Dr. Jack Bauer
November 22nd 2005, 11:02 PM
As some of you will know, I have an interest in the theological debate over the nature of eternal punishment, in particular because I am an annihilationist. In the debate over the last couple of decades over annihilationism, I'd wager that there isn't a single argument against annihilationism that has been used in the literature that I haven't seen yet.
I am becoming increasingly sick and tired of one thing, and it is one thing that I frankly never expected to find in the work of respected, conservative Christian professors. That thing is the genuinely appalling lack of honesty that can be found in the writing against annihilationism.
Please, if you think that the mainstream defendes of annihilationism have done things you don't approve of in this regard, then start your own thread about it, this is my rant. Let me give you some examples.
Christopher Morgan, associate professor of theology and associate dean of the school of miistries at California Baptist University, has written a couple of published pieces of work against annihilationism. His most recent is a contribution to the book Hell Under Fire (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310240417/002-8186177-3134406?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance). The book is not a symposium where ideas are discussed, it is a colection of authors arguing for the same thing, the truth of eternal torment, and in the case of Morgan's essay, the falsehood of annihilationism.
In his essay, he is generous enough to include a very tiny section called "Can't the Bible Be Interpreted to Teach Annihilationism?" One would have thought that this would be the question to ask, but it occupies very little space in Morgan's essay. Why? He explains:
Although it seems that most conditionalists in contemporary evangelicalism are primarily driven to reject the historic position of endless punishment because of their beliefs concerning God's love, justice, and victory, they also stress that the Bible can be interpreted to teach the ultimate annihilation of the wicked.
To the reader who hasn't followed the debate, the picture this comment paints is obvious. Ah yes, the soft hearted annihilationists, with their own extra biblical vies of God and his love, who just couldn;t bear to think of eternal torment, so they say that the Bible can, if we just try hard enough, be read to suit those views.
How different the reality is. The major evenagelical work in recent decades in favour of annihilationism is the lengthy work by Edward Fudge, The Fire That Consumes, a meticulous work of both biblical schlarship and historical theology. In fact the works that Morgan himself criticises paint a different picture to the one he presents. The statement on Hell by ACUTE (the Evangelical Alliance Commission on Unity and Truth among Evangelicals), for example, lists a number of points in favour of annihilationism, the first two of which state that the biblical material indicates everlasting destruction of the lost. Only in later points do they mention issues of love or justice. But notice how Morgan presents their statement:
The first objection is concerned with the interpretation of the biblical terms "eternal" and "destruction." The second objection focuses on the nature of human "destruction." The next three are actually the most foundational in the debate; they centre on God's love, justice and ultimate victory. Even those who stress a biblical rationale for conditionalism usually enveil emotional and theological presuppositions that shape their interpretation of hell.
So let us get this straight. Dr Morgan claims that conditionalists are not primarily driven by Scripture but by their emotions and their theological presuppositions, and as evidence of this he cites a statement that places biblical considerations first and then moral and other considerations later, but Morgan just asserts that really those latter reasons are more foundational. This is dishonest. Why was it done? Now Dr Morgan has slowed the debate down, because instead of simply rebutting his arguments, the annihilationist will have to engage in a debate about the debate itself. Moreover, the uncritical reader will now have etched on her mind a picture of annihilationists and their arguments that is simply false.
Robert Peterson. There are many offenders within the traditional camp who do this sort of thing, and I can't cover them all. here's another one, this time from Robert Peterson, professor of systematic theology at Covenant Theological Seminary.
