolegomena: The Impact Of Postmodernism

It is true that no one can or should totally rid himself of presuppositions.
For Christians the entire worldview stands on the biblically based
epistemological presupposition that "the one living and true God has
self-attestingly revealed Himself in the Christian Scriptures."
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note10> (10) Moreover, every
Bible student must come to God's Word believing the soteriological teachings
of Scripture (1 Cor 1:14-15). Otherwise, he would be denying the faith even
as he studies it. The basic presuppositions of the Christian faith certainly
do not prohibit interpreting a text accurately.

But other preunderstandings can make it difficult to interpret a passage of
Scripture correctly. Some preunderstandings are cultural.
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note11> (11) Postmodernism, for
example, has had its impact on evangelical thinking.
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note12> (12) Postmodernism
teaches "that there is no objective truth, that moral values are relative,
and that reality is socially constructed by a host of diverse communities."
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note13> (13) It does not see
religion as a set of beliefs about what is real and what is not. Rather,
religion is a choice-something to be incorporated into one's worldview if he
chooses. Thus, postmodernism leads a person to believe in what he likes
rather than what the Bible presents as universal truth.

Probably no one really likes to include the doctrine of eternal hell in his
belief system. Veith observes, "Today even conservative and evangelical
ministers seldom mention Hell ... People have never liked to hear about
Hell. The difference is that today, unlike any other time in history, many
people are unwilling to believe ... what they do not enjoy (as if aesthetic
considerations determined questions of fact)."
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note14> (14) The influence of
postmodernism on the theology of Clark Pinnock, one of the leading
evangelical annihilationists, seems to be clear in statements such as the
following:

There is a powerful moral revulsion against the traditional doctrine of the
nature of hell. Everlasting torture is intolerable from a moral point of
view because it pictures God acting like a bloodthirsty monster who
maintains an everlasting Auschwitz for his enemies whom he does not even
allow to die. How can one love a God like that?"
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note15> (15)

Is not Pinnock saying that people believe in what they enjoy, and since the
do not enjoy the thought of eternal hell, they can dismiss it, and thus
construct their own narrative, their own reality? With such cultural
preunderstandings, it is impossible for one to interpret Scripture
accurately.  <http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note16> (16)

Some preunderstandings are theological. If one already has his mind made up
about what God is like, what man is like, what sin and salvation are like,
he may bring those preunderstandings to the passage of Scripture he is
trying to understand. In other words, one's larger theological system will
probably impact his interpretation of an individual passage of Scripture.
The purpose in the rest of this study, therefore, is to demonstrate that
annihilationism is not an isolated deviation from orthodoxy, but is only a
part of a larger theological breakdown. Annihilationists thus have not only
departed from a biblical understanding of eschatology, but also from the
doctrines of God, man, sin, and salvation.

Theology Proper: A Reductionist View Of God

Annihilationists Reduce God's Nature to Love

In Theology Proper, annihilationists have nearly reduced God's nature to
love. In the words of Pinnock and Brow, "Love, then is not just something
that God decides to do, not just an occasional attribute. Love is what
characterizes God essentially-as a dynamic livingness, a divine circling and
relating."  <http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note17> (17)

Of course, Scripture does emphasize the love of God (John 3:16; 1 John 4:8),
and evangelicals from the days of John Wesley have given proper recognition
to it. Some have even elevated love over God's other attributes. Lewis
Sperry Chafer, in a burst of enthusiasm insisted that "as no other
attribute, love is the primary motive in God, and to satisfy His love all
creation has been formed."
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note18> (18) But clearly Chafer
was not teaching that "love is what characterizes God essentially," nor that
love is "ontologically ultimate."

