I, while a firm believer in the reformed faith, believe that reformed theology needs reforming today more than ever. While reformation is indeed taking place in some very important areas in the form of the Federal Vision, which I am very fond of, there are other areas that have been overlooked since the time of the reformation. Martin Luther and William Tyndale, for example, believed the doctrines of the intermediate state and the innate immortality of the soul to be detrimental to our doctrine of Christ and his resurrection. It is my conviction that these two great reformers were correct and that the reformed world has ignored the evidence for conditional immortality for too long. This blog is dedicated to pressing toward a more biblical understanding of anthropology and eschatology, and therefore a better understanding of our great salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord. While I will post on various issues, I wish to have a primary focus on the centrality of Christ’s resurrection, without which our mortal lives would be lived in utmost vanity.
Recent Activity
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jan | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 | ||||||
Recent Posts
Categories
- Anime (3)
- Anthropology (7)
- Apologetics (3)
- Art (3)
- Baptism (7)
- Catechism and Confession (3)
- Conditional Immortality (27)
- Covenant (13)
- Culture (20)
- Eschatology/Judgment (8)
- Federal Vision (6)
- Haiku (7)
- Heresy (1)
- Jesus (4)
- Kingdom of God (10)
- Maturity (3)
- Means of Grace (17)
- Natural Revelation (10)
- Our Practical God (3)
- Poetry (17)
- Quotes (11)
- Resurrection (18)
- Reviews (1)
- Satire (7)
- Scripture (18)
- Theology (8)
- Theology In… (7)
- Uncategorized (1)
- Worldview (4)
Blogroll
Miscellaneous
Theological Links
- Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church
- Biblical Horizons
- Christ Reformed Church
- Covenant Worldview Institute
- Creeds and Confessions
- Federal Vision
- Follow the Rabbi
- J.C. Ryle Tracts
- Sovereign Grace Ministries
- St. Anne's Public House
- The Failure of American Baptist Culture
- Third Millennium Ministries
- World English Bible
World's Best Wine
Recent Comments
Archives
- January 2008 (1)
- October 2007 (2)
- September 2007 (15)
- August 2007 (26)
- July 2007 (21)
- June 2007 (16)
- May 2007 (12)
- April 2007 (8)
- March 2007 (7)
- February 2007 (1)
- January 2007 (6)
- December 2006 (3)
- November 2006 (4)
- October 2006 (5)
- August 2006 (2)
Ben,
I’ve just begun looking at this Conditional Immortality issue, and I’m wondering if you can point me to any historical writings/creeds or some online sermons to listen to that will help me get along.
Matt
Matt,
I’m glad you are interested in the topic. I’m sorry, but I don’t know of any creeds that deal specifically with the topic. However, I can refer you to some sources that deal with what William Tyndale and Martin Luther said. Champions of Condtional Immortality tells about many of the men who believed it within the past 500 or so years. Here is another link that deals more specifically with Tyndale and Luther.
You can also find a 20 page essay written by comrade of mine, Shaun Hurrie, and myself on the “Bentok’s Corner” page. The essay is entitled “Resurrecting the Resurrection.” On the same page, I have a short paper written by Shaun called “A Brief Defense of Conditional Immortality.”
I hope these resources help. Feel free to email me at stpbsc@yahoo.com.
In Christ,
Ben
Also, on the Bentok’s Corner page, there is an essay called “God’s Rest and the Second Death,” in which Travis and I attempt to refute Wayne Grudem’s case for the traditional view of the human soul.
Ben,
Oscar Cullmann published a little-known book called “Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead?” in which he argues for conditional immortality. Its entirety can be found here - http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=1115
I personally believe that the human soul is not naturally immortal and I do not believe that a case can be made for the traditional view of the soul’s natural immortality. That said, I also believe with P. Andrew Sandlin in his book “New Flesh, New Earth” that this does not preclude a hell where the damned are tormented for eternity. Conditional immortality and annihilationism are *not* synonyms. This is good, in my estimation, since conditional immortality is Biblical - and annihilation is not. In my view. I’d be happy to converse on the topic.
