I was taught as a child that hell was indeed a real place where the wicked would burn forever and that it was located in the center of the earth. I always wondered what would happen if an oil company drilled all the way down to where hell was. And I remember watching the black-and-white movie Journey to the Center of the Earth with great interest!
But this is another area where the Bible leaves nothing to doubt. Revelation chapter 20 says that 1,000 years after the saints are resurrected, the wicked will be released from their graves. "And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them" (Revelation 20:9).
According to the Bible, the lost are burned "on the breadth of the earth." One of the great promises of the Bible to the pilgrims here below is that we can, "according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness" (2 Peter 3:13).
Just as God cleansed the earth in the days of Noah, He will cleanse the earth again at the end of the world, this time with fire. As in Noah's day, sinners will again receive their recompense, and once more it will happen "on the breadth of the earth." God's plan is to recreate this sin-marred earth and return it to its original Edenic splendor. The earth will be transformed into what the Bible calls a "lake of fire" (Revelation 20:10). Every last vestige of sin will be burned up, and the curse will be obliterated.
Mary Ellen's Misconception
A few years ago, a young lady named Mary Ellen told me that although she was raised in a Christian home, she had given up on God and was instead practicing witchcraft.
"I was raised in a hellfire-and-brimstone spitting church," she told me. "They would talk about this God who would take sinners and burn them for all eternity, and that God would be happy to inflict torture upon them for as long as time would last.
"I thought to myself, 'If that's what God is really like, I'd be better off without Him.' " Because of the portrait of God painted by the church, this intelligent young woman had turned her back on the Bible and embraced paganism and devil worship.
Mary Ellen was appalled by the idea of a God of love behaving as one would expect the devil to behave. Not even history's most reviled despots-Hitler, Stalin, or Idi Amim-were as cruel to their victims as Christians accuse God of being. Mary Ellen reacted to the idea as thousands have done: by giving up on God, because to misunderstand hell is to misunderstand the character of God, the awfulness of sin, and the love of God for all of His children.
We cannot deny that some passages in the Bible plainly state that hellfire will burn "for ever" (Revelation 14:11; 20:10). But logic alone tells us that if hell burns forever "on the breadth of the earth," it would be impossible for God to create a new earth. And if God kept sinners alive to endure an eternal burning, He would fail in His mission to rid the world of sin. Instead, He would perpetuate it.
Can you imagine a new earth where throughout eternity you could hear the howls and screams of the wicked suffering in hell? Or what if you knew that in some corner of the universe those you had loved on the earth were writhing forever in agony because of misdeeds during their relatively short lives on earth?
I have never met anyone who could enjoy heaven knowing that loved ones or family were being tortured throughout all eternity. Thankfully, the Bible states that the new earth will be a place without sorrow or pain (Revelation 21:4).
What About "For Ever"?
In Scripture, "for ever" is often used in conjunction with an event that has already taken place.
For instance, Hannah pledged to God that she would take her infant son Samuel to serve in the temple at Shiloh, where he would abide "for ever" (1 Samuel 1:22). No student of the Bible would take this to mean that he would remain in that temple for as long as time should last. Hannah herself interpreted the statement as meaning that Samuel would serve in the temple for "as long as he liveth" (verse 28).
Jonah stated that he was in the belly of the fish "for ever" (Jonah 2:6), but we know that he endured his eerie journey beneath the sea for "three days and three nights" (Jonah 1:17).
More than 50 times the Bible uses "for ever" to mean "for as long as time lasts in that specific case." The term is used colloquially today to describe a downpour or a hot summer's afternoon (or a sermon!) that "went on forever."
Death, Not Eternal Torment
The Bible tells us that "the wages of sin is" not eternal life in hellfire, but "death" (Romans 6:23), the same penalty God assured Adam and Eve would be theirs if they ate the forbidden fruit.
Ezekiel states clearly that "the soul that sinneth, it shall die" (Ezekiel 18:4), and a plethora of other Bible verses and passages endorse this position. The prophet Malachi wrote that sinners would burn up as "stubble" and would become "ashes under the soles" of the feet of the redeemed (Malachi 4:1, 3). Even the final fate of Satan is explicitly pronounced in Ezekiel 28:18, where the Bible says that the enemy of souls will be reduced to ashes upon the "earth." Compare that with Psalm 37:10 ("For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be"), Psalm 68:2 ("as wax melteth before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God"), and other similar verses. Soon you get a clear picture that the purpose of the fires of hell is to eradicate sin and to expunge the universe of its awful presence.
Interestingly, it was the devil who was first to suggest that sinners would not die (Genesis 3:4). A hell where sinners never perish would prove the devil right and would make God, who told Eve she would "surely die" as a result of transgression (Genesis 2:17), a liar.
The Lumber Camp
Some years ago in a lumber camp there worked a giant of a man who was feared by all who knew him. Rumor had it that he had killed several people.
One day he summoned a fellow worker and demanded to know if the man was telling people that nobody was burning in the fires of hell.
"That's right," the co-worker answered. "That's what the Bible says."
"Can you show me where it says that?" the burly woodsman inquired, betraying a tinge of hope in his gravelly voice. He sat in rapt attention as his Christian colleague showed him text after text from the Bible proving that God is not now torturing anybody in hell and that God will not permit anyone to burn in the lake of fire any longer than necessary.
As they continued to study God's Word, the man whom others regarded as having a heart of stone dropped his face into his hands and began to weep.
"My son died 20 years ago in a bar fight," he finally explained. "I was told that he had gone straight to hell, where God was torturing him and would torture him forever. Ever since that time I've been mad with God."
That day, his heart was softened and his entire life transformed as he came to understand what the Bible really says about the end of the wicked.
The Rich Man and Lazarus
Another passage of Scripture that many find difficult to reconcile with the truth about hellfire is the story of the rich man and Lazarus, found in Luke chapter 16. But by realizing that this passage is a parable-at the end of a long list of parables-we can understand better the imagery Jesus employs.
Certainly Abraham's bosom is not the eternal abode of the redeemed, and it seems impossible that the lost in hell can converse with the saved in heaven. When we remember that hell takes place at the end of the world, and that there are no people suffering in hell at this present time, we can determine more exactly three major points contained in Jesus' remarks.
By representing the beggar as being in heaven and the rich man as lost, Jesus taught His hearers that, contrary to the prevailing view, wealth was not necessarily an indicator of divine favor, just as poverty was not a sign of God's judgment upon a person.
Jesus was also seeking to educate the Jews that salvation would not be theirs by birthright. The rich man in torments calls out to "father Abraham," just as the Jews of Jesus' day were mistakenly pointing to heritage as proof of their assurance of salvation.
Furthermore, Jesus was seeking to lead His hearers to understand that only faithfulness to God's Word would prepare them to enter into eternal life. He told them, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (Luke 16:31).
To use the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in order to promote the false doctrine of an eternally burning hell is to misuse God's Word and to misrepresent His character.
Soft-Selling?
Please understand that regardless of the duration of hellfire, it will be no picnic for the sinner. Although the Bible doesn't specify exactly how long hellfire will burn, in Luke chapter 12 Jesus made it clear that the amount of suffering endured would be in proportion to the hardness of the individual sinner's heart. It would be pure speculation to suppose how long the fires of hell may actually burn, but we can be sure the suffering and anguish endured by the lost would be beyond our ability to describe.
For too long the doctrine of hellfire has been little more than a tool used to cajole sinners into being saved. We are told in Scripture that we love God "because he first loved us" (1 John 4:19). Certainly people should have a healthy respect and concern about the punishment due the wicked, but only love for God can motivate them to truly surrender their hearts to a God of love.
Understand God's Character
We can know for sure that God is not a despicable, heartless tyrant who will take His very own children and torture them without mercy or relief throughout all eternity. It seems incredible that while society locks child abusers in prison, so many are willing to hold God guilty of the most horrible case of child abuse ever perpetrated!
According to Jesus, hellfire isn't even meant for human beings. It is "prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41). Yet because many refuse to accept Jesus' great sacrifice for them and choose instead to follow the great enemy of souls, they must share his fate. Satan and all sinners will be destroyed, the earth will be cleansed, and "affliction shall not rise up the second time" (Nahum 1:9). Sin and sinners will be utterly destroyed, forever separated from God, the source of all life.
The Motorway
Several years ago in Auckland, New Zealand, an 18-year-old woman crashed her car while driving home very early in the morning. She survived the crash unscathed but was trapped in her wrecked car by her feet, unable to escape the fire that was engulfing her car.
A delivery man, two postal workers, and an off-duty policeman came to help; but despite their best attempts, they could not free her. Eventually the heat of the flames drove them back and they had to abandon the young lady, even as she cried out to them, begging the men not to leave her to her fiery fate.
"As we left she grabbed my arm and said, 'Don't go; I'm going to die here.' But we had to get out," one of the men said later.
The police officer was badly injured, having burned away much of the flesh on one of his hands in his desire to free the young lady. But she was hopelessly trapped in the fiery car wreck.
Even today Jesus is doing all He can to save people from the wreckage of their sins and from the fire that will one day burn and destroy all sin. The Bible says, "He that hath the Son hath life, but he that hath not the Son of God hath not life" (1 John 5:12).
Just as those who are lost do not possess the Son, and therefore cannot have life, those who possess Jesus Christ are assured of life everlasting. Jesus will forever bear the scars He received at Calvary in the greatest and costliest rescue attempt ever conceived.
Unlike the hell conjured up by many teachers today, the end of sin and sinners is assured. It is not arbitrarily imposed by a God of cruelty, but is a necessary act that assures the future safety of the universe. This event will bring intense pain to the heart of Divinity but will also open the door to an assured future for all who love God.
If only Mary Ellen had been told that.
Is there any such being as 'The devil?' and if so is he in charge of hell? Read on to see what the Bible teaches about this fallen angel:
The Rebellious Prince
Absalom was the most handsome, cunning, and ambitious of David's sons. The Bible says, "But in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty: from the sole of his foot even to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him." 2 Samuel 14:25.
But this determined young prince wanted more than just the admiration of the people for his stunning appearance. He wanted the power of his father's throne. He wanted to be king of Israel--at any price. First Absalom killed his older brother, Amnon, after Amnon mistreated his sister Tamar. Amnon was David's firstborn son and in line to follow David as king. Then, after Absalom wormed his way back into his father's favor he began to sow subtle seeds of doubt throughout the kingdom about David's leadership, judgments, and laws until he "stole the hearts of the men of Israel." 2 Samuel 15:6.
Finally, his sinister plan erupted into a full-blown rebellion as Absalom tried to assassinate his own father and kidnap the kingdom. David and his followers were forced to flee from Jerusalem. But after a severe battle a few days later, David was once again secure on his throne, and handsome Prince Absalom was slain.
A sad story indeed, but this was not the first such royal family feud. In another great kingdom long ago, very similar events led to the most tragic rebellion of all time. The kingdom was called--heaven!
1. What was the name of the rebellious prince in heaven, and why did he rebel?
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
Isaiah 14:13, 14 For thou hast said in thine heart, ... I will be like the most High.
Ezekiel 28:17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness.
NOTE: Lucifer was the most powerful and beautiful of God's creatures. He was the highest of the angels and most likely led the heavenly choir. But he allowed his beauty to fill him with pride. (See supplement entitled "Satan Symbolized by the Kings of Tyre and Babylon.")
2. Did God make a devil when He created Lucifer?
Ezekiel 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
NOTE: God made a perfect angel who, of his own free will, chose to be a devil. It may be hard to imagine, but if we knew Lucifer before his fall, we would have loved him. We don't know exactly how long, but Lucifer may have joyfully served God for eons before he began to cherish seeds of pride and resentment in his heart. The Lord could have made all of His creatures like robots, but a robot cannot love. True love must be willing to take risks. This is why parents decide to have children, knowing that at some time they may choose to disobey.
God allowed Lucifer to carry out his rebellion for several reasons. First, to forever settle any question of whether or not God makes His creatures with freedom of choice. Second, if God had destroyed Lucifer as soon as he began spreading doubts about God's love and government, the other intelligent creatures would have forever had lingering questions. They might have thought, "Perhaps Lucifer was right." Therefore, Lucifer was allowed to demonstrate the horrible results of sin. Finally, God does not want His creatures to obey Him merely because He will punish them if they don't. He wants us to obey from principles of love rather than from fear.
3. What finally happened?
Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels.
NOTE: Eventually Lucifer and the angels who sided with him were expelled from heaven.
4. What powerful beings work under the devil's command?
Revelation 12:9 He was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Revelation 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth.
NOTE: Satan is so cunning that he was able to deceive one-third of the angels of heaven into following him in his rebellion against God. Now called "devils" and "demons," these fallen angels carry out Satan's plans. In our story of Absalom, we notice that he likewise did very little of his own dirty work. Absalom ordered his servants to execute his wishes.
2 Samuel 13:28 Now Absalom had commanded his servants, saying, Mark ye now when Amnon's heart is merry with wine, ... then kill him, fear not: have not I commanded you?
2 Samuel 14:30 Therefore he said unto his servants, See, Joab's field is near mine, ... go and set it on fire.
5. What methods does Satan use in his work?
Revelation 12:9 Satan, which deceiveth the whole world.
B. Mark 1:13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan.
C. Revelation 16:14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles.
D. Revelation 12:10 For the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
E. John 8:44 He was a murderer from the beginning. ... For he is a liar, and the father of it.
NOTE: In one respect, Satan has an advantage over God in the battle between good and evil. God uses only truth, but Satan can use truth or lies in any combination, to best serve his purposes.
6. When is the devil most dangerous?
2 Corinthians 11:14, 15 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
NOTE: Just as the devil did, Absalom pretended to love the people and displayed an interest in their welfare in order to deceive them.
2 Samuel 15:5, 6 And it was so, that when any man came nigh to him to do him obeisance, he put forth his hand, and took him, and kissed him. And on this manner did Absalom to all Israel that came to the king for judgment: so Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel.
Satan is most dangerous when he poses as a spiritual being working inside the church.
7. Does Satan know the Bible?
Matthew 4:5, 6 Then the devil ... saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee.
NOTE: The devil is an expert at quoting and misquoting the Bible for the purpose of deceiving people. That is why it is essential that God's people know the Scriptures for themselves to avoid being misled.
8. Whom on earth does the devil hate most?
Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
9. What two deadly animals does the Bible use to portray Satan?
1 Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.
Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan.
NOTE: Both lions and snakes use stealth and diversion to capture their prey. Like the devil, they spring suddenly upon their victims and are ruthless and indifferent to suffering.
10. What is the only way we can resist Satan?
James 4:7, 8 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you.
NOTE: The best ways to draw near to God are through prayer and seeking to know Him through His Word.
11. How did Jesus fight the assaults of the devil?
Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written.
Ephesians 6:17 The sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword.
NOTE: Our only safety from Satan's clever deceptions is in storing God's Word in our minds to keep us from sin. The same tools Jesus used to fight the devil are needed and available to us today.
Psalms 119:11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.
Ephesians 6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12. How will the final fate of Satan resemble that of Absalom?
2 Samuel 18:17 And they took Absalom, and cast him into a great pit in the wood.
Isaiah 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
13. Will Satan ever reappear to tempt God's people?
Ezekiel 28:19 Never shalt thou be any more.
Nahum 1:9 Affliction shall not rise up the second time.
14. How does God feel about the destruction of the wicked?
Ezekiel 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die?
NOTE: It hurts God to have to destroy the wicked. Infact, the Bible calls the destruction of the wicked His "strange act" because it is foreign to His loving nature. (see Isaiah 28:21)
15. How did David respond when he learned that his rebellious son Absalom had been slain?
2 Samuel 18:33 And the king was much grieved, and went up to the chamber over the gate, and wept: and as he went, thus he said, O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! would God I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!
This touching picture displays how our heavenly Father feels about His lost children. Not only was He willing to die in our place; He went one step further--He gave His greatest gift, His Son! God is not willing that any should perish. He is desperate for you to be saved. This is why Jesus died in your place. Most of the world has joined Satan in rebellion against the heavenly Father.