Annihilationists have argued that Jesus bore the consequences of our sin on the cross and was killed rather than eternally tormented, hence death is a more accurate picture of the fate that awaits the lost than eternal torment. As Peterson notes, Fudge devotes six pages of exegesis to explain his observation that “Jesus’ death involved total destruction,” after having already argued on exegetical grounds that “Calvary reveals God’s judgment,” “Jesus’ death was ‘for sin,’ ” and “Jesus died the sinner’s own death.” Fudge builds up his case from a wide variety of biblical passages, but regrettably, Peterson’s response does not make any reference to them or explain where Fudge’s exegesis is mistaken. Instead, in describing Fudge’s position, Peterson says, “To be precise, Fudge concurs with Edward White who held that when Jesus died in crucifixion his humanity was annihilated, but not his divinity.” (Peterson, “The Hermeneutics of Annihilationism: The Theological Method of Edward Fudge,” in Michael Bauman and David Hall (eds.), Evangelical Hermeneutics: Selected Essays from the 1994 Evangelical Theological Society Convention (Camp Hill: Christian Publications, 1995),207) To assure the reader that this genuinely is what Fudge says, Peterson footnotes a reference to Fudge’s book at this point. The reader will assume that Peterson has read Fudge’s book and observed the claim that Jesus’ humanity was annihilated, while his divinity was not.
Dr Peterson has added a footnote to Fudge’s book, indicating that Peterson has seen Fudge make this claim. The reason that while Peterson included a footnote to Fudge’s book, he did not provide a quote, is that there is no place on the indicated page where Fudge stated what Peterson accuses him of saying (or anything like it), when describing “precisely” what he wrote. In fact there is nothing in either edition of the entirety of The Fire that Consumes to suggest this view, and I am unable to point the reader to a quote that might have been misinterpreted to mean this. Moreover, Fudge does not cite Edward White at this point, and even if he had, it must be pointed out that White never taught (“precisely” or otherwise) that Jesus’ humanity was destroyed but his divinity was not, and neither is Peterson able to quote him as doing so. In fact, Peterson repeats the same accusation against Basil Atkinson (again, without quotation), who likewise never suggested that the two natures in Christ were separated, but affirms with Fudge that the whole person Jesus Christ truly died and rose three days later. I have scoured the noteworthy modern defenses of annihilationism from Edward White, Henry Constable, Sidney Hatch, Clark Pinnock, John Wenham, John Stott, Philip Hughs, and Adventist authors Leroy Froom and Samuele Bacchiocchi, and noted that none of these authors have suggested that Jesus’ humanity was destroyed and not his deity, separating the two natures. Peterson’s misrepresentation has no excuse on the grounds of mistakenly lumping Fudge together with other annihilationist authors, since the claim is absent from all of them.
What is going on here? Is this really “precisely” what Fudge (and other conditionalists) stated, or is Peterson misrepresenting them in order to set them up for an easy rebuttal? Unfortunately, all indications are that the latter is the case. “Nothing less than orthodox Christology is at stake,” Peterson then announces, and moves in for the kill. After accusing Fudge of saying that Jesus’ humanity was destroyed and his divinity was not, Peterson goes on to quote the Chalcedonian definition, which affirms that Christ’s deity and humanity cannot be separated. Next comes Peterson’s conclusion, charging Fudge with heresy (if one assumes that a denial of Chalcedonian Christology is indeed heresy): “Indeed, to hold that Jesus' humanity was annihilated on the cross [and not his deity], brings one into conflict with Chalcedonian Christology.” A theological disaster! This may be true, but in fact it is somewhat moot, since Fudge never expressed this view in the first place. Peterson has created a straw man, and intentionally or not, the scene is cast where Peterson is portrayed as the champion of orthodox Christology against the annihilationist heretics, who deny Chalcedonian Christology and thus make themselves worthy of serious reprimand. “Such a prospect ought to cause conditionalists to re-examine their views,” Peterson warns, since nobody would want to find oneself denying something so important. The move might serve to scare orthodox Christians away from considering annihilationism as a possibility. But the supposed denial of Chalcedonian Christology has been spun out of thin air, and the rebuttal achieves nothing against the actual position annihilationists hold.
Now, thanks to this obvious dishonesty, there is an audience out there who believe that evangelical annihilationists deny chalcedonian Christology.
There are other examples, but those two are good examples of the level of dishonsty that I am referring to.
My message to the published opponents of annihilationism is simple, and regrettable. Stop telling lies about us. There are people out there who actually believe what you say, and bearing false witness is neither responsible nor defensible Christian conduct. Moreover, it just ends up consuming the time of responsible theologians who have to point out that these alsehoods have been uttered just so that the debate can get back on track. Just don't do it, please.