For evangelical annihilationists, however, God's love serves as a
preunderstanding to the study of hell. Pinnock calls the love of God one of
his "control beliefs." "The foundation of my theology of religion," he says,
"is a belief in the unbounded generosity of God revealed in Jesus Christ."
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note19> (19) This means,
therefore, that "the nature of hell must not contradict what we know about
God's love... ."  <http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note20> (20)
"God is not vindictive and does not practice sadism. The lurid portrayals of
hellfire in the Christian tradition contradict God's identity, according to
the gospel."  <http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note21> (21) Thus
it is impossible for the annihilationists to believe in eternal hell,
because God's love serves as an immovable roadblock to such a doctrine.

In fact, logically, a God who is essentially love could never send people to
an eternal hell. Thomas Talbot uses the following set of beliefs to prove
that eternal hell is absolutely illogical.
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note22> (22)

*	(1) God exists.
*	(2) God is both omniscient and omnipotent.
*	(3) God loves every created person.
*	(4) Evil exists.
*	(5) God will irrevocably reject some persons and subject those
persons to everlasting punishment.

Talbot insists that either (3) or (5) is illogical. He writes, "When the
doctrine of everlasting punishment is conjoined with other doctrines
essential to the Christian faith, a logical paradox arises that proponents
of the doctrine have failed to appreciate; as a consequence, a Christian
theist must either reject the doctrine as incompatible with Christianity or
else admit that Christianity is itself logically inconsistent."
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note23> (23) Such arguments from
"control beliefs" and logical negations clearly demonstrate that evangelical
annihilationists cannot take the Scripture passages on hell at face value .
They have already decided that a God of love could not send people to an
eternal hell.

God Revealed with Many Attributes

Some theologians have suggested other attributes of God as primary or
ultimate. Augustus Hopkins Strong, in his early-twentieth-century theology
book nominated holiness as God's "preeminent" attribute. Strong was
concerned about the liberal developments in theology that infected the
doctrines of sin, law, and the atonement. He wrote:

There can be no proper doctrine of the atonement and no proper doctrine of
retribution, so long as Holiness is refused its preeminence. Love must have
a norm or standard, and this norm or standard can be found only in Holiness.
The old conviction of sin and the sense of guilt that drove the convicted
sinner to the cross are inseparable from a firm belief in the self-affirming
attribute of God as logically prior to and as conditioning the
self-communicating attribute. The theology of our day needs a new view of
the Righteous One.  <http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note24> (24)

Certainly God's holiness defined as God's self-affirming purity is a worthy
possibility for the primary attribute of God if there were one.
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note25> (25) But can any one
attribute be elevated above the others? Should one minimize God's justice,
truth, grace, or omnipotence? Are they any less important in God than
holiness or love? Even the terminology as to what to call God's most
important attribute can be confusing. Gerald Bray, in his otherwise
excellent study of the doctrine of God, says that "there is good reason for
regarding omnipotence as God's most fundamental attribute."
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note26> (26) But he also claims
that holiness is the "most fundamental characteristic of God,"
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note27> (27) and that love is
"the greatest of God's personal attributes."
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note28> (28) How can anyone tell
the difference between "the most fundamental attribute," the "most
fundamental characteristic," and "the greatest of God's personal
attributes"? Grudem is right in proposing that "all such attempts seem to
misconceive of God as a combination of various parts, with some parts being
somehow larger or more influential than others. It is even difficult to
understand exactly what 'most important' might mean."
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note29> (29) In the words of
Lewis and Demarest, "God's love is always holy love, and God's holiness is
always loving holiness. It follows that arguments for the superiority of one
attribute over another are futile. Every attribute is equally essential in
the divine Being."  <http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note30> (30)
Evangelical annihilationists, therefore, have erred in their extreme
reductionism of God's nature.

Annihilationists Sentimentalize Love

They have also sentimentalized God's love. "Love" in Scripture is clearly
defined in its meaning and expression. God loves Israel in His election of
her (Deut 7:7-9). God loves the world in the sense that He providentially
rules over it with mercy (Matt 5:45). God loves the fallen, wicked moral
order "with specifically salvific intent."
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note31> (31) God peculiarly
loves His elect (Eph 5:25). Scripture consistently presents love as
ultimately expressed in the giving of His Son to die on the cross (John
3:16; Rom 5:8).