Satan Symbolized by the Kings of Tyre and Babylon
In Isaiah 14:4-15, the Bible uses the king of Babylon as a symbol of Satan, and in Ezekiel 28:11-19, Satan is symbolized by the king of Tyre. In both cases we know that the symbolism goes beyond earthly kings because God's description of the being could not apply to any mortal man. Notice the ways Lucifer (now called Satan) is described in these passages of Scripture:
-fell from heaven (Isaiah 14:12)
-was full of wisdom and perfect in beauty (Ezekiel 28:12)
-had been in Eden (verse 13)
-every precious stone was his covering (verse 13)
-was the anointed cherub that covereth (verse 14)
-was upon the holy mountain of God (verse 14)
-was perfect in his ways (verse 15)
Since the kings of Babylon and Tyre exhibited the same policies and suffered the same complete destruction as will Satan's kingdom, God used them to represent Satan himself. Virtually all Bible authorities are in agreement on the symbolism. Incidentally, the Bible records many other references to Lucifer (see Luke 4:5, 6; 10:18; John 8:44; 2 Peter 2:4; 1 John 3:8; Jude 6; Revelation 12:7-9), but without Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14, we would not have the complete history.
Expect the Unexpected
Many people expect Satan to openly appear as God's enemy in the end time, but this is not so. Satan is indeed God's bitterest enemy, but his approach will be to feign righteousness (Matthew 24:24). He can appear as a glorious, angelic being (2 Corinthians 11:13-15) and will seek the worship of people (Revelation 13:12). Scripture is clear that his godly front will be so convincing that "all the world" will wonder after the beast (Revelation 13:3). Talk about a tragedy! Satan will be so effective in posing as Christ that virtually the entire world will follow him, thinking all the time that they are following Jesus. Will you be deceived? Not if you heed the Bible warnings presented in this series.
A Brilliant Angel
Satan is delighted when people portray him as an ugly, red, bat-winged creature that is part-man and part-beast, having split hooves and a long, pointed tail, or carrying a pitchfork and stoking the fires of hell. Nothing could be further from the truth. Such concepts come from Greek mythology. No such nonsense can be found in Scripture. The Bible describes Satan as a brilliant, highly attractive angel with an uncanny ability to communicate. He is also well acquainted with Scripture (Matthew 4:5, 6). The devil is a self-proclaimed enemy of God whose aim is to defame His character and capture His kingdom. Satan also despises you and your loved ones and has plans to destroy you. This series will help you understand his plans and learn how to thwart them. Just place your life in the protective care of your mighty Saviour, and pray earnestly for His guidance.
Do Souls Die?
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die." Ezekiel 18:20. "Every living soul died in the sea." Revelation 16:3.
Answer: According to God's Word, souls do die! We are souls, and souls die. Man is mortal (Job 4:17). Only God is immortal (1 Timothy 6:15, 16). The concept of an undying, immortal soul goes against the Bible, which teaches that souls are subject to death
Do good people go to heaven when they die?
"All that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth." John 5:28, 29. "David ... is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day." "For David is not ascended into the heavens." Acts 2:29, 34. "If I wait, the grave is mine house." Job 17:13.
Answer: No, people do not go either to heaven or hell at death. They go to their graves to await the resurrection day.
How much does one know or comprehend after death?
"The living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun." "There is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest." Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6, 10. "The dead praise not the Lord." Psalm 115:17.
Answer: God says that the dead know absolutely nothing!
But can't the dead communicate with the living, and aren't they aware of what the
living are doing?
"So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep." "His sons come to honour, and he knoweth it not; and they are brought low, but he perceiveth it not of them." Job 14:12, 21. "Neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun." Ecclesiastes 9:6.
Answer: No, the dead cannot contact the living, nor do they know what the living are doing. They are dead. Their thoughts have perished (Psalm 146:4).
Jesus called the unconscious state of the dead "sleep" in John 11:11-14. How
long will they sleep?
"So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more." Job 14:12. "The day of the Lord will come ... in the which the heavens shall pass away."
2 Peter 3:10.
Answer: The dead will sleep until the great day of the Lord at the end of the world. In death, humans are totally unconscious with no activity or knowledge of any kind.
What happens to the righteous dead at the second coming of Christ?
"Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." Revelation 22:12. "The Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, ... and the dead in Christ shall rise ... and so shall we ever be with the Lord." 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17. "We shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, ... and the dead shall be raised incorruptible. ... For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." 1 Corinthians 15:51-53.
Answer: They will be rewarded. They will be raised, given immortal bodies, and caught up to meet the Lord in the air. There would be no purpose in a resurrection if people were taken to heaven at death.
Will the righteous people who are raised in the resurrection ever die again?
"They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, ... Neither can they die any more." Luke 20:35, 36. "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away." Revelation 21:4.
Answer: No! Death, sorrow, crying, and tragedy will never enter into God's new kingdom.
Might be incoherent, but at least it isn't pagan. Your beliefs say some pretty unbiblical stuff if you really look at it. An immortal soul? Nope. Apparently we're not immortal without the tree of life, like in the garden. Paul says "this mortal must put on immortality". An eternal hell? The bible says the wicked are still in the graves. Reserved unto the day of judgment. And it says they will be destroyed. Turned to ashes. Is everything in the bible figurative? Death is just a separation from God? Can there be life apart from God? Where is this hell? In the sun? Some distant star? The bible says it's going to be on this earth. So where do the wicked disappear to when God recreates the world? Now, when you look at your belief from the way the catholic church looks at it, the pagan Greeks/Romans both believed in the immortal soul, both believed in some deep dark hellish cave where the dead live forever. Where did the images of Satan as a red goat man come from? Running around with a pitchfork poking the wicked for eternity? Does that really sound like the bible? No? But you have the same belief, just without the imagery. I'm sorry but I think it's seriously unbiblical, and it causes many people to hate God...and honestly....who can blame them? And really...c'mon...the roman empire went from pagan to christian almost overnight. Do you really think the apostle's little persecuted church really had much strength against the massive influx of half-saved pagans? Seems pretty obvious that some non-biblical teachings would worm their way in, and I think we can all agree that the medieval catholic church was about as unbiblical as they come. Do you really want to believe something they did? When so many verses contradict it? I would run like eternal hell away from it, lol...
Man has no conscious existence apart from the body after he dies
False teachers of annihilation: Jehovah�s Witnesses, Christadelphians, Seventh-day Adventists, Herbert W. Armstrong/plain truth magazine.
Annihilationists argue that if you burn some paper, it is eternally destroyed and that is how we should view hell. Lets check it out in the Bible!
Annihilation is a member of "Domino Theology" family of doctrines
(Refute one element & refute the whole system!)
See also: Debate: Truth vs. an annihilationist!
This outline is dedicated to:
Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego, who were thrown into a furnace of fire, yet were not consumed. Dan 3:19
Moses, who saw the burning bush (pictured right) that was not consumed by fire. Ex 3:2
And to God, who can do all things!
Burning Bush
What hell is not:
Dante�s hell
Annihilationists like to refute this false concept of hell invented by an antagonist named "Dante". When Annihilationists refute this concept of hell, Bible believers wonder what the point is? Their false doctrine of annihilation is not proved right, just because they prove Dante�s equally false concept of hell wrong! Yet you will notice that almost all annihilationists dishonestly try to represent Dante�s false view of hell as that which orthodox Christians believe!
Catholic
Purgatory
Purgatory is another false view of hell. It is taught by Catholics. They got it from the uninspired writings of the apocrypha. Purgatory is where you can be tormented for a time to pay for your own sins, then enter paradise! None of this is what Christians teach!
Hades
Hell and Hades are two different places at two different times. Departed spirits of men go to Hades and await judgement. After judgement, the wicked will be cast into Hell. Arians always confuse the two!
Annihilation vs. Eternal conscious torment
1 Cor 15:53
All men�s bodies will become immortal at the resurrection
Man�s body is not immortal right now.
Man is not immortal YET, but will be made that way! But mortality corresponds to the body. It is the body that will be made immortal, not the soul!
"The real issue between Dualists and Annihilationists is nothing other than this: Does Scripture teach that the wicked will be made immortal for the purpose of suffering endless pain; or does it teach that the wicked following whatever degree and duration of pain God may justly inflict, will finally and truly die, perish and become extinct forever and ever?" (The Fire That Consumes, Edward W. Fudge, Annihilationist, p. 425)
First we notice that we as Christians are to seek immortality. Obviously we do not possess it yet if we seek it
Rom 2:7 "to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life"
Second at resurrection the mortal (us now with a physical mortal body) will put on the immortal (all men will have an immortal body)
1 Cor 15:53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory. "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?"
Now this is a powerful argument against annihilation. If ALL MEN both good and WICKED put on immortality at the resurrection, then how do they then cease to exist? What kind of immortality is that? Hence eternal torment! Never to die again! Man's body is not immortal now, but will be made so. All men, whether good or wicked! Man survives death consciously, then at resurrection is made immortal!
How can the wicked suffer the second death if they are immortal and then suffer the second death? If the wicked die again, then how can:
"come about the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory?" 1 Cor 15
Simple, mortal refers to the body part not the soul. when man dies he survives death consciously. After resurrection, his immortal spiritual body is given to him and he will never again be apart from his body. IMMORTAL. But the second death is not the separation of the body and soul, but the separation of man from God for eternity in hell!
Remember, the saying, "Death is swallowed up in victory" will come about at the final resurrection. If the wicked die PHYSICALLY again, then God was wrong when he said: "when this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory."" Obviously this was not true, for the wicked are swallowed up in physical death and death keeps its victory forever!
While living
We are a spirit with a physical body
While dead in Hades
We are a spirit without a physical body
after resurrection
We are a spirit with a spirit body, just like Christs! 1 Jn 3:2; Phil 3:20-21
This argument is irrefutable unless one:
denies that the wicked are even raised from the dead as Christadelphians do thus contradicting "there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked." Acts 24:15
affirms that none of 1 Cor 15 has anything to say about the resurrection of the wicked, the central resurrection chapter of the Bible. Yet v22 proves this applies to ALL MEN! "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive."
The #1 argument annihilationists use:
(Notice it is an argument of human reasoning, not scripture)
Herbert W. Armstrong and his many splinter groups state:
A loving God wouldn�t torment forever his creation
A loving God will torment forever his creation
Our God is a loving, merciful Father who does not want to consign anyone to that fate. (What Happens After Death?, United Church of God, an International Association)
"The verse ... Rev 20:10 ... indicates that the devil is to be cast into the lake of fire that had already consumed and destroyed the beast and false prophet. Satan, being spirit, is the one who will be tormented forever. The evil angels-the demons-will be included with Satan in his torment" (What Happens After Death?, United Church of God, an International Association)
Herbert W. Armstrong and many of his splinter groups have taken the unusual position that the Devil and his angels will be tormented forever.
Argument refuted:
You already worship and respect a God who is going to eternally torment the Devil and millions of angels! These spirit beings cannot be destroyed by fire! You already believe a loving God is going to do this!!! The Devil and man are both equally God�s creatures. The argument is completely inconsistent. The argument is so completely refuted, we have designated it a knock out punch!
Seventh-day Adventists & Jehovah�s Witnesses believe the devil and demons will be annihilated along with evil men. Christadelphians do not believe that the devil and demons are actual persons, but merely the personification of sin.
These annihilationists argue:
"Morally, the doctrine of eternal conscious torment is incompatible with the Biblical revelation of divine love and justice. The moral intuition God has implanted within our consciences cannot justify the insatiable cruelty of a God who subjects sinners to unending torments. Such a God is like a bloodthirsty monster and not like the loving Father revealed to us by Jesus Christ." (a SDA leader)
"The doctrine of eternal torment is a wicked defamation of Jehovah. It is a foul stain upon his lovable name." (a Jw leader)
And now, who is responsible for this God-dishonoring doctrine? And what is his purpose? The promulgator of it is Satan himself; and his purpose in introducing it has been to frighten the people away from studying the Bible and to make them hate God. (Jw�s: J. F. Rutherford, Watchtower Society's Second President)
How can Christians possibly project a deity of such cruelty and vindictiveness whose ways include inflicting everlasting torture upon his creatures, however sinful they may have been? Surely a God who would do such a thing is more nearly like Satan than like God, at least by any ordinary moral standards, and by the gospel itself. (Clark Pinnock, Professor, McMaster University)
Argument refuted:
This argument is faulty human reasoning and not based on any passage of the Bible. We may not understand the justice of God by eternally punishing the wicked. Yet we also do not understand the grace of God by rewarding the saved with eternal life. On human terms, we cannot understand either "kindness and severity of God" Rom 11:22
Wicked Men, the devil and his angels will be tormented forever:
The devil & his angels tormented forever
Wicked men tormented forever
Rev 20:10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Rev 14:10-11 he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."
The devil and angels are just as much God�s creation as man, therefore the argument is invalid!
Unsaved men spend eternity in the same place as the Devil and his angels: Rev 20:15 And if anyone�s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
According to annihilationists, man is wholly physical and the devil is wholly spiritual (a created spirit being). Yet both will be thrown into the same place! Obviously then, man is not wholly physical, but has a spiritual side, just like the devil.
Annihilation vs. Eternal conscious torment
Is the fire literal or figurative?
In case you had not noticed Arians, who take an entirely physical outlook of man have a real problem regardless of whether they take the fire of hell literal or symbolic.
Annihilation vs. Eternal conscious torment
Is the lake of fire and hell fire literal or symbolic?
H. W. Armstrong and splinter groups: Literal
Valley of Hinnom, located just outside the city of Jerusalem. You can see it in the maps at the back of your Bible.
H. W. Armstrong and splinter groups believe that this valley is where the wicked will literally be burnt with literal fire.
"gehenna and the lake of fire are the same. A very large fire would have the appearance of a fiery lake, hence its description". ... "flames of the "lake of fire" purify the earth's surface, burning in one vast worldwide holocaust 2 Pet. 3:10. ... all the things man has created be burned up, as well as the rest of those People who will not have received salvation and eternal life because of willful rebellion against God ... the wicked to be reduced to ashes by the fire which will consume the earth's surface" (WCG, What is hell? Ambassador BCC, Lesson 6, 1977)
This great fire is the same as the "lake of fire," mentioned in Revelation, when God judges the incorrigibly wicked. It will sweep around the entire earth! The elements themselves will be dissolved, the surface of the earth will be purged and consumed with tremendous heat. Every remnant of man's sin, every sign of iniquity, every last trace of evil will be devoured by the heat of this fire. (Heaven, Hell And The Hereafter, Triumph Prophetic Ministries (Church of God) W. F. Dankenbring)
Seventh-day Adventist: Literal and symbolic
Location of Hell ... this earth is reserved for that fire which will bring judgment and perdition to the wicked. Their punishment will be in this earth. ... The prophet portrays the entire planet enveloped in the destroying fire. Even the streams and dust are transformed into an exploding combustion of pitch and brimstone." ... This brings us to the third great fact about the subject of hell. Hell as a place of punishment will be this earth turned into a lake of fire at the Day of Judgment." (Seventh-day Adventist, Joe Crews, Amazing Facts, Hell-Fire)
Jehovah�s Witness: literal and Symbolic
"the surrounding language of the book of revelation make evident the symbolic quality of the lake of fire" (Jehovah�s Witness, Aid to Bible understanding, Lake of fire)
"so also the revelation of Jesus Christ with his powerful angels in a flaming fire will result in permanent destruction only for the wicked 2 Pe 3:5-7" (Jehovah�s Witness, Aid to Bible understanding, Fire)
"Symbolic of compete destruction . Jesus used Gehenna as a representative of utter destruction. ... the symbolic picture here" (Jehovah�s Witness, Aid to Bible understanding, Gehenna)
Annihilation vs. Eternal conscious torment
Will the Hell fire ever burn out? All Arians say YES!