Rant finished, you can go back to your lives now. But don't beieve everything you read.
I am becoming increasingly sick and tired of one thing, and it is one thing that I frankly never expected to find in the work of respected, conservative Christian professors. That thing is the genuinely appalling lack of honesty that can be found in the writing against annihilationism.
Please, if you think that the mainstream defendes of annihilationism have done things you don't approve of in this regard, then start your own thread about it, this is my rant. Let me give you some examples.
Christopher Morgan, associate professor of theology and associate dean of the school of miistries at California Baptist University, has written a couple of published pieces of work against annihilationism. His most recent is a contribution to the book Hell Under Fire (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310240417/002-8186177-3134406?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance). The book is not a symposium where ideas are discussed, it is a colection of authors arguing for the same thing, the truth of eternal torment, and in the case of Morgan's essay, the falsehood of annihilationism.
In his essay, he is generous enough to include a very tiny section called "Can't the Bible Be Interpreted to Teach Annihilationism?" One would have thought that this would be the question to ask, but it occupies very little space in Morgan's essay. Why? He explains:
Although it seems that most conditionalists in contemporary evangelicalism are primarily driven to reject the historic position of endless punishment because of their beliefs concerning God's love, justice, and victory, they also stress that the Bible can be interpreted to teach the ultimate annihilation of the wicked.
To the reader who hasn't followed the debate, the picture this comment paints is obvious. Ah yes, the soft hearted annihilationists, with their own extra biblical vies of God and his love, who just couldn;t bear to think of eternal torment, so they say that the Bible can, if we just try hard enough, be read to suit those views.
How different the reality is. The major evenagelical work in recent decades in favour of annihilationism is the lengthy work by Edward Fudge, The Fire That Consumes, a meticulous work of both biblical schlarship and historical theology. In fact the works that Morgan himself criticises paint a different picture to the one he presents. The statement on Hell by ACUTE (the Evangelical Alliance Commission on Unity and Truth among Evangelicals), for example, lists a number of points in favour of annihilationism, the first two of which state that the biblical material indicates everlasting destruction of the lost. Only in later points do they mention issues of love or justice. But notice how Morgan presents their statement:
The first objection is concerned with the interpretation of the biblical terms "eternal" and "destruction." The second objection focuses on the nature of human "destruction." The next three are actually the most foundational in the debate; they centre on God's love, justice and ultimate victory. Even those who stress a biblical rationale for conditionalism usually enveil emotional and theological presuppositions that shape their interpretation of hell.
So let us get this straight. Dr Morgan claims that conditionalists are not primarily driven by Scripture but by their emotions and their theological presuppositions, and as evidence of this he cites a statement that places biblical considerations first and then moral and other considerations later, but Morgan just asserts that really those latter reasons are more foundational. This is dishonest. Why was it done? Now Dr Morgan has slowed the debate down, because instead of simply rebutting his arguments, the annihilationist will have to engage in a debate about the debate itself. Moreover, the uncritical reader will now have etched on her mind a picture of annihilationists and their arguments that is simply false.
Robert Peterson. There are many offenders within the traditional camp who do this sort of thing, and I can't cover them all. here's another one, this time from Robert Peterson, professor of systematic theology at Covenant Theological Seminary.
Annihilationists have argued that Jesus bore the consequences of our sin on the cross and was killed rather than eternally tormented, hence death is a more accurate picture of the fate that awaits the lost than eternal torment. As Peterson notes, Fudge devotes six pages of exegesis to explain his observation that “Jesus’ death involved total destruction,” after having already argued on exegetical grounds that “Calvary reveals God’s judgment,” “Jesus’ death was ‘for sin,’ ” and “Jesus died the sinner’s own death.” Fudge builds up his case from a wide variety of biblical passages, but regrettably, Peterson’s response does not make any reference to them or explain where Fudge’s exegesis is mistaken. Instead, in describing Fudge’s position, Peterson says, “To be precise, Fudge concurs with Edward White who held that when Jesus died in crucifixion his humanity was annihilated, but not his divinity.” (Peterson, “The Hermeneutics of Annihilationism: The Theological Method of Edward Fudge,” in Michael Bauman and David Hall (eds.), Evangelical Hermeneutics: Selected Essays from the 1994 Evangelical Theological Society Convention (Camp Hill: Christian Publications, 1995),207) To assure the reader that this genuinely is what Fudge says, Peterson footnotes a reference to Fudge’s book at this point. The reader will assume that Peterson has read Fudge’s book and observed the claim that Jesus’ humanity was annihilated, while his divinity was not.