But God limits the expression of His love to those who accept Christ as
their Savior. According to the Scriptures, "He who believes in the Son has
eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the
wrath of God abides on him"
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note32> (32) (John 3:36). From
the original pair's expulsion from the Garden of Eden through the Book of
Revelation, the plot-line of the biblical message includes God's judgment of
sin. "The point that cannot be escaped," writes D. A. Carson, "is that God's
wrath is not some minor and easily dismissed peripheral element to the
Bible's plot-line ... It is not going too far to say that the Bible would
not have a plot-line at all if there were no wrath."
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note33> (33)

What one understands God to be like is a determining factor in his theology.
It is extremely dangerous to minimize or nullify any of God's attributes. If
people are not careful at this point, they may find themselves worshiping a
god other than the God of Scripture. As John MacArthur warns, "Several of
the very worst corruptions of Christian truth are based on the notion that
God can be understood solely in terms of His love."
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note34> (34)

Anthropology: A Depreciation Of The Human Soul

Annihilationism: Conditional Immortality

Anthropology is another doctrine involved in the theological breakdown of
those who hold to annihilationism. Annihilationists teach conditional
immortality, which may be defined as "the idea that humans were made mortal
with everlasting life being a gift, not a natural capacity."
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note35> (35) Of course,
physically human beings are mortal and will die unless the Lord returns
first. But the question being debated is, Is the human soul inherently
immortal (as the traditionalists teach), or does it become immortal only
through salvation (as the annihilationists teach)?

Annihilationists typically teach that immortality is bestowed on the
righteous at the resurrection. Clark Pinnock explains,

The Bible does not teach the natural immortality of the soul; it points
instead to the resurrection of the body as God's gift to believers ...The
Bible teaches conditionalism: God created humans mortal with a capacity for
life everlasting, but it is not their inherent possession. Immortality is a
gift God offers us in the gospel, not an inalienable possession.
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note36> (36)

Immortality in Scripture and Theology

Part of the difficulty in the debate over the immortality of the soul is
that the term, "immortal" is used somewhat differently in theology than it
is in Scripture. Scripture tends to use the words, "everlasting," or
"eternal" instead of "immortal." Through these words, the immortality of the
soul is clearly taught. The following charts attempt to clarify the use of
"immortality" in Scripture and theology.

[charts omitted]

Annihilationism: Immortality Comes from Greek Philosophy

Annihilationists defend conditional immortality primarily with two
arguments. First they argue that the traditional view of the immortality of
the soul comes from Greek philosophy rather than from the Bible. Pinnock
writes,

I am convinced that the hellenistic belief in the immortality of the soul
has done more than anything else (specifically more than the Bible) to give
credibility to the doctrine of the everlasting conscious punishment of the
wicked. This belief, not holy Scripture, is what gives this doctrine the
credibility it does not deserve.
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note37> (37)

But this argument is not convincing. First of all, the traditional Christian
understanding of the immortality of the soul is different from Greek
philosophy. Plato taught that souls were inherently immortal. Christians
have taught that souls are derivatively immortal, that God grants
immortality to human beings because they are made in His likeness.

Second, traditionalists insist that the doctrine of the everlasting nature
of the soul comes from Scripture, not philosophy. In the Old Testament, the
immortality of the soul is clearly implied at the creation of the human
race. When God created the first man and woman, He said, "Let us make man in
our image, according to our likeness ... So God created man in His own
image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them
... And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (Gen 1:26-27;
2:7, personal translation).

In this passage, there are two significant statements. First, God addresses
Himself when He creates man-"Let us ... " This is different from the way He
creates animals. The great nineteenth-century theologian, William Shedd,
noted that "when God creates man, he addresses himself: 'Let us ... ,' Gen.
1:26. But when he creates animals, he addresses the inanimate world: 'Let
the waters bring forth the moving creature,' Gen. 1:20."
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note38> (38) The immortality of
the soul is implied in the divine personal relationship with mankind.