H. W. Armstrong and splinter groups:
"Even so it will be with the FINAL gehenna fire. It will be unquenched--but it will finally burn itself out!"(WCG, What is hell? Ambassador BCC, Lesson 6, 1977)
Many people believe in an ... ever-burning hellfire ... But the Bible's simple teaching conveys nothing of the kind. Our God is a loving, merciful Father who does not want to consign anyone to that fate. (What Happens After Death?, United Church of God, an International Association)
This is why Jesus calls it aionios or age-lasting fire! The translation "everlasting" is misleading, since the fire itself will not burn forever. Obviously not, since God's Word clearly shows that when the present earth is purged and purified, it will be refashioned into a resplendent NEW EARTH! ... Jude 7 calls this ancient punishment "eternal fire" -- yet, the fire which devoured these cities in ancient times is not still burning in Palestine today! It burned itself out, long, long ago! ... "Unquenchable Fire" Mark 9:43 ... Does this mean the fire burns forever? Not at all. Take a match, light it and set a piece of paper on fire. Let it burn. Don't put it out, or snuff it out. Just let the paper burn, until it burns up. Soon it will burn itself out. Now, what do you have? A burned-up piece of paper. But did you put it out? Did you "quench" it? No. You left it unquenched. It was not quenched. Not at all! Even so, the final Gehenna fire will not be "quenched," or "put out." Nevertheless, in time, it will burn itself out when the wicked and all their wicked works are burned up! Any fire will go out when it runs out of fuel. That's the way the final Gehenna fire will be. In time, it will naturally burn itself out!(Heaven, Hell And The Hereafter, Triumph Prophetic Ministries (Church of God) W. F. Dankenbring)
Seventh-day Adventist:
the New Testament references to "eternal punishment" (Matt 25:46), "eternal destruction" (2 Thess 1:9), "eternal fire" (Matt 25:41; Jude 7), and "eternal judgment" (Heb 6:2), do not necessarily mean a process that goes on forever. ... The actual duration of aionos is determined by the context. For example, the fire by which the wicked are punished is said to be "eternal" (Matt 18:8; 25:41) or "unquenchable" (Matt 3:12). This can hardly mean that the wicked will be agonizing forever in the midst of unextinguishable fire. The latter is clear from Jude 7, which says that Sodom and Gomorrah suffered "a punishment of eternal fire." Here "eternal-aionou" obviously means not never-ending but complete and permanent. (SDA, Samuele Bacchiocchi, Advent Hope For Human Hopelessness)
the fire is "eternal�aionios," not because of its endless duration, but because of its complete consumption and annihilation of the wicked. (SDA, Samuele Bacchiocchi, ch 6, Hell: Eternal Torment Or Annihilation)
"the length of punishment. HOW long will the wicked continue to live and suffer in that fire? ... one thing we can say with certainty--the wicked won't live in that fire throughout eternity." (Seventh-day Adventist, Joe Crews, Amazing Facts, Hell-Fire)
Jehovah�s Witness:
"Some commentators have pointed to the Biblical instances of the word torment to support the teaching of eternal suffering in fire. However, ... Rev 20:10 does not have that sense." (Jehovah�s Witness, Aid to Bible understanding, Torment)
Annihilation vs. Eternal conscious torment
Rev 20:10 Will the Devil be tormented forever in the lake of fire?
H. W. Armstrong and splinter groups: YES (see below)
Christadelphians: NO! (The devil doesn�t exist.)
Jehovah�s Witness: NO
"those cast into the lake of fire, [devil is cast there] go into second death from which there is no resurrection" (Jehovah�s Witness, Aid to Bible understanding, Lake of fire)
"Some commentators have pointed to the Biblical instances of the word torment to support the teaching of eternal suffering in fire. However, ... Rev 20:10 does not have that sense." (Jehovah�s Witness, Aid to Bible understanding, Torment)
Seventh-day Adventist: NO
"sinners, Satan, and the devils ultimately are consumed in the lake of fire and experience the extinction of the second death" (SDA, Samuele Bacchiocchi, ch 6, Hell: Eternal Torment Or Annihilation)
Malachi 4:1 "the day is coming, burning like a furnace ... so that it will leave them neither root nor branch" No words of any language could make it more forceful or clear. This eternal fire burns up eternally. Even Satan, the root, is finally consumed. (Seventh-day Adventist, Joe Crews, Amazing Facts, Hell-Fire)
Annihilation vs. Eternal conscious torment
How can the Devil be tormented forever, if the hell fire burns out?
Exclusive to H. W. Armstrong and splinter groups:
The verse ... Rev 20:10 ... indicates that the devil is to be cast into the lake of fire that had already consumed and destroyed the beast and false prophet. Satan, being spirit, is the one who will be tormented forever. The evil angels-the demons-will be included with Satan in his torment (Matthew 25:41). (What Happens After Death?, United Church of God, an International Association)
"Satan will be cast into the same conflagration that will destroy all incorrigible mortals. Rev. 20:10 But since he is a spirit being, he will not be destroyed by the flames (see Luke 20:36) Revelation 20:10 shows Satan himself is to be TORMENTED unto the ages of the ages--"FOREVER AND EVER"! His torment will last forever. But not this fire. It will last only as long as combustible material remains to be consumed. Satan's torment, however, will continue forever as a mental anguish resulting from seeing all that he has striven toward, worked for, plotted for, burned up as the earth is purified by fire!"(WCG, What is hell? Ambassador BCC, Lesson 6, 1977)
Armstrong Refuted:
Only H. W. Armstrong and splinter groups believe the devil will be tormented forever.
One Neo-Sadducee refutes another: We are taking the unusual approach to let the Seventh-day Adventist church refute Armstrong. We agree with their comment.
"it is impossible to visualize how the devil and his angels, who are spirits could "be tormented [with fire] day and night for ever and ever" (Rev 20:10). After all, fire belongs to the material, physical world, but the devil and his angels are not physical beings. Eldon Ladd rightly points out: "How a lake of literal fire can bring everlasting torture to non-physical beings is impossible to imagine. It is obvious that this is picturesque language describing a real fact in the spiritual world: the final and everlasting destruction of the forces of evil which have plagued men since the garden of Eden." (SDA, Samuele Bacchiocchi, ch 6, Hell: Eternal Torment Or Annihilation)
Armstrong openly admitted that the devil being a spirit being, is different from men and must be tormented forever, "being as angels unable to die" they argue.
H. W. Armstrong Refuted:
How can Armstrong and splinter groups say that the Lake of Fire was designed specifically for the devil and his angels, then in reality, they are totally unaffected by it? Their eternal torment is not caused by the lake of fire, since they argue it goes out, but by mental anguish.
The argument is so completely refuted, we have designated it a knock out punch!
H. W. Armstrong Vs. H. W. Armstrong:
Term
applied to men Armstrong argues
applied to devil Armstrong argues
"Eternal fire"
Mt 18:8; Jude 7 "will burn out"
Mt 25:41 "will never burn out"
"eternal punishment"
Mt 25:46 punishment will stop
Rev 20:10 "punishment will never stop" "eternal punishing"
lake of fire (how can the lake of fire destroy flesh of men and spirit of devil in one place)
men composed of only of flesh will be cast in
devil composed only of spirit will be cast in but it will have no effect on the devil.
smoke of hell
Takes literally: "will one day be gone, invisible from the earth, like Sodom" Jude 7
Takes symbolically: "will always be visible" Rev 20:10
Annihilation vs. Eternal conscious torment
Which fits better?
"Once burnt - always burnt" or
"eternal conscious punishment"?
Annihilation
Eternal conscious punishment
The devil and his angels:
Rev 20:10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Wicked men:
Rev 14:10-11 he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."
Punishment that goes on forever!
Mt 25:46 "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
Hell is a place of darkness reserved, not annihilation
Jude 13: "for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever" "outer Darkness" Lk 13:27
Hell is banishment away from God�s presence
2 Th 1:9 And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord
Hell is banishment away from God�s presence
"there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth there when you see Abraham in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being cast out." Mt 22:13
Hell is banishment away from God�s presence
"outside are the dogs" Rev 22:15
"assign him a place with the hypocrites" Mt 24:51
Annihilation vs. Eternal conscious torment
False argument on Jude 7 debunked!
False argument:
It is argued that Sodom experienced the "punishment of eternal fire" and the fire has been out for 5000 years! This verse is said to prove that hell is an annihilation.
Jude 7
2 Pe 2:6
"Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire."
"He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter"
False argument refuted:
Annihilationists are forced to TAKE LITERALLY that hell is literal fire, brimstone, lake of fire, the garbage dump of Jerusalem (gehenna). Yet they quickly retreat from taking any of the symbols of hell literally, for they know it will cause them great problems in other areas are argumentation by which the will be refuted. See the photogallery of hell for more. In short, annihilationists will not argue that hell is literal fire, yet here they are forced to take it literal, showing the typical inconsistency of their false doctrine.
Jude is one of a large series of "examples" or "types" found in the New Testament.
Antitype
Shadow of what is to come: Col 2:17
Type
Text
Literal Incense
Symbolic incense: Prayer
Rev 5:8
Literal Candles
Symbolic candles: Christians are light
Rev 1:20
Literal Sanctuary
Symbolic sanctuary: Our bodies
1 Cor 6:19
Literal Instrumental music: Harp
Symbolic music: heart strings
Eph 5:19
Literal Priestly garments
Symbolic garments: Clothed by our deeds
Rev 19:8
Literal weekly Sabbath Day
Symbolic Sabbath day: Eternal rest in heaven
Heb 4
Sodom: Literal Fire and brimstone
Symbolic fire: Hell
Jude 7
So what happened to Sodom, is no more literal, than the Christian�s priestly garments (good deeds) or his incense (prayer). To point to Sodom and argue that is what hell literally is, is as wrong as to point to incense and argue that is what prayer literally is.
What is amazing is that Jehovah�s Witnesses, Christadelphians, Seventh-day Adventists, H. W. Armstrong all teach that the fire of hell is symbolic! This completely agrees with the truth of what Jude 7 is saying and refutes their view of annihilation. One minute they argue the fire is symbolic, then when they come to Jude 7 they argue, "see the fire is literal and it doesn�t burn any more". Such flip flopping is the trade mark of false teachers that confuses their sorry disciples.
Annihilation vs. Eternal conscious torment
Blessings in Heaven are the same duration as the punishment in hell.
Heaven and Hell are same duration
Eternal/forever
Greek
Used of heaven
Used of hell
aion
Mt 25:46 but the righteous into life eternal.
Mt 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
2 Thess 1:9 "these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord
Mt 25:41 "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels"
Jude 13 "for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever"
aionios
Lk 18:30 in the age to come, eternal life.
Rev 14:11 "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night
Rev 20:10 they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Annihilation vs. Eternal conscious torment
Matthew 10:28 refutes annihilation
False Argument:
"God will destroy both body and soul in hell."
Refutation of Argument:
Jesus used two different Greek words to describe what man does and what God will do in hell. Man can kill
Mt 10:28
Lk 15:4
Lk 15:8
"And do not fear those who kill (apokteino) the body, but are unable to kill (apokteino) the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy (apollumi) both soul and body in hell."
"What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep and has lost (apollumi) one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open pasture, and go after the one which is lost (apollumi), until he finds it?
"Or what woman, if she has ten silver coins and loses (apollumi) one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it?"
APOKTEINO
to kill
apollumi
(a) lose, (Suffer) loss, lost
(b) destroy, destroyer, destruction, destructive
The sheep, coin and soul continue to exist even though lost!
The fact that Jesus changed words in Mt 10:28, proves that there is a difference in what man can do to man and what God can do to man.
Mt 10:28
Lk 12:4-5
Man can kill the body
"And do not fear those who kill (apokteino) the body,
Lk 12:4-5 "And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill (apokteino) the body
Man cannot kill the soul. Interesting, if hell is simply being thrown into a literal fire pit or dump, then why cannot man kill the soul. Why does God's act of throwing the same man into this same place destroy the soul? According to annihilationists, once man is killed, he ceases to exist. This proves that there is a conscious part of man that survives death.
but are unable to kill (apokteino) the soul;
and after that have no more that they can do.
God too can kill the body like man
-
"But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who after He has killed (apokteino)
After the man is dead can cast into hell after judgement at the end of time. Notice that casting into hell in Luke is equated with the different Greek (apollumi) word in Matthew
but rather fear Him who is able to destroy (apollumi) both soul and body in hell."
has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!
These two verses actually refute annihilation.
Notice that Jesus uses one Greek word (apokteino) for what man can do and another Greek word (apollumi) for what God does at the end of time in hell. If the Greek words were the same, then annihilationists would have a possible argument.
Notice that Luke 12 indicates that God can kill the body, then afterward cast into hell. Hell never means the grave. According to annihilationists, a man is destroyed 100% at death. This verse proves otherwise!
The word destroy (apollumi) in Mt 10:28 doesn�t mean annihilation or a ceasing of existence.
Texts where (apollumi) is used:
Comment
Matthew 10:28 "And do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy (apollumi) both soul and body in hell.
The Greek word, as proven below, does not mean annihilation, but a continuation of existence in a lost state or ruined state.
Mark 2:22 "And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost (apollumi), and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins."
Matt 9:17: "the wine pours out (apollumi)"
The wine, didn�t cease to exist, it was simply spilt on the ground
Matthew 15:24 But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost (apollumi) sheep of the house of Israel."
The sheep that are "destroyed" or "lost" in fact represent the lost who walk the earth right now! They clearly exist!
Luke 15:4,6 "What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep and has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open pasture, and go after the one which is lost (apollumi), until he finds it?" � "And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, �Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost (apollumi)!�
The sheep still existed even though "destroyed" (apollumi)
Luke 15:8-9 "Or what woman, if she has ten silver coins and loses (apollumi) one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? And when she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, �Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin which I had lost (apollumi)!"
The coin still existed even though "destroyed" (apollumi)
Luke 15:24,32 for this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again; he was lost (apollumi), and has been found.� And they began to be merry." � "But we had to be merry and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost (apollumi) and has been found."
The son still existed even though "destroyed" (apollumi)
John 6:27 "Do not work for the food which perishes (apollumi), but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man shall give to you, for on Him the Father, even God, has set His seal."
The food goes bad and is unusable, it doesn�t cease to exist!
2 Co 4:3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing (apollumi).
Notice, like the lost sheep, the lost are perishing (lost) NOW. This is present tense! They certainty exist even though perished!
2 Thess 1:9 And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power
(the word "apollumi" is NOT USED in 2 Thess 1:9)
Although the word "apollumi" is NOT USED in this verse, notice that hell is explained as being "away from God�s presence and glory". This proves that hell is a banishment not an annihilation.
False argument refuted on Mt 10:28:
It is falsely argued by annihilationists, that in Mt 10:28 the word "apollumi" (Strongs #622) means to annihilate into non-existence because every other place this word is used in the TVM of #5658 (Tense - Aorist; Voice - Active; Mood - Infinitive) it means this. The truth is that we find most forms of the word used interchangeably. But remember they power of Mt 10:28 is that Jesus used two different words: Kill the body is all man can do, but destroy or "make lost" is what God does in Hell. Had Jesus used the same word in both instances, then annihilationists would have an argument because for them man can cause another man to cease to exist with a gun in the same way God can cause someone to cease to exist in Hell. But since two different words are used, our argument is powerful. Of course the most powerful argument we have is that only God can destroy the soul and man can only kill the body. The way annihilationists define man as a "mono-unit" of flesh alone, instead of a dichotomous combination of flesh and spirit like God, annihilationists simply cannot explain how man cannot kill the soul.
Here are the instanced in the Bible where "apollumi" is used in the TVM of #5658:
Apollumi #622 with TVM 5658 Aorist; Active; Infinitive: TO DESTROY
Mt 2:13 for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. (Strongs #622; TVM #5658)
Mt 10:28 fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Strongs #622; TVM #5658)
Mk 1:24 What do we have to do with You, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? (Strongs #622; TVM #5658)
Lk 6:9 Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it? (Strongs #622; TVM #5658)
Lk 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men�s lives, but to save them. (Strongs #622; TVM #5658)
Lk 19:47 But the chief priests and the scribes and the chief of the people sought to destroy him, (Strongs #622; TVM #5658)
Jas 4:12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy (Strongs #622; TVM #5658)
Lk. 6:9 "is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good, or to do harm, to save a life, or to destroy it?" (Strongs #622; TVM #5658)
But the difference between moods is irrelevant: Being in a state of destruction is equal to taking actions to bring someone into that state of destruction. So to say, "has lost" or "lose" or "had lost" are identical concepts as far as what the word itself means. The argument is invalid and displays a dismal understanding of simple Greek. With the same kind of Christadelphian reasoning, we could conclude that TVM 5660 only means "lost" since it is only used three times and each time it means "lost". Notice, however, that in Luke 9:25, the word LOST to denotes the equivalent to hell.