Adam,
Thanks for the resources. The only book that I’ve read on the issue is Edward Fudge’s “The Fire That Consumes.” It’s pretty good, but it deals only with the judgment aspect of the doctrine. I prefer to dwell on the positive aspect of resurrection rather than the negative aspect. I’ll definitely take a look at the two books you mentioned.
I agree that CI is biblical while annihilation - the belief that the wicked merely puff into oblivion - is not. I would be happy to discuss the topic too.
Ben,
Yeah, Oscar Cullmann is one of those really respected older theologians that wrote a lot of good stuff (check out his “The Early Church” book) but who kind of fell by the wayside.
It’s sad when the only major resources for conditional immortality are tied so consistently to something like annihilationism. I’ve read Fudge’s book and I think that he ignores many passages that would take hermeneutic priority over annihilationist proof-texts.
Sandlin’s book is a defense generally of resurrection as the central element of Christian life, and he devotes an entire chapter to conditional immortality. He doesn’t really address the fate of unbelievers in this scheme, which is a real pity, but he mentions them a few times.
I honestly think part of the problem is that the traditional view of hell has been taken for granted. Traditionalists think its so easy to defend - the soul is naturally immortal, therefore the damned must spend eternity in hell. Then those who decided natural immortality was wrong saw how closely it was tied to traditional views of hell and came to the conclusion that because a wrong argument was bolstering the tradtional view that the ultimate conclusion of the traditional view (i.e. eternal torment) was wrong.
As the centrality of the resurrection, union with Christ as a part of that (rather than imputation of Christ’s active obedience), new creation, typological interpretation, and conditional immortality are emphasized in coming generations that the church will have to understand hell in more biblical ways than she has in the last two hundred years.
Adam,
I see what you are saying about the problem of traditionalists taking their view for granted. As a result, it seems like people in both camps tend to argue at each other instead of engaging in discussion because traditionalists won’t listen, and conditionalists get sick of the traditionalists willful ignorance (sounds familiar eh?).
Do you mind sharing what your view of hell is? I agree that as we come to think more biblically in terms of resurrection and new creation through Christ, we must allow the Bible to reshape our view of hell.
I believe in eternal torment and do not find annihilationist arguments sufficiently strong to sway me from the historic teachings of the church. That said, I greatly appriciate the work annihilationists have done, particularly in their challenges to rethink our doctrine of hell as part of this second reformation.
In a debate with a New Zealand annihilationist, I outlined two biblical/typological areas that are problematic for any who want to say that at some point the sinners in hell cease to exist. I believe annihilationism contradicts and even undercuts the atonement of Christ, and I believe that the resurrection itself closes off any possibility of the damned being annihilated.
I’ve been trying to upload some of my papers and articles to the blog here, but I can’t figure out how to upload stuff. You’d think it would just be somewhere in the dashboard or something, but I can’t find it.
Ben, you said, “I agree that CI is biblical while annihilation - the belief that the wicked merely puff into oblivion - is not.”
I must not have had a proper understanding of annihilationism. I thought it was the belief that after a period of conscious suffering, the wicked would then be no more. So, annihilationism is the belief that the wicked just disappear without any conscious punishment first?
Travis,
No, the way that you refer to it is not improper. Typically when I hear the word come up in a discussion (that doesn’t involve you or myself), someone uses the term to describe immediate oblivion without conscious pain. Personally I try use CI to describe the whole thing and try not to use annihilation.
Adam,
I’m interested in reading your biblical/typological dealing with punishment. I believe that, while the punishment will indeed be merciless and painful, those who do not recieve the crown of life will be destroyed. Interestingly, I wasn’t convinced by a passage here or there but by typology and symbolism. The strongest evidence, in my opinion, the fact that Jesus Christ suffered the full punishment of our sins. His suffering leading to the cross and death on it was absolute hell, and I personally find it hard to believe that hell will be much different from that.
If you want to upload your papers, you can do what I did. I got a free geocities account, uploaded them on there, and linked this blog to the articles. Works like a charm. To my knowledge, there is no way to upload them to reformedblogs. I look forward to reading them.
Ah, I see. That makes sense (the uploading stuff). Although, my dashboard says that I have 10 mbs of upload space.