The second significant statement in this passage is that God breathes the
breath of life into man's lungs. Again, this is totally unlike the way God
brings life to the animals. There is an intimate inbreathing of God's breath
into man. In the opinion of Robert Landis, "The usage of the word
('breathed') cannot be mistaken. As used in the text, it is descriptive of
imparting the immortal spirit ... "
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note39> (39)

Many NT passages also teach immortality of the soul. The many Scriptures
that the other writers emphasize in this issue of The Master's Seminary
Journal all teach the immortality of the soul. Matthew 25:46, for example,
says that at the judgment, some "will go away into eternal punishment, but
the righteous into eternal life." Only an immortal soul can suffer eternal
punishment or enjoy eternal life. As Robert Peterson testifies, "I do not
believe in the traditional view of hell because I accept the immortality of
human beings, but the other way around. I believe in the immortality of
human beings because the Bible clearly teaches everlasting damnation for the
wicked and everlasting life for the righteous."
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note40> (40)

Annihilationism: Only God Has Immortality

Annihilationists also support the doctrine of conditional immortality with 1
Tim 6:16, that "only God has immortality." If only God has immortality, they
argue, humans do not. But traditionalists have a number of responses to this
argument. First, the argument proves too much because it would also prove
that believers do not have immortality and cannot live forever. Second, it
proves too much because it would prove that the elect angels would not live
forever. Third, it misses the point of the verse, which is that "the
essential difference between the Creator and all His works [is] that he
alone by Himself subsists."
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note41> (41) God is an
invisible, personal, living Spirit. "Living" simply means that God has
energy of intellect, emotions, and will in Himself, and the source of life
is in Him, not in any other being or thing external to Himself. God's very
nature is to exist. He does not have to will it. Fourth, this verse is
emphasizing that only God has lived from eternity past as well as into the
eternity future. And fifth, this verse teaches that only God has innate and
essential immortality. Human immortality is dependent upon and derived from
God.

The traditional view of the immortality of the soul is correct. The
Westminster Confession states the doctrine simply: "After God had made all
other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and
immortal souls" (IV, 2).

Hamartiology: A Devaluation Of The Nature Of Sin

Another change in the theological system of annihilationism relates to the
doctrine of sin. Annihilationists boldly teach that human sin is not wicked
enough to be punished eternally. Sin against an infinite God, they say, does
not justify infinite penalty. Pinnock explains:

Anselm tried to argue that our sins are worthy of an infinite punishment
because they are committed against an infinite majesty. This may have worked
in the Middle Ages, but it will not work as an argument today. We do not
accept inequality in judgments on the basis of the honor of the victim, as
if stealing from a doctor is worse than stealing from a beggar. The fact
that we have sinned against an infinite God does not justify an infinite
penalty.  <http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note42> (42)

Pinnock insists, moreover, that eternal punishment would be vindictive on
God's part. "What purpose of God would be served by the unending torture of
the wicked except sheer vengeance and vindictiveness?"
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note43> (43)

Once again, however, it is important to note that this is not a matter for
human evaluation but of understanding Scripture. God alone, after all, can
tell us what punishment for sin is appropriate, and we can learn that only
in Scripture. Blanchard well asks, "Does anyone seriously claim to know how
enormous an evil sin is in God's eyes?"
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note44> (44)

The biblical view teaches that sins against an infinite God do require
eternal punishment. To begin with, the argument that something done finitely
cannot have infinite consequences is not consistent. The Christian's finite
good works here on earth are graciously rewarded infinitely. Likewise, an
unbeliever's wickedness can be punished infinitely.