Apollumi #622 with TVM 5660 Aorist; Active; Participle: HAS LOST; LOSES
Matthew 10:39 (5660 Aorist; Active; Participle) "he who has lost his life for My sake shall find it."
Luke 15:4 (5660 Aorist; Active; Participle) "if he has a hundred sheep and has lost one of them"
Luke 9:25 (5660 Aorist; Active; Participle) "For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, and loses or forfeits himself?"
Yet we find both the Subjunctive and the Indicative mood forms of the word Apollumi using both LOST AND DESTROY. This proves the Christadelphian argument false.
Matthew 16:25 (5661 Aorist; Active; Subjunctive) "whoever loses his life for My sake shall find it."
Luke 15:8 (5661 Aorist; Active; Subjunctive) "if she has ten silver coins and loses one coin"
Mt 12:14 (5661 Aorist; Active; Subjunctive) "counseled together against Him, as to how they might destroy Him"
John 10:10 (5661 Aorist; Active; Subjunctive) "The thief comes only to steal, and kill, and destroy"
John 6:39 (5661 Aorist; Active; Subjunctive) "all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day"
Apollumi #622 with TVM 5656 Aorist; Active; Indicative: HAD LOST; DESTROYED
Matthew 22:7 (5656 Aorist; Active; Indicative) "But the king was enraged and sent his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and set their city on fire"
Luke 15:9 (5656 Aorist; Active; Indicative) "I have found the coin which I had lost!"
Luke 17:29 (5656 Aorist; Active; Indicative) "it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all"
Jude 5 (5656 Aorist; Active; Indicative) "after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe"
Here a couple of useful passages where the LXX uses the word:
Is. 43:28 - "and the rulers defiled my holy things and I have given to destroy Jacob and Israel unto a reproach." "destroy" is APOLESAI
Ezek. 30:11 - "to destroy the land" Here's something interesting - In Dan. 7:26 where the NAS has annihilated and destroyed, the LXX has AFANISAI and APOLESAI.
TVM Notes:
5656 Mood - Indicative The indicative mood is a simple statement of fact. If an action really occurs or has occurred or will occur, it will be rendered in the indicative mood. (from: Logos Library systems: TVM)
5658 Mood - Infinitive: The Greek infinitive mood in most cases corresponds to the English infinitive, which is basically the verb with "to" prefixed, as "to believe." Like the English infinitive, the Greek infinitive can be used like a noun phrase ("It is better to live than to die"), as well as to reflect purpose or result ("This was done to fulfil what the prophet said"). (from: Logos Library systems: TVM)
5660 Mood - Participle: The Greek participle corresponds for the most part to the English participle, reflecting "-ing" or "-ed" being suffixed to the basic verb form. The participle can be used either like a verb or a noun, as in English, and thus is often termed a "verbal noun.") (from: Logos Library systems: TVM)
5661 Mood - Subjunctive The subjunctive mood is the mood of possibility and potentiality. The action described may or may not occur, depending upon circumstances. Conditional sentences of the third class ("ean" + the subjunctive) are all of this type, as well as many commands following conditional purpose clauses, such as those beginning with "hina." (from: Logos Library systems: TVM)
Annihilation vs. Eternal conscious torment
The physical creation will be annihilated, not men!
All Arians view that heaven is a physical restored paradise upon the earth. They have no concept of man�s spiritual existence apart from the Gen 1:1 creation. Yet the Bible clearly teaches that the physical creation that occurred some 10,000 years ago in Gen 1:1, will be "uncreated" Just as the 103 (?) elements of the periodic table came into existence at creation, they will go into extinction at the second coming: 2 Pe 3:10. Our eternal reward is a spiritual existence in the spiritual presence of God in the realm He has always existed in before Gen 1:1.
The wicked will not be annihilated But the heaven and earth will be annihilated!
W. E. Vine: LOU (3089) to loose, is used of the future demolition of the elements or heavenly bodies, 2 Pet. 3:10, 11, 12
2 Peter 3:6,9-12 "the world at that time was destroyed (Gr: apollumi), being flooded with water. ... The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish (Gr: apollumi) but for all to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed (Gr: LOU) with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. 11 Since all these things are to be destroyed (Gr: LOU) in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed (Gr: LOU) by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!"
This text provides a powerful argument for those who view the annihilation of men and the eternal continuity of the physical creation.
Notice that 2 Pe 3 describes BOTH the "perishing (apollumi) of men" and "destruction (LOU) of creation".
Two different words are used. Notice that "apollumi" is used to destruction of men and that LOU is used to describe the annihilation of the earth!
But even better notice that the flood perished "apollumi" the earth in the time of Noah and a different Greek word is used for the annihilation "LOU" of the earth by fire!
The conclusion is that "apollumi" describes not the annihilation, but "making lost" both men in hell and the earth at the Noaic flood and "LOU" describes the annihilation of the earth at the second coming!
Annihilation vs. Eternal conscious torment
Heaven and hell are described in word pictures that are not to be taken literally
see the photo gallery of heaven and hell
Heaven & Hell Are Spiritual not physical
Heaven is "not of this creation": Hebrews 9:11,24
God�s future kingdom is "not of this world or realm": John 18:36
Physical universe will be destroyed: 2 Peter 3:10; Revelation 20:11
"Things seen are temporary, but things not seen are eternal": 2 Cor 4:18
"The first things have passed away": Revelation 21:4
Created things will be removed: Hebrews 12:25-27
No longer any sea, night, sun or moon: Revelation 21:1,23; 22:5
Heaven is in the very presence of the Father: John 13:36-14:6
We hope to "enter within the veil" where God dwells: Heb 6:19-20;10:19-20
We are earthbound guests with a heavenly destination: 1 Pe 1:17; Heb 13:14
Annihilation vs. Eternal conscious torment
Misused Proof Texts exposed
Various other annihilation proof texts debunked:
Psalm 37:19-22 They will not be ashamed in the time of evil; And in the days of famine they will have abundance. But the wicked will perish; And the enemies of the Lord will be like the glory of the pastures, They vanish�like smoke they vanish away. The wicked borrows and does not pay back, But the righteous is gracious and gives. For those blessed by Him will inherit the land; But those cursed by Him will be cut off.
This Psalm isn�t talking about eternal rewards and punishments at all. Rather is speaking about life on earth right now. Notice the context: "And in the days of famine they [righteous] will have abundance ... yet the wicked vanish like smoke" This vanishing takes place before resurrection. Are Annihilationists prepared to deny that the wicked are even raised? (Only a few isolated Christadelphian splinter groups would argue that the wicked dead are not raised! But then they must deal with Acts 24:15, "there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked." Neo-Sadduceeism is always full of contradictions with scripture wherever it turns!)
Malachi 4:1-3 "For behold, the day is coming, burning like a furnace; and all the arrogant and every evildoer will be chaff; and the day that is coming will set them ablaze," says the Lord of hosts, "so that it will leave them neither root nor branch." "But for you who fear My name the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings; and you will go forth and skip about like calves from the stall. "And you will tread down the wicked, for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day which I am preparing," says the Lord of hosts.
This speaking of the time when Jesus would come. Notice v4 that Elijah (John the baptist) would come at the same time. It is not speaking of the final judgement. It also employs the same kind of word pictures typical of heaven and hell. This verse is no more literal than the imagery of Gehenna!
Annihilation vs. Eternal conscious torment
Word Studies!
Studies of words that annihilationists misuse to teach extinction:
These words do not teach annihilation!
"The annihilationists assemble a multitude of texts which in reality are either taken out of context or based on the false assumption that such words as �perish� automatically and necessarily always mean annihilation." (Death and The Afterlife, Robert Morey, Dualist, p. 119- 120)
destroy
perish
consumed
devoured
1. "Destroy": For example, in the Old Testament, the word ahvad is the word which is usually translated as "destroy." In Num. 21:29, the people of Chemosh were "undone" ("destroyed" in NIV). In the context, the meaning of ahvad is that the people were conquered and sold into slavery. They were not annihilated but enslaved. In 1 Sa. 9:3, 20, Saul's asses were ahvad, i.e., lost. These asses were not annihilated, but lost. In Psalms 31:12, an ahvad vessel is merely broken, not annihilated. In Hab. 1:15, the word Gah rar means to catch something in a net, not to annihilate it. Dah chah in Isa. 53:10 is translated, " It pleased the Lord to bruise him.". Here it refers to Christ's sufferings, not to nonexistence. In Hosea 4:6, God's people are "destroyed" for lack of knowledge. In the context, this cannot mean that they were nonexistent. The same can be pointed out in the case of hoom (Ps. 55:2) and ghah ram (Josh. 6:8; Mic. 4:13). In the Greek, apollumi is used to describe ruined wineskins, lost sheep, and spoiled food (Matt. 9:17; 15:24; John 6:27). Apolia in Mark 14:4 refers to wasted perfume. Diapthero refers to moth-eaten cloth in Luke 12:33 katheiresis to the pulling down of a fortress (2 Cor. 10:4) kataluo refers to lodging for the night (Luke 9:12) kataryco to a fig tree which "encumbered the ground" (Luke 13:7); luo refers to putting off one's shoes (Acts 7:33); portheo refers to persecuting the church in Gal. 1:13; phthiro refers to defiling the temple of God in 1 Cor. 3:17. The assumption that the words "destroy" and "destruction" automatically mean annihilation is not good English, much less good Hebrew or Greek. We can think of someone being "destroyed" or "wiped out" in an emotional sense without implying that the person has ceased to exist. ("Death and The Afterlife" by Robert Morey, p. 108-111)
2. "Perish" or "perished." In various forms the word "perish" appears 152 times in the KJV. In the Old Testament, there are 11 Hebrew words which are translated as "perish." The main word ahvad is the same word which is frequently translated as "destroy." We have already seen that it is erroneous to assume that ahvad means annihilation. Sha mad is found in Jer. 48:42 where Moab is said to be destroyed in the sense of the people being enslaved, not annihilated. Shah rhath is used of ruined girdles and vessels in Jer. 13:7; 18:4; kah rath is used of cutting a covenant or cutting timber to build the temple in Gen. 15:18; 1 Kings 5:6; eah vag. nah phal, and gah var are used to describe a miserable emotional state (Ps. 42:7; 55:4, 88:15,16). In the New Testament, there are ten different Greek words which are translated "perish." Some of these words such as apollumi were also translated as destroy and do not mean annihilation. Apothneesko is used in John 12:24 to describe the grain of wheat which when planted "dies" and then sprouts. Obviously, it cannot mean annihilation. Aphanrzo refers to things which moths and rust can "corrupt" (Matt. 6:19,20). Kataphthiro is used to describe "corrupt" minds in 2 Tim. 3:8 (KJV). Even in English we speak of fruit as "perishable" in the sense that it can spoil. Burned out light bulbs have "perished." In neither case is annihilation intended. ("Death and The Afterlife" by Robert Morey, p. 108-111)
3. "Consume" or "consumed.": Forms of these words appear in the KJV 162 times. In the Old Testament, 20 different Hebrew words are translated as "consume." The usual word, ah chal is also used in Ps. 78:45 where the psalmist says that the flies "devoured" or consumed the Egyptians. The psalmist surely means that the flies tormented them, not annihilated them. Jeremiah used another word, bah lah, in Lam. 3:4, saying that his flesh and skin were "made old," or consumed, i.e., he was consumed with grief, not annihilated. Kah lah is used in Ezek. 13:13 where hailstones "consumed" a wall, i.e., knocked it down, not annihilated it. Dah gach is the normal word for putting out a fire. When we "put out a candle," we do not annihilate the candle. Even in English we speak of people being consumed with "grief, greed or lust," yet we do not mean that the person has ceased to exist. We have demonstrated that the annihilationists are in error when they arbitrarily assume and then assert that such words as "perish" necessarily mean annihilation. Once this point is granted, one is no longer impressed by such works as Froom where hundreds of quotes from biblical and extra-biblical literature are given to prove conditionalism simply upon the erroneous assumption that the mere presence of such words in the text means that the authors believed in annihilationism. ("Death and The Afterlife" by Robert Morey, p. 108-111)
Annihilation vs. Eternal conscious torment
Is eternal conscious torment a pagan false doctrine and a Jewish fable?
Here we document that annihilationists all accept that the view we have proven true, namely eternal conscious torment, was widely believed in the ancient world. They argue that Jesus borrowed from these false pagan doctrines in his teaching on hell. We reject this, as it would mean that Jesus promoted false doctrine. As the spiritual eyes into the spirit world, we believe that Jesus� teaching on eternal conscious torment is not untrue, simply because other cultures had similar views!
Introductory comment:
To think that Christ was ignorant of what Gehenna meant to the common people of His day or to assume that He was mistaken in using the rabbinic descriptions of Gehenna is to do great injustice to Him who was the greatest teacher who ever lived. Indeed, the mere fact that Christ utilized the rabbinic language connected with Gehenna, such as "unquenchable fire" and "never- dying worms," demonstrates beyond all doubt to any reasonable person that he deliberately used the word Gehenna to impress upon his hearers that eternal punishment awaits the wicked after the resurrection. No other conclusion is possible.
The greatest problem that Annihilationists face when examining the intertestamental (between the Old & New Testaments) literature, is that the doctrines of the existence of the soul after death and eternal punishing are often manifest, with no "introduction" as would be required by a "new teaching." The Annihilationist view is that between the Old and New Testaments, Platonic philosophy infiltrated true Bible doctrine and entirely new concepts were introduced to replace the old beliefs about the soul and punishment. Yet, strangely lacking are any evidences of controversy in this area of belief. The Annihilationist answer to that would be that there was evidence of a difference of belief in the intertestamental writings. But since they can produce no actual apologetic or actual conflict from the historical records, they must argue from the silence of some intertestamental writers, who may discuss the future of the righteous without mentioning the wicked. Sometimes, as in the case of Fudge's and the Adventist Froom's quoting from Tobit, where it says that the unrighteous shall cease from all the earth, they claim that that proves the writer did not believe in eternal punishing. That is indeed a poor argument.
Robert Morey, Dualist, comments:
First, Gehenna is the place of judgement (Matt. 23:33). He even used the rabbinic expression, "the judgement of Gehenna" (Bab. Tal. ER126).
Second, Gehenna is always placed at the end of the world after the resurrection (Matt. 5:22; 23:33). This was expounded by John in Rev. 20:1-15. This was also the rabbinic position (Mid. Gen. 159).
Third, Gehenna is the place where the body as well as the soul is punished (Matt. 5:22; 10:28; Mark 9:43-48). The rabbis saw that the resurrection of the wicked was necessary in order for them to receive their full punishment in the body (Mid. Gen. 159; 211n4).
Fourth, Gehenna was the place of conscious torment. When Christ used the phrases "unquenchable fire" and "never-dying worms" (Mark 9:47,48, author's paraphrase), He was utilizing biblical (Isa 66:24), apocryphal (Judith XVI:17), and talmudic (Mid. Gen. 214) images which all meant conscious suffering. The annihilationists have a counter argument at this point. They point out that, literally speaking, while the worms and the fire in a city dump may destroy a dead carcass, it cannot be said that the dead carcass feels any torment. Therefore, they conclude that Christ's language must be interpreted to mean that the wicked will be annihilated, not tormented. The problem with this interpretation is that it fails to take into account that when Christ spoke of Gehenna in such terms as "worms and fire," He was clearly using rabbinic phraseology. Thus, it is more crucial to discover how these words were understood in rabbinic literature than by pointing to modern city dumps. The intertestamental literature is clear that the Jews believed that the departed could feel what was happening to their dead body. Indeed, when the worms start gnawing on the body, "the worms are as painful to the dead as a needle in the flesh of the living" (Bab. Tal. Shah. 777,778). Since the "gnawing worms" clearly meant conscious torment in rabbinic thought, the annihilationist's argument is invalid due to their ignorance of the meaning of such rabbinic terminology. That Judith XVI:17 also teaches conscious torment is clear.