At any rate, my argument, using the basics of atonement theology (everybody is a sinner, all sin requires atonement, those who reject Jesus do not partake of His atonement) and adding to that James Jordan’s studies on the ascension offerings (whole burnt offerings) of Leviticus, I conclude that because there must be atonement for all sin, the wicked, by rejecting Christ, stand as their own whole burnt offering. I then show that the language describing the Levitical whole burnt offerings matches with the descriptions of the punishment language of the condemned in Matt. but mostly in Revelation indicates that John is arguing that the wicked are indeed their own whole burnt offering, as they were in the OT (Deut. 13 and so on). The problem for annihilation comes in when we realize that only Christ can pay the price. We can’t. If the wicked are whole burnt offerings, which must be totally consumed and ascend into heaven to the Lord, then if the wicked are annihilated (i.e. totally burnt up) then they can atone for their own sins outside of Christ, which is clearly contrary to the fundamentals of Christianity. Thus, were they ever to pay for their sins, the wicked would be annihilated, but the problem is that they cannot pay for their sins, thus they are always consuming, never consumed, in hell.
The resurrection argument is much simpler. Basically, I argue that 1) Adam and Eve were clearly immortal in the Garden, not naturally, but only because the curse (death and decay) was not yet in place. 2) When sin entered the world, the curse of death and decay was brought to bear on them and the creation. 3) The resurrection, as 1 Cor. 15 argues, turns back death and decay cosmically - i.e. universally. We all get resurrected - righteous and unrighteous. Immediately after the resurrection comes the final judgment. 4) After the resurrection there is no more death. None. All those in the grip of physical death and decay are brought out of the physical curse. This includes the wicked. There is no more death after the resurrection. Were the wicked then to be cast into hell and be annihilated, they would die. The curse would still be in place, and the hope of Christians (that death be turned back and there be no more death in the new creation) is useless and incorrect.
I also use some of the more traditional arguments about destruction language and so on.
Could you provide me with a link to Jordan’s studies on ascension offerings?
Ben,
I have mostly worked with Jordan’s online articles on the topic. They’re all on Jordan’s website.
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-143-introduction-to-the-ascensions/
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-142-leviticus-1-1-2/
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-143-levitics-1-2/
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-144-leviticus-1-3-4-10/
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-107-re-creation-in-the-ascension-offering/
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-78-getting-the-translation-right/
I’m also including a number of Leithart’s studies on the Levitical ascensions, as they are helpful on a number of points as well.
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-34-priestly-animals/
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-35-skinned-and-cut/
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-35-the-ecology-of-the-tribute-offering/
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-13-a-male-without-defect/
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-3-the-thigh-of-the-peace-offering/
I also correlate Jordan’s studies here with his studies in “Through New Eyes.”
Ben, they’re all up on Biblical Horizons.
Just found out that John Calvin, among others, rejected the inherent immortality of the soul (Arthur Custance, Journey out of Time, pp. 169-177).
As to creeds, as Matt asked, all of the classic creeds of the Church from Athanasius’ Creed to the Westminster Confession repudiate annihilationism and affirm the eternal nature of the unbeliever’s conscious suffering. I look at these creeds in my paper, “Annihilating Annihilationism,” which I have been trying to get online.
Adam,
John Calvin was actually the chief defender of innate immortality. He defends it in his work Psychopannychia, wherein he successfully associated the rejection of innate immortality with the hated anabaptists and further entrenched the traditional view into orthodoxy.
As for the creeds and confessions, the WCF does positively affirm innate immortality and eternal conscious torment. However, the ancient creeds are written in such a way that one can fully hold to them whether they hold one position or the other.
The Athanasian Creed clearly supports eternal torment. As to Calvin, what I have found in my research is that the most orthodox of the defenders of the soul’s immortality never claimed that the soul was immortal in the sense that God couldn’t annihilate it, they just believed that God wouldn’t annihilate it. This mixed with enlightenment categories resulted in people thinking that the soul was ultimately indestructible, even by God.
Adam,
The only statement I see in the Athanasian creed that could possibly support eternal torment is “they that have done evil into everlasting fire.” I don’t think this language is sufficient to repudiate annihilation, nor does it seem like it is meant to. I think that one can hold to the creed with full conviction, yet not believe in “unending conscious torment.” When I hear “everlasting fire” or “eternal fire,” unending torment is certainly not what comes to my mind. I think of fire that belongs to the age to come - a fire which no creature could endure (especially those who do not recieve eternal life.)