But it is also certain that ongoing rebellion demands ongoing punishment,
and there is no evidence in Scripture that a depraved person ever of his own
initiative or power gives up his sinful autonomy. The evidence is actually
to the contrary (Rev 9:20-21; 21:27; 22:15). No one can, in fact, repent of
his sin without the grace of God, so there can be no repentance in hell.
Strong observes, "Since we cannot measure the power of the depraved will to
resist God, we cannot deny the possibility of endless sinning ... Not the
punishing, but the non-punishing, would impugn his justice; for if it is
just to punish sin at all, it is just to punish it as long as it exists."
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note45> (45)

Moreover, endless guilt requires eternal punishment. Strong writes, "However
long the sinner may be punished, he never ceases to be ill-deserving.
Justice, therefore, which gives to all according to their deserts, cannot
cease to punish. Since the reason for punishment is endless, the punishment
itself must be endless."
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note46> (46) The quality of
God's justice is at stake here. Eternal punishment is the only punishment
that could satisfy a perfectly holy and just God.

Soteriology: A Minimizing Of Christ's Atonement For Sin

As noted above, annihilationists teach that finite human sin is not
deserving of eternal punishment. "Is it not plain," says Pinnock, "that sin
committed in time and space cannot deserve limitless divine retribution."
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note47> (47) However, if it were
temporary punishment that Christ paid for, His death was certainly less
significant than if he took our eternal punishment. Shedd says,

If sin is punishable and to be punished for only one thousand years, is it
probable that one of the persons of the Trinity would submit to such an
amazing humiliation as to become a worm of the dust, and undergo the awful
passion of Calvary, in order to deliver his rebellious creature from a
transient evil which is to be succeeded by billions of millenniums of
happiness? A thousand years is indeed a long time, and a thousand years of
suffering is indeed a great woe; but it shrinks to nothing in comparison
with what is involved in the humiliation and agony of God incarnate.
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note48> (48)

Again, this is a vital theological point, as Shedd notes, "A suffering that
in time would cease, surely would not justify such a strange and stupendous
sacrifice as that of the only-begotten and well-beloved Son of God. We
affirm therefore that the doctrine of Christ's atonement stands or falls
with that of endless punishment."
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note49> (49)

Conclusion

It has been the purpose of this essay to demonstrate by a survey of the
doctrinal categories that the doctrine of annihilationism as taught by a few
contemporary evangelicals is a significant part of a multifaceted compromise
of a biblical systematic theology. I have also suggested that
annihilationists often come to the Scriptures with cultural and theological
preunderstandings that negate the historical-grammatical meaning of the
passages. Carson is right in his observation:

Despite the sincerity of their motives, one wonders more than a little to
what extent the growing popularity of various forms of annihilationism and
conditional immortality are a reflection of this age of pluralism. It is
getting harder and harder to be faithful to the "hard" lines of Scripture.
And in this way, evangelicalism itself may contribute to the gagging of God
by silencing the severity of his warnings and by minimizing the awfulness of
the punishment that justly awaits those untouched by his redeeming grace.
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note50> (50)

Moreover, the doctrinal compromises of annihilationism have serious
consequences. J. I. Packer concludes this study with this penetrating
question:

Does it matter whether an evangelical is a conditionalist or not? I think it
does: for a conditionalist's idea of God will miss out on the glory of
divine justice, and his idea of worship will miss out on praise for God's
judgments, and his idea of heaven will miss out on the thought that praise
for God's judgments goes on (cf. Rev. 16:5-7, 19:1-5), and his idea of man
will miss out on the awesome dignity of our having been made to last for
eternity, and in his preaching of the gospel he will miss out on telling the
unconverted that their prospects without Christ are as bad as they possibly
could be-for on the conditionalist view they aren't! These, surely, are sad
losses. Conditionalism, logically thought through, cannot but impoverish a
Christian man, and limit his usefulness to the Lord. That is why I am
concerned about the current trend towards conditionalism. I hope it may soon
be reversed.  <http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell3.html#note51> (51)

  _____  

1. James H. Brookes, "Believers' Meeting at Clifton Springs," The Truth 4
(1878):402.

2. For examples, see Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism
(Chicago: University of Chicago, 1970) 132-61, and David O. Beale, In
Pursuit of Purity (Greenville, S. C.: Unusual Publications, 1986) 23-67.