Fifth, the wicked are cast into Gehenna and will remain there for all eternity (Matt. 5:29,30). In Gehenna, the wicked are "destroyed" (Matt. 10:28). That the word "destroyed" (apollumi) does not mean "to annihilate" or "to pass into nonexistence" is clear from the rabbinic meaning of the word, the lexicographical significance of the word, and the way the word is used in the New Testament. Thaver's Greek-English Lexicon defines apollumi as "to be delivered up to eternal misery" (p.36). Since Thayer himself was a Unitarian who did not believe in eternal punishment, his definition could only be the result of his knowledge of the meaning of his Greek word. There is no lexicographical evidence for the annihilationist's position that apollumi means "to annihilate" or "to pass into nonexistence." (Death and The Afterlife, Robert Morey, Dualist, p. 89, 90)
Edward W. Fudge, Annihilationist
Between the Testaments a tendency arose in Jewish literature to relate visions of last things to names and persons from the Old Testament. Armageddon, Jerusalem and the Garden of Eden all became stylized descriptions of things to come. So did the Valley of Hinnom-gehenna. The thought of Gehenna as a place of eschatological punishment appears in intertestamental literature shortly before 100 B.C., though the actual place is unnamed. It becomes "this accursed valley" (l En. 27:2, 3), the "station of vengeance" and "future torment" (2 Bar. 59:10, ll), the "pit of destruction" (Pirke Aboth 5:19), the "furnace of Gehenna" and "pit of torment" (4 Esd. 7:36). (The Fire That Consumes, Edward W. Fudge, Annihilationist, p. 161)
The Babylonian Talmud had the worst Jewish sinners sentenced to Gehenna for 12 months. Then "their bodies are destroyed, their souls are burned, and the wind strews the ashes under the feet of the pious." All who enter Gehenna come out, with three exceptions: those who committed adultery or shamed their neighbors or vilified them. In the end, God would take the sun from its case, and it would heal the pious and punish the sinners. There would be no Gehenna in the future world. ["Ge-hinnom," The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 5, cols. 581-583] Some rabbis were sympathetic; others were harsh. One can find quotes of torment by snow, smoke, thirst and rebellious animals. Others speak of the righteous observing the torments of the damned, "tossing in their pain like the pieces of boiling meat in a cauldron." Still others, more benevolent, said light flooded even Gehenna each Sabbath, and the wicked, too, had a day of rest. On the duration of the punishment, the rabbis contradicted each other. Some believed that the pain would continue forever with or without Gehenna, while others ended punishment with the last judgement. Whether this last view allowed a future life for the wicked or looked for their total annihilation cannot be determined conclusively.
The idea that God is an angry figure who sends those He condemns to a place called Hell, where they spend eternity in torment separated from His presence, is missing from the Bible and unknown in the early church. While Heaven and Hell are decidedly real, they are experiential conditions rather than physical places, and both exist in the presence of God. In fact, nothing exists outside the presence of God.
This is not the way traditional Western Christianity, Roman Catholic or Protestant, has envisioned the afterlife. In Western thought Hell is a location, a place where God punishes the wicked, where they are cut off from God and the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet this concept occurs nowhere in the Bible, and does not exist in the original languages of the Bible.
While there is no question that according to the scriptures there is torment and "gnashing of teeth" for the wicked, and glorification for the righteous, and that this judgment comes from God, these destinies are not separate destinations. The Bible indicates that everyone comes before God in the next life, and it is because of being in God's presence that they either suffer eternally, or experience eternal joy. In other words, both the joy of heaven, and the torment of judgment, is caused by being eternally in the presence of the Almighty, the perfect and unchanging God.
This is not a new interpretation or a secret truth. It has been there all along, held by the Church from the beginning, revealed in the languages of the Scriptures, which were spoken by the Christians of the early church era. This understanding was held by nearly all Christians everywhere for the first 1000 years of the Church's existence, and, except where influence by western theologies, continued to be held by Christians beyond Western Europe and America even up to this day (including the roughly 350 million Orthodox Christians worldwide).
When you examine in context the source words which are translated as "hell" in English language Bibles the original understanding becomes clear. You will find that "hell" is translated from four different Greek and Hebrew words. These words are not interchangeable in the original language, yet, incredibly, in English-language bibles these words are translated differently in different places to fit the translators' theology (rather than allow the words of scripture to determine their theology). Not only did English translators dump these four very different words into one meaning, they were not even consistent with it and chose to translate these same words with different meanings in different places. It is no wonder that English readers of the Bible are confused.
If one examines what the early Church Fathers wrote about "hell" and the afterlife, it will be seen that they too understood that there is no place called hell, and that both paradise and torment came from being in God's presence in the afterlife.
When you examine what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and what most Protestants believe about the afterlife, and compare that with the scriptures and early Church beliefs, you find large disparities. You will also find their innovative doctrines were not drawn from the Bible or historic Church doctrine, but rather from the mythology of the Middle Ages, juridical concepts, and enlightenment rationalizations, all alien to early Christian thought.
The Afterlife According to the Hebrew Scriptures
Sheol is one word sometimes translated as "Hell" in the Old Testament. In Hebrew, this word is a proper noun, that is a name or title, so properly it should not have been translated but simply transliterated, as is done with other names. The literal meaning of this Hebrew word is simply "subterranean retreat". Sheol was not understood as a physical place since it exists in the spirit world, but it is a spiritual "place" associated with dead people. It was understood that when a person dies, their body is buried, and their soul goes to reside in Sheol. That is the fate for all people who die, both the righteous and the wicked. According to Hebrew scholars, anything more detailed is conjecture and speculation.
Sheol was translated as "hell" in a number of places where it was indicating a place for the wicked, which is consistent with western thought. But it was also translated as "grave" and as "pit" in a number of other places where it was clearly not a place of the wicked. Yet there are other Hebrew words for grave and pit, so why did it not occur to the translators that if the author wanted to mean pit or grave they would have used them? It can been seen that where Sheol fit the translators' idea of hell as a place of torment, they interpreted it one way, as hell, and simply used the word another way if it did not, confusing those who are trying to understand the Scriptures in translation.
In historic Jewish understanding, it is the perception of the individual in Sheol that makes the difference. This same "place" called Sheol is experienced by the righteous as "gen eiden", the Garden of Eden or Paradise, i.e. "heaven". Moreover, Sheol is experienced by the wicked as the "fires of gehennom", i.e. punishment or "hell".
What is it that causes this same place to be experienced differently by the righteous and the wicked? According to the Jews (and by inheritance, the Christians as well) it is the very presence of God. Since God fills all things and dwells everywhere in the spirit world, there is nowhere apart from Him. Moreover, evil sinners, the enemies of God, experience His presence, His Shechinah glory, as punishment. Yet the righteous bask in that same glory, and experience it as the love and joy of God, as Paradise.
Consider Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who refused to worship the idol in Babylon (Daniel 3). They were thrown by King Nebuchadnezzer into the "fiery furnace" which was heated "seven times more". The significance of "seven" is a number symbolic of the "furnace" of Heaven, the place where God dwells. The three Jews were unharmed by the fire where one "like the Son of God" was among them. However, the same flames of fire killed the king's "most mighty" soldiers. This is an analogy to how the presence of God is light and warmth to those who love him, and pain and destruction to those who oppose him, yet it is the same "fire."
It's also useful to consider the ancient Greco-Roman pagan understanding of the heavens and Hades. Though it was not fundamental to Hebrew theology, the Greek view was still sometimes referenced or borrowed, because these ideas were familiar and prevalent in the culture.
The ancient pagan Greek view, later adopted by the Romans, was that heaven was a physical place up in the sky. The word for heaven is used interchangeably with the location of the objects of the sky, as in "heavenly bodies", and for the dwelling place of the gods. That is why the Greek word for heaven and sky is the same; there was no distinction made between them in the earliest writings, but eventually they were also understood to be more as a metaphor for the spiritual heaven.
For the ancient pagan Greeks, Hades was a place, but was sometimes also personified in folk mythology. The physical place was where all humans go when they die, a site located at the center of the earth. Like Sheol, it was the final abode of all humans, but unlike Sheol, it was taken to be a geographic site, the literal "underworld" in folk mythology. It was also taken as a metaphor for the place of final rest. Hades was also sometimes taken as the name of the ruler of this place, the pagan god Hades, also known as Pluton by the Romans.
In Greco-Roman mythology Heaven was reserved only for the gods, and after death mere mortals could only hope to find a safe place in Hades to spend eternity. The early Greco-Roman Hades was a very literal and even primitive concept, compared to the Jews' more spiritual Sheol. If a person was dead, they were in Hades, and there was no other option; only a very rare few heroes challenged the gods of the heavens and were immortalized in the stars.
The pre-Christian Greek language had thus developed in this kind of world view, both heaven and Hades as a physical and literal existence up in the sky, or down under the ground. Although these later became more metaphorical in more developed pagan writings, from this is where the universal concept of "up" for heaven or Paradise, and "down" for the place of the dead came. It is used metaphorically by both the Jews and pagans to describe mankind's relationship with God, and so became a universal cultural concept. This is why there are so many Biblical references to God being "up" in heaven, and Sheol being "down" in the "under parts of the earth". However, neither the Jews nor the early Christians took these ideas literally as the ancient Greeks and Romans may have, but understood "up" and "down" as spiritual rather than physical realities.
For the Jews and early Christians, even Sheol was not separated from God. Translating directly from the Greek of the Septuagint Palms 139:7 and 8 "Where can I go away from your spirit? And away from your presence, where can I flee? If I go up into heaven, you are there. If I go down into Hades, there is your presence."
When Jewish scholars translated their scriptures into Greek in the third century BC, they used the Greek word Hades interchangeably for the Hebrew Sheol in the Septuagint. Strictly speaking, the pagan understanding was very different, but Jewish scholars adapted "Hades" for their use. It is one of many examples of changed, allegorical, or metaphorical non-Hebrew words used in the Bible borrowed from Greek pagan mythology. In the New Testament, Hades is used in a number of places as the Greek equivalent to Sheol as well.
In the Hebrew Scriptures, or Old Testament, Sheol is translated 31 times as Hell in the King James Bible, and similarly in the Revised Standard and NRSV. In a number of other places it is translated as "grave" or "pit" and once even as "dust". It appears the translators did not have a very consistent understanding as to what Sheol means, translating the same word differently in different places. The idea of "Hell" as a physical place of torment, apart from the presence of God, had already taken root, and the translation fit the preconception rather than the original meaning of the word.
Gehennah is another word translated as "hell". It was known to the Jews as a physical place, a valley outside to the south of Jerusalem. It literally means in Hebrew "valley of the sons of Hennah". Here child sacrifices were once made to the pagan god Molech. Gehennah is mentioned in 2 Chronicles 28:3 and 33:6, and Jeremiah 7:31, 19:2-6, and appears in many traditional extra-Biblical Jewish writings. After this area came under Jewish control a memorial fire was kept burning there. Later it became a dumping place for refuse, dead animals, and eventually prisoners' bodies, or the bodies of the poor that were not claimed by any family. Trash fires were kept continually burning there for sanitary reasons. It was like many landfills: a smoky, foul-smelling place with carrion-eating birds circling overhead.
By the time of Jesus this place became a well known metaphor for the fate of those condemned and judged by God. Expressions like "the fiery pit" or the "fires of Gehennah" were equivalent to the unrighteous' experience of God's presence. Gehennah was the place where evil and sinful people ended up. In Jewish mystical writings it was believed that this place is where the final destruction of the wicked would occur at Messiah's arrival. Because this is when the resurrection would occur, all the evil lawbreakers would be resurrected and standing in Gehennah when God reclaims the earth. In the final battle, God's enemies, the evil ones, would be burned up, "As wax melts before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God" as it says in Psalm 68. Jesus affirmed and clarified this teaching and Christians now believe this will occur on Messiah's return.
This experience of Gehennah was used as an analogy to express what happens to those who oppose the God of the Jews. Yet even it was not a place God "sends" people. The fire itself was understood to be how the wicked experienced the Shechinah glory of God, as a burning judgment fire.
Therefore, usage of this word is interchangeable with "judgment", and quite different than Sheol. To be forgiven of your offenses was to be rescued from "the fiery pit", or rescued from judgment. You would still go to Sheol until the resurrection, but in glory rather than in torment.
Notice however that in English, the translators rendered Gehennah as the "valley the sons of Hennah" in some places in the scriptures and in other places as "hell," rather than just making a direct translation of the words wherever it appears. This confuses the reader, who could get a more consistent understanding of the meaning of the word if it was rendered accurately as "Gehennah" every time, or more properly as "the Valley of the Sons of Hennah".
There are numerous references to God's presence being like fire in the Hebrew Scriptures. In addition, before the invention of the electric light, any reference to "light" meant "fire" in one form or another. For example, "The Lord thy God is a consuming fire" (Numbers); God "�appeared to [Moses] in a flame of fire out of the midst of the bush," (Exodus); "The fire of the Lord burns among them" (Numbers); "the Lord descends upon it in fire" (Exodus); "You have refined us as silver in a fire" (Psalms); and "Who makes His angels spirits, His ministers a flame of fire" (Psalms). These are a few of the many Old Testament references to God being perceived as fire; it was how the Jews understood humans experience God's Shechinah glory.
No human could bear to look at the blazing holy presence of God: not Moses, who hid his face, not Abraham, not Adam or Eve after they fell from Grace. No human could look at the face of God and live to tell about it.
God is described as fire in the following verses; Gen 19:24, Ex 3:2, 9:23, 13;21-22, 19:18, Num 11:1-3, 4:24, Ne 9:12, Ps 66:10, 104:4, Is 66:15, among others places.
Another interesting word study to examine is the Hebrew words used in the Old Testament when describing how God "punishes" people in the English bibles. Ten different Hebrew words are translated as "punish" in this context, yet none carries our meaning of punishment in English. The most common word "paqad" rendered 31 times as punish, simply means "to visit" or "to remember." The word "anash" [used 5 times] simply means "to urge" or "compel", "chasak" [occurs 3 times] means to restrain, "avown" [used 12 times] means sin. This also implies the cost or penalty for being evil or causing offence. One interesting word translated as punish, "yakar" means to chastise, but also means "to add value" as in chastising a child makes him more valuable. There are a few others words rendered as punish, but they occur only once each. As can be seen, none of these words clearly indicates that God does the punishing. Apparently for the translators, every time God visits or remembers His people, he is "punishing" them, but that is not how Jews understand this word. Nor would Jews automatically assume that a visit from God was a bad thing, either.
This kind of translation seems attributable to a presupposition of what these words mean, and intrinsically changes the meanings of these words from the original intent. The translators' own incorrect ideas have clouded their objectivity, an all-too-frequent occurrence with virtually all western language Bibles.
The Afterlife According to the New Testament
Jesus and the Apostles were all Jews of course, as were nearly all the members of the first Christian Church. The first Christians saw themselves as inheritors of the covenant of Abraham, and the early Church of course had no New Testament, so they naturally understood the afterlife in the terms of the Old Testament. The Gospels and all of the epistles affirm this understanding as well, when read in the original Greek.
In the Gospel story of Lazarus and the Rich Man, Jesus clearly states that they both end up in the same place, in Hades. Hades of course is used to mean the same thing as Hebrew "Sheol," it simply means the place everyone goes when they die. In Hades they can see each other and talk to each other, although they are far off from each other. "And in Hades, he lifts up his eyes, being in torment, and sees Abraham far off, and Lazarus in his bosom." [Luke 16:23]. All of them are in Ha rus received bad things, but now he is comforted, and you are in pain". See how he contrasts "but now" (in death), one is comforted, the other in torment. Neither does it says that God is punishing him, he is simply "in pain" while there. They were separated by a large gulf, but it is clearly spiritual and not physical, since they are not in the physical world, for neither would the Rich Man have a physical tongue to cool with physical water from Lazarus' physical finger. So it is a gulf that exists in the heart, a spiritual gulf that causes us to experience God's loving presence as paradise or torment. A gulf that was not placed there by God, but rather created by the choices and actions of the sinner.