Dr Peterson has added a footnote to Fudge’s book, indicating that Peterson has seen Fudge make this claim. The reason that while Peterson included a footnote to Fudge’s book, he did not provide a quote, is that there is no place on the indicated page where Fudge stated what Peterson accuses him of saying (or anything like it), when describing “precisely” what he wrote. In fact there is nothing in either edition of the entirety of The Fire that Consumes to suggest this view, and I am unable to point the reader to a quote that might have been misinterpreted to mean this. Moreover, Fudge does not cite Edward White at this point, and even if he had, it must be pointed out that White never taught (“precisely” or otherwise) that Jesus’ humanity was destroyed but his divinity was not, and neither is Peterson able to quote him as doing so. In fact, Peterson repeats the same accusation against Basil Atkinson (again, without quotation), who likewise never suggested that the two natures in Christ were separated, but affirms with Fudge that the whole person Jesus Christ truly died and rose three days later. I have scoured the noteworthy modern defenses of annihilationism from Edward White, Henry Constable, Sidney Hatch, Clark Pinnock, John Wenham, John Stott, Philip Hughs, and Adventist authors Leroy Froom and Samuele Bacchiocchi, and noted that none of these authors have suggested that Jesus’ humanity was destroyed and not his deity, separating the two natures. Peterson’s misrepresentation has no excuse on the grounds of mistakenly lumping Fudge together with other annihilationist authors, since the claim is absent from all of them.
What is going on here? Is this really “precisely” what Fudge (and other conditionalists) stated, or is Peterson misrepresenting them in order to set them up for an easy rebuttal? Unfortunately, all indications are that the latter is the case. “Nothing less than orthodox Christology is at stake,” Peterson then announces, and moves in for the kill. After accusing Fudge of saying that Jesus’ humanity was destroyed and his divinity was not, Peterson goes on to quote the Chalcedonian definition, which affirms that Christ’s deity and humanity cannot be separated. Next comes Peterson’s conclusion, charging Fudge with heresy (if one assumes that a denial of Chalcedonian Christology is indeed heresy): “Indeed, to hold that Jesus' humanity was annihilated on the cross [and not his deity], brings one into conflict with Chalcedonian Christology.” A theological disaster! This may be true, but in fact it is somewhat moot, since Fudge never expressed this view in the first place. Peterson has created a straw man, and intentionally or not, the scene is cast where Peterson is portrayed as the champion of orthodox Christology against the annihilationist heretics, who deny Chalcedonian Christology and thus make themselves worthy of serious reprimand. “Such a prospect ought to cause conditionalists to re-examine their views,” Peterson warns, since nobody would want to find oneself denying something so important. The move might serve to scare orthodox Christians away from considering annihilationism as a possibility. But the supposed denial of Chalcedonian Christology has been spun out of thin air, and the rebuttal achieves nothing against the actual position annihilationists hold.
Now, thanks to this obvious dishonesty, there is an audience out there who believe that evangelical annihilationists deny chalcedonian Christology.
There are other examples, but those two are good examples of the level of dishonsty that I am referring to.
My message to the published opponents of annihilationism is simple, and regrettable. Stop telling lies about us. There are people out there who actually believe what you say, and bearing false witness is neither responsible nor defensible Christian conduct. Moreover, it just ends up consuming the time of responsible theologians who have to point out that these alsehoods have been uttered just so that the debate can get back on track. Just don't do it, please.
Rant finished, you can go back to your lives now. But don't beieve everything you read.