Thanks for clarifying on Calvin. I see what you are saying now. To me, distinguishing between an independent immortality and a dependent immortality is a moot point. The enlightenment merely took people to the logical end of thinking that we will never be destroyed no matter how much we hate God - we cannot be destroyed.
Let me know when you get those papers up man, I’d like to see your work. :-)
Btw, Thanks for providing the links to the Biblical Horizon essays. For some reason I have a hard time navigating that site.
No problem. As to the Athanasian creed, I believe annihilationism is excluded from it by definition when we consider that 1) Athanasius supported eternal torment and therefore this is what he meant by the creed, and 2) annihilation was fundamentally foreign to the way the CHurch fathers, the medieval fathers, the Protestant fathers, and (I would argue) the Bible itself speaks of the fate of the wicked.
I agree that the Enlightenment took the immortality of the soul to a conclusion, but I would argue that it is no more logically derivative of Calvin’s view than hyper-Calvinism is of Calvinism or hyper-preterism is of preterism. In other words, the position might be the end of a logical journey if you pushed the premises as hard as you could, but as Chesterton said, the only completely logically consistent people are the crazies - and that they are crazy because they have too much logic. We ended up with an inherently immortal soul that even God couldn’t destroy because we separated our culture from its Christian roots.
I’m working hard on my paper on annihilationism and hope to have it done within a week or so. I figured how to upload stuff to my blog, so check my theological writing page there this week, because starting tomorrow, I hope to have some of my other work up in pdf format.
And yeah, I hear ya about Biblical Horizons. Jordan is having the whole site reformatted and updated and so a bunch of stuff is up in the air over there.
So not even God can destroy us?
I’m sorry, but I still must disagree. Athanasius’ personal belief on the issue does not mean that this creed excludes annihilationism, and certainly not by definition. Athanasius undoubtedly had many personal opinions that he knew did not define orthodoxy when he wrote this creed. The fact that I could personally recite this creed word for word with full conviction of its truth, yet not believe in eternal conscious suffering shows me that this language does not exclude one position or the other. If it does, I think it does a poor job. Regardless of his personal opinion, the creed itself is written in language that does not exclude it. I see it as affirming that we must believe that God will definitively punish the wicked in the age to come.
I see what you are saying about immortality of the soul. Although, with all hyper-Calvinism and hyper-preterism aside, my opinion remains however, that it be a moot point to distinguish between the two types of immortality. Whether or not God can destroy us, we can count on the fact that he won’t.
Keep working hard man. I’m excited about reading your paper (and your fiction when I get a chance). I’m sure it will be quality. (Maybe sometime after I read it and Jordan’s work on ascension offerings, I can create a special post in which we debate the issue?)
We may disagree on this issue, but I count it a blessing that we stand united on many.
In Christ,
Ben
Ronnie, the issue has never been about whether God *can* destroy us. I do not believe in the inherent immortality of the soul. Only God is naturally immortal. The issue is over whether God *will* annihilate us (I use annihilate and not destroy because destroy is one of those slippery words that doesn’t by definition mean annihilate - and in fact most of the time actually does not mean annihilate).
Ben, I agree that you *could* recite it and modify the meaning of “everlasting fire” to mean annihilation, but that doesn’t change the fact that you are modifying the meaning. A theistic evolutionist could affirm the WCF’s statement of creation in six days by modifying the meaning of “six days” to be completely metaphorical, but this in no way changes the fact that the evolutionist is completely out of accord with the meaning the Westminster divines intended to be there.
I shall keep working hard. :D I would be interested in that special post discussion idea - and I say discussion because I do not consider you even an opponent in a theological battle, but a brother in Christ with whom I am interested in discussing this matter further. Truth be told, I actually find anihilationism rather appealing, I just can’t find any Scriptural or confessional warrant for it.
I too am glad we agree on much!
Adam
Just wondering what your interpriation you have on the passage in Peter when he talks about Sodom and Gomorah was an example of what will happen to the wicked.