Hades is translated as hell ten times in the New Testament, but it is also translated as "grave" in 1 Cor 15:55, another point of inconsistency.
In Revelation Chapter 20, it states that Death and Hades gave up their dead, and Death and Hades are placed in the lake of fire when God reclaims the world. If the ones in Hades were judged and will be in torment for eternity "far from the Lord" as so many think, why would these same ones be released from Hades when God returns? It is because all who have died reside in "Death and Hades" until that moment, when Death and Hades can no longer exist because God is present. The "lake of fire and brimstone" into which Death and Hades is placed, in the Greek would be grammatically correct to translate as the "lake of fire and divinity", or even "the lake of divine fire". When Death and Hades is placed in the fiery presence of God, in the "lake of divine fire", it is destroyed, because it is in the very presence of God, death can not exist when God is present.
It is interesting to examine the Greek word for "divine", it is from the Greek "theion", which could also mean "divine being", but also means "sulfur', or in Old English "brimstone" [lit. 'burning stone']. As strange as that sounds to us, it is because of the ancient understanding of the cosmic order of the nature of all things. All people in all cultures from the Near East to the West understood that there were four 'elements', these were: Earth, Air, Fire, and Water. Their nature was that Earth and Water tended to go down toward Hades, and Air and Fire tended to go up toward heaven. This could plainly be seen when the heavenly fire, lighting, would hit a living tree and burn the "life" out of it. Anyone could see that the heat from the tree would go back to heaven in the fire, and the ash that remained would go down into the ground. But there was this mysterious yellowish earth substance that behaved very differently, when placed in a fire it burn so brightly that your eyes could not bear to look at it. As it burned, it would release the heavenly substance that was trapped inside and it would rise back to heaven. Clearly, this "burning stone" was a divine substance, and as such, it was simply called "divinity. It was burned within a new temple to "purify" it before consecration, presumably when this burning stone released it's divinity, it causes all evil things to flee from the temple, and thus was the temple readied for worship.
Yet the word 'theion' is translated as "brimstone" or "sulfur" in Luke 17:29, Rev. 9:17, 14:10, 20:10, 21:8, which is where 'fire and brimstone' comes out of heaven, but it is equally interchange with the words "divine fire". Since this did not fit the translators' preconceived ideas, it is rendered always as brimstone in this context.
Elsewhere in Revelation it states that the "heat comes out of heaven" and burns the enemies of God, yet does not harm the ones with God's seal on their foreheads. So the same heat, the heat that is the very life and light that comes from God, burns the sinners, and does not harm the ones that love God.
Again, in many places God's presence and appearance is described as fire in the New Testament as well as in the Old. Examine for example, Matt 31:10-12, 25:41, Mark 9:49, Luke 12:49, Act 7:30, 1Cor 3:15, Heb 1:7, 12:29, Rev 3:18 and in numerous other places.
Typical is the verse where John the Baptist says "I baptize you with water, but the One that comes after me will baptize you with fire". The author of Hebrews writes that God is a consuming fire. Paul also writes that God is like the jeweler who burns gold in the fire to purify it. Jesus Himself states the he brings "fire" to the earth. That is, "divine fire".
Everywhere in the New Testament when humans come face to face with the Transfigured Jesus they cannot look at Him: Peter, James and John on Mt. Tabor, Paul on the road to Damascus-- humans hid their face and fell down in fear and trembling when confronted with the revelation of Jesus as Almighty God. Old Testament figures did the same, but now, in the New Testament, it is revealed that this "holy" fire is present when Jesus reveals his nature. This is because Jesus is the incarnate God of the Old Testament.
A couple of these descriptions of the fire of God's presence are worth examining closely. Paul writes in 1 Cor 3:13 "Every man's work shall be made manifest�because it shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is." In Mark 9:49 Jesus says "For everyone will be salted with fire" (interestingly, in Greek this sentence has the grammatical structure of an obvious statement of fact, similar to "for [everyone knows that] everyone will be salted with fire"). Peter repeats this idea in 2Peter 3:7 "but now, by the same Word [that is Jesus], heaven and earth are saved and kept for fire on the day of judgment, and the destruction of impious men."
So clearly everyone experiences this fire caused by the presence of God. The Bible tells us there is no place apart from God, that he is everywhere and fills all things, so how can He create a place apart from Him? Moreover, why would He create a place just to punish the ones He says He loves unconditionally? That is not the nature of a loving God.
Since God is everywhere and fills all things, in the spirit world there is nowhere to escape from God even if you wanted to [Ps 139:7-8].
Translating 2 Thess 1:7-8 from the Greek literally, St. Paul tells the persecuted Thessalonians that they will "get relief at the revelation of the Lord Jesus coming out from heaven with His powerful angels in flames of fire". Yet this same presence of Jesus causes the ones persecuting them to "�be punished with everlasting destruction BECAUSE OF [Gr. "apo"] the presence of the Lord, and BECAUSE OF his mighty glory" (2 Thess 1:9). Further on Paul writes in 2Thess 2:8 that "the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus will destroy by the breath [or "spirit"] of his mouth and make ineffective by the fantastic appearance of his presence". So the mere presence of Jesus makes the "lawless one" ineffective, yet gives relief and comfort to the Thessalonians.
Unfortunately many English translations insert a word that is not there in the Greek in verse 1:9, adding the idea that the wicked will be "separated" or "cut off" from the Lord's presence. This is a totally different meaning, and if Paul had wanted to say this he would have used the word "schizo," which is where we get the word for "scissors" and "schizophrenia" [lit. divided-mind]. The Greek word "apo" that Paul uses here is a preposition that indicates cause or direction: "because of," "out of," "caused by," "from," etc. The word "apo" appears 442 times in the New Testament, and it is NEVER used to indicate separation, location or position. For example "Apostles" in Greek "apo-stolon" literally means "those sent out from the fleet." The word "Apocalypse" literally means "out from cover," i.e. to reveal, hence the Book of Revelation. Also interesting is the word "apostate" which in Greek literally means "out from standing". If you where once in a condition to stand in God's presence, then "fell" away, you would not be able to stand any longer; you would be "out from standing," cowering and trying to hide from His presence.
The history of the English word "hell" is also revealing. The Old English word from which hell is derived is "helan", which means to hide or cover, and is a verb. So at one time the English church understood that to be judged a sinner meant one would cower and want to hide in fear when in God's presence. Unfortunately, because of the political expedience of controlling an often rebellious population, corrupt rules in the West, in collusion with corrupt clergy, and adopting ideas from non-Biblical yet popular fantasy novels such as Dante's Inferno, corrupted the use of this word during the middle ages. Eventually turning a verb into a noun by popular usage, even if theologically insupportable from the Bible.
It is tragic that modern translators would insert the word "far from" or "cut off from" into 2 Thess 1:9, apparently because they had a preconception about what Paul was trying to say so they altered the text to fit. They added this little "clarifying" word that is not in the Greek text at all, changing the meaning and inserting their own ideas. If your preconceived idea is that Hell is a "place" that an angry God sends people away from his presence, in order to punish and hurt them, you would expect and look for ways that Scripture would support your idea.
Clearly, when you read the Bible in the original languages you learn that there is no place apart from God, and there is no place that God put you to punish you. What scripture reveals is that all eventually will be in the fiery presence of the Lord, and this presence will be either "eternal torment" or "comfort and glory". Judgment and paradise both come from being in God's presence.
Another word translated incorrectly as Hell appears in 2 Peter 2:4. Saint Peter is warning about the swift destruction of false prophets and false teachers. In the Greek grammar he uses an obvious statement of fact by stating "For if God did not spare the sinning angels, but rather places them down in Tartarus, reserved for [a future] judgment�..the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of trials, and to reserve the unjust until the day of judgment." [2:9].
The word Tartarus is also a proper noun, that is a name of a place, and accordingly should not be changed into a different word, and certainly not the same word that used for Hades and Gehennah.
Tartarus originally came from Greek mythology and popular folk tales. It is the name of a prison in Hades that Zeus, after triumphing over the Titans, placed them, bound in chains to hold them for future punishment for crimes against humans. It was metaphorically seen as the place where justice was metered out in the spirit world, and this metaphor often found it's way into Jewish apocryphal writings about the end times. Saint Peter borrows this term and uses it in exactly the same way as it was used in popular contemporary writings by both Greeks and Jews; it is a place where "sinning angels" are bound and imprisoned, awaiting a future punishment. They are bound by God to prevent them from doing further harm, and they are judged for crimes against humanity. This image is seen in the ancient icon of the Resurrection, metaphorically depicted are "dark" angels, or demons, being bound in chains under the feet of the resurrected Christ, who broke the bonds of death and rendered powerless the "sinning angels". Remember from 2 Thessalonians, where Saint Paul writes that the power of the presence of Christ made the "lawless One" powerless, and gave comfort to the Christians, which is exactly the same idea that Saint Peter is writing about in 2 Peter 2:4 through 9.
Again the translators made an improper interpretation of this passage because of preconceived ideas about the afterlife, changing the meaning and only adding to the confusion for English speaking Christians.
Also totally absent from the scriptures is any hint that demons are tormenting sinners. This again comes from Dante's Inferno and other pagan concepts, not from the Bible. Because any "sinning angels" in the presence of God, are also in torment, and their power is made ineffective.
The Afterlife According to the Church Fathers
After the Gospels and Epistles were composed, in the centuries before Christians decided exactly which books would be in the New Testament, many gifted believers wrote books of commentary, sermons, apologetics, and stories of martyrdom. These eloquent early Christian writers confirm the Biblical view of the afterlife and add some clarifying details.
St. Ignatious of Antioch, in the late first and early second century, describe God as the furnace that a craftsman uses to temper a sword. When a properly prepared sword is placed within the fire, it makes it stronger and the sword takes on the properties of the fire, it gives off heat and light. However, this same fire will melt and destroy a sword that was not properly prepared.
St. Isaac the Syrian in the sixth century writes "Paradise is the love of God" and he also writes "...those who are punished in Gehannah, are scourged by the scourge of love". So the "fire" is the love of God, and we experience His love as either divine love, or as painful "scourge".
St. Basil the Great (fourth century) points out that the Three Children thrown into the fiery furnace were unharmed by the fire, yet the same fire burned and killed the servants at the entrance to the furnace.
According to St Gregory the Theologian, God Himself is Paradise and punishment for man, since each man tastes God's "energies" (His perceptible presence) according to the condition of his soul. St. Gregory further advises the next life will be "light for those whose mind is purified... in proportion to their degree of purity" and darkness "to those who have blinded their ruling organ [meaning the "mind"]...in proportion to their blindness..."
St. Cyril of Jerusalem writes about the Second Coming of Christ, "the sign of the Cross [at His returning] will be terror to His foes, but joy to His friends who have believed in Him".
Lactantius (AD 260-330) wrote that on His return "there comes before Him an unquenchable fire".
St. John Chrysostom (AD 344-407) wrote [in homily LXXVI] "let us clothe ourselves with spiritual fire, let us gird ourselves with its flame. No man who bears flame fears those who meet him; be it wild beast, be it man, be it snares innumerable, so long as he is armed with fire, all things stand out of his way, all things retire. The flame is intolerable, the fire can not be endured, it consumes all. With this fire let us clothe ourselves, offering up glory to our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom the Father, together with the Holy Spirit, be glory, might, honor, now and ever and world without end. Amen."
A prayer of St. Simeon the Translator goes: "...Thou who art a fire consuming the unworthy, consume me not, O my Creator, but rather pass through all my body parts, into all my joints, my veins, my heart. Burn Thou the thorns of all my transgressions, Cleanse my soul and hallow Thou my thoughts [etc.] ...that from me, every evil deed and every passion may flee as from fire�"
The Holy Orthodox Church, in keeping with Scripture and the most ancient Christian doctrine, teaches that all people come into the presence of God in the afterlife. Some will bask in joy because of that infinite love, glory, light, power, and truth that is Almighty God. Others will cower in fear and be in torment DUE TO THAT SAME PRESENCE. All the same, there will be some kind of separation or "great gulf".
"Life" in the Orthodox Church as defined by the Fathers, is experiencing the perfect, pure and infinite love of God in ultimate harmony and intimacy for eternity, and "death" is experiencing God's energies in torment, darkness and disharmony for eternity. It is only through Christ that we come to that place of perfect harmony, in this life, in this world. The goal of the Christian is not to get to "heaven" in the after life, but rather to come to a state of constant communion with the Holy Spirit, beginning in this life. We may bask in the presence of God's glory here and now, and in the afterlife for eternity.
Accordingly, from ancient times icons have shown the Saints dwelling in a place filled with the golden, uncreated divine light of God. With the icon we symbolically peer through this "window" into the spirit realm infused with God's energies. In the icon of the Heavenly Kingdom, we see Christ enthroned in the center as God Almighty, surround with the host of angels, His mother the Theotokos, and all the saints. However, at His feet you see others, also in His presence, who are being burned and tormented due to just being there, and have no escape. The larger more elaborate icons of the Resurrection show the Old Testament saints with halos looking on with joy, and others without halos on the other side of the gulf, looking on in fear and confusion, as Christ frees the captives of Death. He rescues all of humanity (represented by Adam and Eve being pulled from the tomb) and all of creation with them, from the beginning of time to the end of time.
It is not God's intention that his love will torment us, but that will be the inevitable result of pursuing our own selfish desires instead of seeking God. When we are in harmony with God, we will bask in that presence. Yet, if we desire our own will and are in disharmony with God, we suffer in His presence. Satan is evil not just because he harms others, but because he is an angel of light who stands in the presence of God yet chooses to pursue his own selfish desires, which causes him to tremble in fear. Satan and his fallen angels, the demons, were thrown to the earth and he became the 'god of this world'. It can be speculated that Satan and his demons are on the earth because it is the only place they can escape God's presence, if only temporarily. This is why they will suffer for eternity after God reclaims the world at the end of this age, filling It with his presence. Then there will be nowhere to escape God, for both demons and evildoers.
So "hell" is not a "place" but rather a condition we allow ourselves to be in, not because of God's "justice" but because of our own selfish and sinful disobedience. In other words, we put ourselves in "hell" when we do anything other than seeking God's will. It is not that God wants to harm us; He loves us unconditionally, but torment is the result of coming into His pure presence when we are in an impure condition.
It is like spending your whole life in a cave or basement in darkness, never seeing the sun, then suddenly being thrust into bright sunshine. Your skin will burn, your eyes will burn, you will want to bury yourself under the rocks to try and escape this terrible thing pouring down on you, but there is no escape, just as described in Revelation. However, if you expose yourself to the sun regularly and often, eventually you will want nothing but to bask it the warmth and light of the sunshine. The same sunshine that torments one person brings warmth and pleasure to another. Similarly, if you get too close to the sun, you will be burned, not because the sun wants to burn you, because it is the sun's nature.
Roman Catholic and Protestant Understanding
It is clear from the Scriptures and the Church Fathers there is no room in the afterlife for Purgatory, limbo, or any place apart from God, nor for Calvin's idea of predestination and "divine justice".
Neither in scripture, nor in the writings of the Saints do we see any such innovation as Purgatory or even of Hell as a place of torment apart from God.
Purgatory, according to the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" article 1030-1031, is defined as the place of "All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified�after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven." The more purging that is necessary, the longer one must spend in purgatory. Further, in article 1032, "The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead�" presumably to hasten how quickly one may complete this purging.