3. Brookes, "Believers' Meeting at Clifton Springs" 402.

4. The first historian to write a book about the fundamentalist movement,
Stewart Cole, somehow came up with the incorrect idea that the Niagara Bible
Conference had adopted a five-point creed in 1895 (The History of
Fundamentalism [Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1931] 34). Ernest Sandeen
corrected his mistake in 1970 (Roots of Fundamentalism xviii), but it
continues to be repeated even in recent studies of fundamentalism and
evangelicalism.

5. James H. Brookes, "Believers' Meeting for Bible Study," The Truth 4
(1878):452-58. Others who include the full text of the Niagara Creed include
Sandeen, Roots of Fundamentalism 273-77, and Beale, Pursuit of Purity
375-79.

6. Brookes, "Believers' Meeting at Clifton Springs" 404.

7. Such clear Scriptures include Dan 2:2; Matt 3:12; 18:8; 25:41, 46; Mark
9:43-48; 2 Thess 1:9; Heb 6:2; Jude 12-13; Rev 14:11. The other writers in
this issue have explained some of these and other important Scriptures.

8. John Walvoord, "The Literal View," in Four Views on Hell, ed. by William
Crockett (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992) 27.

9. Some annihilationists are a part of the post-conservative evangelical
movement (see further Millard J. Erickson, The Evangelical Left [Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1997] 123-30). Post-conservative evangelicals claim to be
evangelicals, but not conservative in their theology. 

10. Robert L. Reymond, The Justification of Knowledge (Phillipsburg, N. J.:
Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979) 72. 

11. The recurring accusation of some of the historians of the fundamentalist
and evangelical movements is that these movements have been held in
intellectual bondage by early modern rationalism-more specifically to
Scottish Common Sense Rationalism. For typical discussions, see Ernest
Sandeen, Roots of Fundamentalism 103-31; James Barr, Fundamentalism
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977) 272-79; Jack Rogers and Donald McKim, The
Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (New York:
Harper and Row, 1979) 185-379, especially 236-60; Douglas Frank, Less Than
Conquerors (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986) 15-16, 48, 83; Mark Noll, The
Disaster of the Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986) 90-93; idem,
"The Common Sense Tradition and American Evangelical Thought," American
Quarterly 37 (Summer 1985):216-38; and George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and
American Culture (New York: Oxford University, 1980) 14-17 . The suggestion
is that those who believe in such doctrines as inerrancy accept it not
because the Bible teaches it, but because of the influence of a
rationalistic worldview. But those who make these kinds of assertions must
be aware of the impact of culture on their own thinking. Cultural
preunderstandings are not limited to fundamentalists.

12. For discussions of evangelicalism and postmodernism, see Roger Olson,
"Whales and Elephants," Pro Ecclesia 4/2 (Spring 1995):165-80; idem,
"Postconservative Evangelicals Greet the Postmodern Age," The Christian
Century (May 3, 1995):480-83; and Kevin J. Vanhoozer, "Exploring the World,
Following the Word: The Credibility of An Evangelical Theology in An
Incredulous Age," Trinity Journal 16/1(Spring 1995):3-27.

13. Gene Veith, Postmodern Times (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1994) 193.

14. Ibid., 194.

15. Pinnock, "The Conditional View," in Four Views of Hell 149.

16. See further, Larry D. Pettegrew, "Liberation Theology and Hermeneutical
Preunderstandings," Bibliotheca Sacra 148/591 (July-September 1991):274-87.