Ronnie, I’m assuming you mean Jude 7. First, annihilationists argue the phrase “eternal fire” means that the fire is eternal, not the life-span of the people thrown into that fire, but this I find to be special pleading - there is no point for the fire to exist after the people are annihilated, so the fire should go out after this point.
Second, Jude 7 clearly states that the actual punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah is eternal fire, which refutes the very argument annihilationists need to make. Jude 7 says they serve as an example “by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” Their punishment according to Jude is bearing eternal fire (which jives well with Rev. 14:10-11 and 20:10, both of which clearly also say the punishment of the wicked is to suffer eternal fire - being *in* the eternal fire is the punishment that goes on forever and ever, not annihilation).
Thirdly, Jude 6 clearly connects with Jude 7. Jude 6 states that the fallen angels are kept in “eternal chains under gloomy darkness … *just as* Sodom and Gomorrah …. serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” So this punishment of eternal fire is analogous, not to annihilation, but to eternal *chains*, eternal captivity (recall also that the fate of the human wicked is the same as the fate of the angelic wicked - Matt. 25:41, 46, and eternal captivity jives well with the parable in Matt. 18 where hell is depicted in the imagery of eternal debtor’s prison).
No man I am talking about 2nd Peter 2:6.
Oh, sorry. :P Well, the key word in 2 Pet. 2:6 is translated “extinction” by the ESV but the Greek merely means “overthrow,” primarily of a city, and thus does not teach annihilation.
Second, I believe there is a strong connection between 2 Pet. 2:4,6 and Jude 6,7. Both 2 Pet. 4 and Jude 6 teach that God “committed them to chains of gloomy darkness” (2 Pet. 2:4) and kept in “eternal chains under gloomy darkness” (Jude 6), and so my words dealing with Jude 6,7 above still apply here.
There are enough passages elsewhere in Scripture demonstrating the eternity of conscious punishment that annihilationists haven’t been able to explain away that we are required by consistent hermeneutics to understand phrases and verses that might superficially and taken individually to imply annihilation by the larger controlling pattern. If there is a single passage that contradicts annihilation we must interpret words like “destroy” or “consume” differently than “complete annihilation,” which is not typically how these words are understood anyway.
Wow, thanks for the discussion. You all have given me a lot to think about. I am scheduled to participate in a friendly discussion tomorrow (Sat, July 7) on this topic. I am to argue the CI side along with another brother (neither of us are CI, but are open to it), while two others are to discuss the ECT side (both of whom are fiercely loyal to it). I am far from prepared to defend the CI position, but I hope this discussion (and what you all have posted above) will encourage me to continue this study.
Thanks!
mattb
Adam,
You said: “If there is a single passage that contradicts annihilation we must interpret words like “destroy” or “consume” differently than “complete annihilation,” which is not typically how these words are understood anyway.”
I’d like to point out that this is the grounds that anti-pedocommunionists like to use to exclude children from full covenant priveleges because Corinthians seems to contradict the pedocommunion position. Therefore, they say, we have to change our view of covenant membership. Pedocommunionists appeal to the massive momentum of covenant teaching in the OT, which undeniably supports the fact that children are fully in covenant, not partially. This is the case with judgment language, as the OT is absolutely full of it. The NT even alludes to the OT’s own language of destruction in these two passages.
As for the angels, this passage is speaking of God’s punishing the wicked. There are not only wicked humans, but wicked angels too. I personally don’t see a very strong case in saying that a human must be held under the exact same torment as a spirit being as necessity. It goes, “If God did not spare the angels”…”if he did not spare the ancient world”…”if he did not spare the cities.” The verse is showing us that if God pays the wicked what they respectively deserve, then he knows how to save the righteous as well. I have no doubt that the angels who remained faithful will be spared from judgment, however I’m equally sure that they will not experience the exact same salvation that we will (ex. resurrection from death and glorification). Why then should we say that they receive the exact same punishment?
Matt,
Good luck and be sure to let us know how it goes.
Ben,
First, I’m back on the blog.
Second, you ask why we should say that the fallen angels receive the exact same punishment. The answer is simply to recall Matt. 25: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” The destination is the same. I don’t think we can say “exact same punishment” for men and angels, because we don’t know how angels work, but from this passage and from Jude and 2 Pet., we find the punishments comparable.