Built into this uniquely Roman Catholic doctrine is the assumption that in the afterlife we would experience time passing the same way we do in the physical world. This is a mistake because there are enough hints in Scripture that time as we know it does not exist in the spirit world. For example: "� one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day". (2 Peter 3:8). Also the idea that the return of Christ is immanent, in addition to the prevalent use of the word 'eternal' throughout the Old and New Testaments. In the Revelation of St. John many scholars believe that St. John is not describing sequential events (which would be nonsensical, since the narrative jumps around so much) but the Saint is rather seeing all the events occurring simultaneously. It is like he is in a room with all this activity happening at once, and he says "then I turned and I saw�". He is describing the sequence in which he sees the visions, but that is not necessarily in the order that the events occurred.
Even modern science tells us that time and space are connected. Without physical space [i.e. creation], there is no time.
So it is very speculative to assume that time passes outside of creation the same way it does here. No sound doctrine can be built based on this assumption.
The Orthodox believe, from Scripture and the writings of the saints, that because God is perfect he does not change. However, imperfect humanity continues to change. So when someone in an imperfect "forever changing" condition comes into God's pure unchanging presence, it is experienced as darkness and torment. Presumably, at the time of death we lose the ability to change, since our condition will be "consolidated" by being "caught" in the pure, unchanging presence of God, which will also occur to the living at the Apocalypse. The idea of changing in Purgatory is incompatible with the timeless, changeless nature of the afterlife.
Furthermore, nowhere in the original language of the Bible does the Calvinistic idea occur of a place of "hellfire" torment, created especially by God so He can punish those he judges for eternity. Why would a God who loves us unconditionally torment us for eternity, because of an equally unbiblical notion of Divine Justice? In fact nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly state that it is God that punishes the sinners. If you put your hand in the fireplace, is it the fire's intention to punish you? Or is the torment you experience caused by your own foolish action? It is merely the nature of the fire to burn your unprotected skin.
Uncreated Energies
The understanding of heaven and "punishment" [hell] in historic Christianity is inextricably linked to the biblical concept of the Uncreated Light of God. The Uncreated Energies (or "Light" the purest form of energy) are understood by the Orthodox to be the Energies of God. This Energy is the "consuming fire", the Shechinah glory, the fire that burns gold to purify it, as St. Paul writes. It is the fire that burns the weeds left in the field, the fire that burns the pruned branches, it is the lake of divine fire, and the thirst and burning that torments the Rich Man is this same Uncreated Energy. Yet, the same fire that torments the impure gives warmth and comfort to the pure of heart.
In fact the Greek word "energeia", and it's various forms, appears over 30 times in the new Testament, yet it is not translated as "energy" even once in most popular English translations. It is variously rendered as operation, strong, do, in-working, effectual, be mighty in, shew forth self, and even simply dropped out of the sentence; everything except what it means. Yet, this word was well established in the Greek language in the first century. It was first used by Aristotle, some three centuries before Christ, as a noun, as "energy" in the metaphysical sense- which was borrowed in recent years in English as an engineering term. But even in a modern metaphysical sense, it is exactly as the ancient Greeks use the word, because it is the same word. Yet the translators insisted on ignoring how this word is actually used by Greek speakers and distorted it into a number of verbs and adjectives (or simply drop it from the verse), which leaves only confusion and misunderstanding for English readers.
When we are energized by the Divine Energies, we will radiate the pure Light of God. Translating directly from the Greek, Saint Paul writes to the Philippians [2:13] "For it is God who is energizing in you, according to His will and to energize for the sake of His being well-pleased." In verse 3:21 he further writes "[Christ] who will change the appearance of our humble bodies to take on the form of the body of His glory, through the energization of his Power�" And to the Ephesians in verse 1:19 "and what exceeding greatness of his power, in us who believe, through the energization of His mighty strength, energized in Christ, raising him from the dead and seating him in the right hand of Him in the heavens" So this energy "in us" changes our bodies to glory, and was the same energy that raised Christ from the dead. This energy is in fact, the Grace of God, in Eph 3:7 St. Paul writes "That I was made an attendant through the gift of the Grace of God, granted to me by the energization of his Power".
This same Energy also has the power to heal, as St. James writes [5:16] "Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed, prayers energized by a righteous one are very powerful". This same energy comes from the "one" that restrains evil, in II Thess 2:7 St. Paul writes "For already the mysterious lawless one is only restrained now by the Energies, until he comes out of the midst of it"
Receiving this Divine Energy is the results of faith in the true God, as St. Paul tells the Thessalonians in I Thess 2:12 "�[you received] �the true Logos of God, which also energizes in you believers". Moreover, to the Galatians he asks a rhetorical question with an obvious answer [3:5] "Indeed, would it not be in vain, if the One providing you the Spirit and the powerful Energies in you, were by works of the law, or rather by hearing in faith?"
There are many stories in the historic tradition, both ancient and relatively modern, that tell of the saints radiating light when they pray (for example St. Mary of Egypt, St. Sava, St. Mathew of Ethiopia, and others). The Light that Christ radiated on mount Tabor during the Transfiguration is this Uncreated Light, seen in Christ revealing his true nature. The halos in icons are not rings or crowns (as often wrongly represented in western religious art) but rather a sphere of light, like the sphere of light around a candle in a dark room. This light that Christ, his mother the Theotokos, the angels and saints radiate in the icon is this Uncreated Light of God.
This is the Transforming Light that "makes all things new". Salvation is in fact this Energy assimilating us to God, "divinizing" the believers, making us "Christ-like", through the Energization of the Power of God. When we are in perfect harmony with God, the Holy Spirit energizes within us, and we too radiate this Uncreated Light. All of the saints radiate this Light of Christ. Interestingly, in properly rendered icons none of the Apostles have halos until after Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit was poured out into the Church. This event, the Pentecost, is when the Apostles were "assimilated" into divination, transforming them [literally in the Greek "metamorphoses"] into Holy beings, into "non-earthy ones" (lit. in the Greek), and when, according to Tradition, the Holy Church had begun.
The Energy is Uncreated because it existed before creation, it is the Light and Truth and the Love and the Life that IS God. When we have that Truth, Love and Life of God, than we too will radiate this Divine Light.
The ancients understood that light was the purest form of energy. This is why there are so many biblical allusions to the sun for God. The sun was the source of "pure" light, life and heat, and this created light was likened to the Uncreated Light of God, the source of Everlasting "Zoe" and "Zesty", spiritual "life" and "heat" or more properly "vitality". This is why the term "illuminated" is used to describe the saints who saw these "divinizing" Visions in Heaven. In fact, it is impossible to properly understand the role of Light in theology if you do not understand it from the Light-Energy perspective.
Yet, Saint Paul also cautions the Roman about this Energy in 7:5 "for when we were in the flesh, passionate for sins according to the law, the Energy in our members brings fourth the fruit of death". And likewise he warns the Corinthians [II Cor 4:12] "For this reason it energizes death in us, though it is Life in you". And in Hebrews 4:12 another sober warning "For the living Logos of God, and [the living] Energies, also sharper than a two edged sword, passing through, dividing both soul and spirit, joints from marrows, judging the thought and intents of the heart". Note in this last verse in English bibles, the word "Energies" is just dropped from the text, yet the clear implication in the Greek is that the "logos" is one edge, and the "energy" is the other edge of the sword. Implying quite literally, without this Energy, one is not fully armed.
When we come face to face with this powerful Uncreated Light in an impure and sinful condition, we cower in fear and pain, for our impurities are revealed and "burned" by this illuminating Energy. Yet those who love God and want nothing but to be in constant communion with God, will strive towards purity and will bask in glory in this same Light. The same Energy that causes eternal death in the sinful, purifies and strengthens the faithful.
This is at the root of difference between the Eastern Orthodox and Western Christianity, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, this biblical concept of the Uncreated Energies of God. In the west, the mystery of the Divine Energies was abandoned because it could not be understood outside of the metaphysical perspective, and therefore juridical socialistic rationalism was adopted. The west continues to flounder in darkness and is unarmed against the influence of the enemies of God, and therefore continues to innovate false theologies.
Tragically, in the west a few centuries after the Great Schism (1054 AD) an innovation (i.e. heresy) developed as a result of an attempt to rationalize God's purifying fires. Latin theologians surmised that God created a place called purgatory with purging fires to "purify" those that die with imperfect atonement, and they further rationalized that paying indulgences could buy your loved ones out of these painful purging fires faster. This rationalization also helped keep the church prosperous and coffers full.
The western ideas had its roots in Augustinian theology (who was influenced by the Greek pagan philosophers). Unfortunately Augustine could not read Greek and had to devise his own theology from imperfect Latin translations. Late in his life he recanted much of his earlier writings, an act which was ignored in the West. Both Luther and Calvin developed their own theologies from Augustine's erroneous writings, and ignoring Augustine's later retraction. This is how the pagan notion of a God that both punishes and rewards made its way into western Christian theologies. Another major influence was the 13th century fantasy novelist Dante, who's political satire known as the Inferno borrowed heavily from pagan mythology and bears little resemblance to Biblical eschatology.
Some Orthodox would contend that the western God, who both claims to love us, but also would condemn us to eternal punishment, is a schizophrenic God. It is reminiscent of the abusive groom who claims to love his bride but can not stop punishing her.
Calvin further rationalized if God is all knowing, then He knows who will be saved and who will not even before they are born, so therefore He must have created some people just so He can torment them in Hell for eternity. This is the infamous "predestination" of Calvin, which makes God the author of evil. This is not Biblical and certainly not Christian. Ultimately this doctrine denies free will, the choice that all humans have to either pursue righteousness, or selfishness.
Therefore the difference in the understanding of the Uncreated Energies is not just a difference between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, it is a difference between almost all of the heterodox and the Orthodox.
In Conclusion
There is no "place" of torment, or even a "place" apart from God, because there is no "place" at all; you are outside of time and space. The "place" is actually a condition of either punishment ("hell") or paradise ("heaven") depending on how you experience the presence of God and His Uncreated Engergies.
Consider a person who hates God, and anything to do with religion, and has done nothing but pursued his own self-centered desires all his life. It would be far more terrifying, and painful, to spend eternity in the fiery embrace of God's almighty and divine love with no escape, than to be far from Him.
Experiencing God's presence and His in-filling transforming Energies in glory or in torment, as Paradise or as Punishment, is the heaven and hell of the Bible. Not something God did to us, but rather something we did to ourselves. God unconditionally pours out His love on all, WHETHER WE WANT IT OR NOT, whether we are ready for it or not, when we enter the afterlife. This is why the Gospel or "good news" of Jesus Christ should be shared with all people, of all nations, in all tongues. For there is nothing to fear from God's perfect love, since love casts out all fear.
However, it is not totally wrong to understand the after life as "type" of Heaven and Hell. Because from each individual's perspective, it will not be perceived as the same "place", but rather as either torment and darkness you can not escape, or as the paradise you have always longed for. For those judged, they will experience God's presence as eternal darkness and torment. Though it is very important to keep in mind what is the cause of either of these conditions, or one could reach very wrong conclusions about the nature of God, as they have in western theologies. To misrepresent the nature of a loving God would cause one to conclude that it was God's intention to punish his creation. Indeed, one blasphemes the reputation of the God of the Bible when you make him into an angry vengeful god that punishes His creation. The cause of the torment is the poor choices that we make, not God. If one thinks of these two different "places" as conditions that we choose to be in, rather than "compartments" God puts us in, it would be more accurate.
And it will certainly be "paradise" to finally experience His Divine Love up close and in person for those who seek it. It is all in the perception.
Such is the nature of a loving God. For God is God
PT034Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20:4 (December, 1977) [Reprinted in Evangelicals and Innerancy, ed. Ronald Youngblood (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984] � Covenant Media Foundation, 800/553-3938
At the heart of contemporary evangelical Bibliology and apologetics is the question of Scriptural inerrancy -- in particular, the most appropriate and effective method of its exposition and defense. The three elements mentioned in the title of this paper have been derived from a short but potentially significant interchange between Daniel Fuller and Clark Pinnock in the CHRISTIAN SCHOLAR'S REVIEW.[1] Their brief discussion of Biblical authority is a noteworthy skirmish -- one that puts a particular epistemological and apologetical outlook to a critical test. An analysis of the Fuller-Pinnock encounter may very well offer evangelicals unexpected but sound guidance through the thicket of present-day theological and apologetical questions impinging on inerrancy. To begin this recommended analysis we can rehearse how Fuller and Pinnock relate the three topics of inductivism, inerrancy and presuppositionalsim to each other. Three major theses emerge from a reading of the two published letters exchanged between these two writers and each can be substantiated by quotation from the relevant literature. Thesis I may be stated as follows: PRESUPPOSITIONALISM IS OPPOSED TO EMPIRICAL PROCEDURES AND INDUCTIVE INVESTIGATION.
Fuller says to Pinnock: "If faith really has to BEGIN the approach to Scripture, then I don't think you can talk very meaningfully about induction. I would argue that really, after all, you are on Van Til's side, not on Warfield's" (p. 331). "I am trying to do as Warfield and let induction control from beginning to end. You say on page 185 [of Pinnock's BIBLICAL REVELATION] that following Christ's view of Scripture 'will always prove safe'.... This is the language of an unassailable starting point - the language of deductive thinking - of Van Til" (p. 332).
Pinnock replies to Fuller: "It is more common to be criticized by our fideistic evangelical colleagues for being too concerned about questions of factual verification. Dr. Fuller recognizes that I wish to follow the epistemology of the Princeton apologetic as it was developed by B. B. Warfield, but he believes that I am inconsistent in this and tend to lapse into presuppositional modes of expression, if not thought. He would even place me on Van Til's side, MIRABILE DICTU" (p. 333). Pinnock wants us to understand that "Dr. Fuller and I share a view of the constructive relation between faith and history" (p. 333).
Thus it is that both Pinnock and Fuller set an inductive, empirical approach (like that of Warfield and the Princeton school) over against the approach of presuppositionalism (as found in an apologist like Van Til). On the one side you have a constructive relation between history and fiat where induction controls from beginning to end the questions of factual verification, whereas on the other side you have mere deductivism and fideism. Presuppositionalism and inductivism are accordingly portrayed as polar opposites, as conflicting epistemologies. To this antagonism Fuller and Pinnock both give assent.
Here now is Thesis II: INDUCTIVISM AND EMPIRICAL APOLOGETICS ARE INDEPENDENT OF PRESUPPOSITIONAL COMMITMENTS, LETTING NEUTRAL REASON AND CRITICAL THINKING CONTROL THE KNOWING PROCESS FROM BEGINNING TO END. On this point Fuller and Pinnock are again agreed. In their discussion with each other, both men make much of the alleged "inductive" nature of their epistemologies and their approach to Biblical authority (and hence apologetics). It is indispensable at this point to rehearse what they mean by their commitment to "inductive" procedures. Let us once more have them speak for themselves to this question.
"Induction, as I understand it, means letting criticism control all aspects of the knowing process from beginning to end" (Fuller, p. 330). "All knowing, including the knowledge which faith claims to have, comes by but one way" "Fuller, p. 332). This one way is the empirical approach, which is committed to factual verification (Pinnock, p. 333). With inductivism faith does not begin the approach to Scripture, nor does it start the knowing process at all (Fuller, pp. 331, 332). On the other hand, true empiricism does not let negative criticism and naturalistic presuppositions control thought (Pinnock, p. 333). Therefore Fuller and Pinnock are saying that one begins with neither a commitment to Scripture nor a commitment against Scripture. Apparently, then, one is to be completely "open-minded" or neutral from the outset. Indeed, this is precisely what they both claim. For inductivism maintains that no mere claim to authority is self-establishing (Fuller, p. 330), and it refuses to claim "an unassailable starting point" (Fuller, p. 332). Moreover, it will not permit circular reasoning and argumentation (Fuller, p. 330). Hence inductivism on this account does not resort to self-attesting starting points, nor does its chain of explanations and evidences ever bend around and ultimately book into itself, forming a wide argumentative circle. Clearly, then, this outlook holds to "the right of reason and criticism to be sovereign" (Fuller, p. 330). It will "let critical thinking prevail" (Fuller, p. 332) -- "to go all the way" (p. 333), because "you can't just have it 'in part'" (Fuller, p. 332). According to Fuller and Pinnock, if one is "consistently inductive" (p. 332) his every commitment will be based totally on empirical evidences and critical thinking. In particular, belief in inspiration and the security of Biblical authority will rest, we are told, totally on inductive evidence (Fuller, p. 332) and well-authenticated credentials (Pinnock, p. 333). This, then, is the non-presuppositional inductive (or empirical) approach that Fuller and Pinnock claim to be utilizing. It makes a radical, all-encompassing demand on us epistemologically -- "you either have it or you don't" (Fuller, p. 332).