17. Clark Pinnock and Robert C. Brow, Unbounded Love (Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarstiy, 1994) 45. This is consistent with how some non-evangelical
theologians have viewed God's nature and attributes. Liberation theologian,
Jose Miguez Bonino, for example, claims that "love is ontologically
ultimate" in God (Christians and Marxists: The Mutual Challenge to
Revolution [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976) 105.

18. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (Dallas: Dallas
Seminary Press, 1947) 205.

19. Clark Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992)
18. 

20. Pinnock and Brow, Unbounded Love 88.

21. Ibid., 89-90.

22. Thomas Talbot, "The Doctrine of Everlasting Punishment," Faith and
Philosophy 7:1 (January 1990):21.

23. Ibid., 20. 

24. Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (Valley Forge, Pa.: Judson,
1907) x-xi.

25. Stephen Charnock says that holiness "is the crown of all His attributes,
the life of all His decrees, the brightness of all His actions" (The
Existence and Attributes of God [1977 reprint, Minneapolis: Klock and Klock,
n.d.] 452). However, one vital question in this discussion is how should
holiness be defined? Strong's and Charnock's understanding of holiness is
that it is moral purity. The word "holiness" does carry implications of
moral purity, but the basic idea is that of "unapproachableness,"
"separation" from His creation, "godness" (see A. B. Davidson, The Theology
of the Old Testament [New York: Scribner's, 1904] 145). Roy Beacham writes,
"Holiness is that in God which is self-asserting and self-differentiating.
The term came to be used as an appellative of deity itself (Isa. 5:16, cf.
5:19, 24). Therefore, to speak of God's holiness is to speak of His
'Godness.' God's holiness distinguishes Him from His creation (Isa. 40:25,
26). It marks Him off from men (1 Sam. 2:2), angels (Job 15:15), and other
supposed deities (Exod. 15:11). God is entirely unique" ("The Purification
Ritual: A Preliminary Study" [unpublished paper, Grace Theological Seminary,
Winona Lake, Ind., 1985] 22-23). The holiness of God therefore speaks more
of His divine distinctiveness than of His moral purity.

26. Gerald Bray, The Doctrine of God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity,
1993) 103.

27. Ibid., 215.

28. Ibid., 220.

29. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994) 180.

30. Bruce Demarest and Gordon Lewis, Integrative Theology, vol.1 (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1987) 197.

31. D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) 240.

32. All quotations of Scripture are from the New American Standard Bible
unless otherwise indicated.

33. Carson, The Gagging of God 223.

34. John MacArthur, The Love of God (Dallas: Word, 1996) xiv.

35. Pinnock and Brow, Unbounded Love 91.

36. Pinnock, "Conditional View" 148.

37. Clark Pinnock, "The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent," Criswell
Theological Review 4:2 (1990):254.

38. William G. T. Shedd, Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy (New York: Scribner's,
1893) 5.

39. Robert W. Landis, The Immortality of the Soul (New York: Carlton and
Porter, 1859) 142.

40. Robert A. Peterson, Hell on Trial (Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1995) 178.

41. Frederick Grant, Life and Immortality (London: Robert L. Allan, 1871)
113.

42. Pinnock, "Conditional View" 152-53. See further, Frank Burch Brown, "The
Beauty of Hell: Anselm on God's Eternal Design," The Journal of Religion 73
(1993):329-55.

43. Pinnock, "The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent" 254.

44. John Blanchard, Whatever Happened to Hell? (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway,
1995) 223.

45. Strong, Systematic Theology 1048.

46. Ibid.

47. Pinnock, "Conditional View" 39.

48. Shedd, Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy 184.

49. Ibid., 185.

50. Carson, Gagging of God 536.

51. James I. Packer, "The Problem of Eternal Punishment," Evangel 10/2
(Summer 1992):18.

Thanks.

Charis,

Mike Abendroth

 <http://www.bbcchurch.org> www.bbcchurch.org

2 Tim 1:2b  "Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our
Lord."

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bbcchurch.org/pipermail/bbc_list/attachments/20061108/4970fbf3/attachment.htm