We would formulate Thesis III as follows: THE QUESTION OF BIBLICAL INERRANCY CAN BE SETTLED ONLY INDUCTIVELY. It should be rather obvious that this thesis is demanded by the previous two. Presuppositionalism has been shunned, and the radical demand to let inductive empiricism answer every question in the knowing process has been affirmed. Thus the question of the Bible's errant or inerrant nature must be answered, it at all, in an inductive manner. Fuller and Pinnock would both say as much.
However, these two committed empiricists and anti-presuppositionalists do not come to the same conclusion about the inerrant nature of Scripture -- that is, in the application of their common inductive approach they have reached contrary positions. Fuller maintains the full inerrancy of "any Scriptural statement or necessary implication therefrom which involves what makes a man wise to salvation" (p. 331): "if it errs where historical control is possible in matters germane to 'the whole counsel of God' which 'makes men wise unto salvation,' then all the Bible becomes questionable" (p. 332). Pinnock calls this unacceptable" "Though convenient for sidestepping certain biblical difficulties, this dichotomy is unworkable and unscriptural" (p. 334). We must, instead, take the view of the Biblical authors: "The attitude of Jesus and the Apostles toward Scripture was one of TOTAL trust.... What Scripture said, with A PRIORI qualification, God said, was their view. The whole GRAPHE is God-breathed and fully trustworthy" (p. 334). Consequently, "the theological truth is discredited to the extent that the factual material is erroneous" (p. 335). So we observe that Fuller and Pinnock have agreed on all three of the aforementioned these, but they have not ended up in the same place. These two empirical apologists do not see eye to eye with respect to Scriptural inerrancy and authority.
What makes this divergence of conclusion so interesting to us today is the additional fact that, in their differing conclusions about Scriptural inerrancy. Fuller and Pinnock make decided counter-accusations that the other writer is really less than true to the radical demand of inductivism. Each man considers himself to be the genuine champion of inductive empiricism in the attempt to relate faith to history. Says Fuller, "I would argue that really, after all, you are on Van Til's side, not on Warfield's " (p. 331): "there is a part of you that wants to be inductive, to let critical thinking prevail. But you can't go all the way" (p. 332). Fuller challenges Pinnock with these words: "Are you willing to be as consistently inductive as he [Warfield] was?" (p. 332), and after mentioning resistance to the thunderous veto against induction in Pinnock's book on BIBLICAL REVELATION Fuller asks, "Are you willing to go all the way in resisting this veto?" (p. 333). Thus Fuller thinks that Pinnock has arrived at his viewpoint on Scriptural inerrancy by a manner inconsistent with inductivism.
Nevertheless, and on the other hand, Pinnock feels that it is, rather, Fuller who has not been faithful to the inductive epistemology we have just outlined. He declares: "Fuller is less empirical at this point than Warfield and I, because if he were more careful in his induction, he would see at once that the dichotomy he has proposed {between revelation and non-revelational statements in Scripture} is untenable in the light of what he calls 'the doctrinal verses'" (p. 334). Indeed, Pinnock says that Fuller's view of inerrancy would "make it relative to some dubious A PRIORI standard, inaccurately derived from the doctrinal verses" (p. 334). Pinnock concludes that Fuller "is less than fully consistent in the way he relates faith and history.... Most of the material which in his view would belong to the 'revelational' category lies outside the reach of science and history, safe from their critical control" (p. 334) -- even though in reality the theological and factual material "are so inextricably united in the text" (p. 335). And so there we have the counter-allegations. Pinnock feels that Fuller is not consistently inductive; Fuller says the converse is true.
Let us now explore and respond to the three Fuller-Pinnock thesis SERIATIM, aiming to draw out of this telling interchange principles and insights that can give us basic guidance in such theological and apologetical issues as center on the inerrancy of Scripture.
As to Thesis I, we must rather flatfootedly challenge its accuracy. Both Fuller and Pinnock have counterfieted the presuppositional outlook by aligning it with fideistic deductivism over against empirical and inductive methods. A perusal of Van Til's many publications is sufficient to falsify this preconceived misrepresentation. For instance:
The greater the amount of detailed study and the more carefully such study is undertaken, the more truly Christian will the method be. It is important to bring out this point in order to help remove the common misunderstanding that Christianity is opposed to FACTUAL INVESTIGAITON. [2]
What shall be the attitude of the orthodox believer with respect to this? Shall he be an OBSCURANTIST and hold to the doctrine of authority of the Scripture though he knows it can empirically be shown to be contrary to the facts of Scripture themselves? It goes without saying that such should not be his attitude. [3]
The Christian position is certainly not opposed to EXPERIMENTATION AND OBSERVATION .... It is quite commonly held that we cannot accept anything that is not the result of a sound scientific methodology. With this we cab as Christians heartily agree. [4]
Surely the Christian, who believes in the doctrine of creation, cannot share the Greek depreciation of the things of the SENSE WORLD. Depreciation of that sense world inevitably leads to a depreciation of many of the important facts of historic Christianity which took place in the sense world. The Bible does not rule out every form of empiricism any more than it rules out every form of A PRIORI reasoning. [5]
Now this approach from the bottom to the top, from the particular to the general, is the INDUCTIVE ASPECT of the method of implication.... All agree that the immediate starting point must be that of our everyday EXPERIENCE and the "facts" that are most close at hand.... But the favorite charge against us is that we are ... employing the deductive method. Our opponents are thoughtlessly identifying our method with the Greek method of deduction .... We need only to observe that A PRIORI reasoning, and A POSTERIORI reasoning, are equally anti-Christian, if these terms are understood in their historical sense .... On the other hand, if God is recognized as the only and the final explanation of any and every fact, neither the inductive nor the deductive method can any longer be used to the exclusion of the other. [6]
Every bit of historical investigation, whether it be in the directly biblical field, archaeology, or in general history is bound to confirm the truth of the claims of the Christian position.... A really fruitful historical apologetic argues that every fact IS and MUST BE such as proves the truth of the Christian theistic position. [7]
Far from being indifferent or antagonistic to inductive and empirical science, Van Til has devoted much of his scholarly labors to the constructive analysis of the philosophy of science. He has always insisted that Christians relate their faith positively to science and history, finding unequivocal evidence, indeed a definite demand, for distinctively Christian conclusions in all inductive study of the facts themselves. [8] On the other hand he has persistently and apologetically attacked unbelieving philosophies on the telling ground that they render inductive science impossible. [9]
Consequently it is not at all surprising that Van Til has been unfailing in his opposition to fideism, apologetic mysticism, and the notion that belief cannot argue with unbelief. He is highly critical of those who saw no way of harmonizing the facts of the Christian religion with the "constitution and course of nature. They gave up the idea of a philosophical apologetics entirely, This FIDIESTIC attitude comes to expression frequently in the statement of the experiential proof of the truth of Christianity. People will say that they know that they are saved and that Christianity is true no matter what the philosophical or scientific evidence for or against it may be... But in thus seeking to withdraw from all intellectual argument, such fideists have virtually admitted the validity of the argument against Christianity. They will have to believe in their hearts what they have virtually allowed to be intellectually indefensible. [10]
It might seem that there can be no ARGUMENT between them. It might seem that the orthodox view of authority is to be spread only by testimony and by prayer, not by argument. But this would militate directly against the very foundation of all Christian revelation, namely, to the effect that all things in the universe are nothing if not revelational of God. Christianity must claim that it alone is rational.... An evangelical, that is a virtually Arminian theology, makes concessions to the principle that controls a "theology of EXPERIENCE" ... and to the precise extent that evangelicalism makes these concessions in its theology, does it weaken its own defense of the infallible Bible.[11]
These pro-inductive or pro-empirical attitudes of Van Til are conspicuous: To miss them one would need to approach his writings, if at all, with far-reaching and vision-distorting preconceived notions. We cannot but conclude that the Fuller-Pinnock Thesis I is simply mistaken. Presuppositionalism is not opposed to empirical procedures or inductive investigation, nor does it discourage them.
E.G., see Van Til's analysis of Dewey in his review of THE PHILOSOPHY OF JOHN DEWEY, ed. P.A. Schilpp, WTJ 3 (November, 1940): "We would humbly but firmly maintain that only Christianity makes sense and philosophy as well as other forms of human experience intelligible" (p. 72). The same theme can be traced throughout Van Til's many writings; for instance, "I think that science is absolutely impossible on the non-Christian principle" (THE DEFENSE OF THE FAITH [Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1995]285) since it undermines the inductive procedure (pp. 283-284). speaking of the non-Christian's method, Van Til says: "Its most consistent application not merely leads away from Christian theism but in leading away from Christian theism leads to the destruction of reason and science as well" (p. 119).
What Van Til and the presuppositionalists DO say -- and this point will be crucial to the understanding subsequent parts of this paper -- is that not only must one utilize inductive empiricism but he must press beyond this and examine the foundations of science and inductive method. That is, we must not stop short in our philosophical analysis but rather inquire into the pressuppositions necessary for an intelligent and justified use of empiricism. As Van Til puts it: "I would not talk endlessly about facts and more facts without ever challenging the non-believer's PHILOSOPHY OF FACT." [12] Van Til makes it clear that presuppositionalism does not "disparage the usefulness of arguments for the corroboration of the Scripture that came from archaeology. It is only to say that such corroboration is not of independent power."[13] The apologist "must challenge the legitimacy of the scientific method as based upon an assumed metaphysic of chance."[14]
So hopeless and senseless a picture must be drawn of the natural man's methodology, based as it is upon the assumption that time or chance is ultimate. On his assumption his own rationality is a product of chance.... Our argument as over against his would be that the existence of the God of Christian theism and the conception of his counsel as controlling all things in the universe is the only presupposition which can account for the uniformity of nature which the scientist needs.[15]
Having challenged Thesis I and having briefly explained the nature of presuppositional reasoning with respect to inductivism, we can now proceed to correct the dubious allegation of Thesis II that inductive empiricism is independent of presuppositions, allowing neutral and critical thinking (which assents to nothing except upon evidential strength) to control the knowing process completely from beginning to end. We already have had occasion above to note that inductive empiricism is intelligible and justified within the context of certain metaphysical and epistemological precommitments or basic assumptions. Thus we have already challenged the alleged neutrality of the inductivist. As hard as Fuller and Pinnock may try to hide it from themselves, the stubborn fact remains that, for them both, critical and neutral reasoning does not prevail and reign supreme throughout their knowing processes. They have their covert presuppositions. I would like to illustrate this observation by means of a series of considerations that can be conveniently summarized under three headings.
(4) Of course, the nature of evidence that should be given for the theory of induction will be determined by the nature of that theory's objects and methods. So we can ask, "What kind of entity is spoken of in the inductivist's self-referential theoretical statements?" Once this is answered, if ever, we must go on and ask, "What is a proposition, an idea, a belief, a standard of evidence, a directive, a rule, etc?" For instance, are they properties, relations, substances, individuals, dispositions, functions, modes of cognition, or what? These are all categorically different things in metaphysics, and therefore without dealing with the demands of such questions are incomplete, inadequate, inconsistent and self-delusory apologetic may inevitably be the outcome.
(5) The foregoing questions, along with the upcoming one, all indicate that one's metaphysic must be formulated correctly at the outset if epistemological headaches are to be avoided later. For instance, cognizance is a familiar kind of fact to epistemologists (e.g., "I see x," "I know p," being conscious of, believing, remembering, etc.), and cognizance is just as much a reality as what scientists study directly. Thus we ask how cognizance is to be categorized, so as to avoid category mistakes about it. The common tendency is to hold that cognizance irelation between a subject and an object. But this leads to the obvious epistemological problem of seeking an object of cognition. As a relation, cognizance would require something that cognizance is about, for relations require the existence of their terms. But, then, to what is a belief related in cases of past belief? What is its object? More generally, what is the nature of the objects of cognition, especially in cases of error and illusion?
(6) S to be intelligible and reasonable an inductive epistemology cannot be understood, accepted, and followed with an ontology. With reference to empiricism and metaphysics, it should be noted that no valid argument has ever been given for the statement, "Only perceivable individuals exist." And indeed such a proposition is highly suspect in light of the importance of abstract entities. Without abstract entities (a) there would be no sense in talking about validity and invalidity in argument; (b) there could be no induction, for nothing would be repeatable (i.e., the future would have to be different from the past); and (c) there would be no objective knowledge, since we could not transcend the individuality of experience and gain a community of knowledge (i.e., we could not experience the same thing). So, then, abstract entities seem necessary for inductive epistemology, but of course abstract entities are precisely the kind of things we cannot and do not experience empirically and inductively.
(7) Given Fuller's and Pinnock's notion of inductive empiricism where neutral, critical thinking controls the knowing process from beginning to end, their alleged epistemology commits them to the view that all synthetic and meaningful ideas derive from experience, that all non-demonstrative (inductive) reasoning is empirical generalization from observations, and that empirical knowledge is founded upon a set of independently intelligible and separately credited observation claims. The credibility of this outlook is subject to serious challenge: (a) If held consistently from beginning to end, it would preclude the use of certain ideas necessary to inductive science (e.g., normal observer, location, etc.) that cannot be empirically specified in the above way; and (b) it would involve saying that what one directly experiences are his own sensations and thoughts, and, therefore, since words derive their meaning from observation and stipulation, some theory of private language must be affirmed. Against this, however, such a theory is not intelligible; language calls for a consistent application of words, but to speak of a privately consistent application is meaningless since there is no possible way to tell independently (i.e., objectively or publicly) that a word is in fact being used consistently (i.e., given the same private sense now that it was given in the past). Fuller and Pinnock must EITHER show that they are not committed to the views that lead to the above two problems and yet are consistently following inductive empiricism from beginning to end, OR they must present refutations to these problems in a way that consistently follows inductive empiricism from beginning to end. Whatever response they choose, it will soon be clear that their inductive method is committed to a great deal of philosophical fare that was not "critically" or "neutrally" established. Moreover, the view that there are independently intelligible and separately credited observation claims should also be cross-examined and rejected in light of the following considerations: (c) observation claims derive their credibility from background assumptions (e.g., what counts as a "fact," and how facts are discerned, is determined within a broader theoretical framework; every observational claim takes one beyond his present direct experience -- instance, assuming normalcy of perception in the particular instance, uniformity of category scheme, constancy of observational subject, commonality of language, etc.); (d) observation claims indeed derive their meaning within the network of background assumptions (e.g., there are no purely ostensive words since an observational term -- "red" -- will not retain a constant meaning through a change of theory -- e.g., from Aristotelian to quantum physics); and (e) observations themselves are theory-infected, that is, are interpretations of stimuli in light of assumptions, beliefs, categories, and anticipations (e.g., the work of GESTALT ology, indicating the ambiguity of objects of perception, etc.). Again we have compelling reason to doubt that inductive empiricists actually do or can let critical and neutral thinking control the knowing process from beginning to end; the very appeal to observation is governed by presuppositions that transcend the particular observation itself. To acquiesce to these considerations, Fuller and Pinnock would have to retract or radically qualify their thorough inductivism. But on the other hand if they wished to dispute these considerations, could they do so on purely empirical and inductive grounds without engaging in philosophical assumptions and reasoning?
(10) In the very nature of their historical discipline, Fuller and Pinnock are NOT the presuppositionless inductivists that they make themselves out to be. The historian studies not the direct phenomena but the sources that report the past. The historian must interpret his sources, attempting to reconstruct the past. He does not simply accept the facts as a passive observer. He is faced with the chore of cross-examining his sources (which cannot but be silent in response), knowing what questions are appropriately addressed to the various types of sources, knowing when he is pushing the sources too far for desired information, etc. Moreover, the historian's inquiry must be directed toward a specific goal from its inception; he does not simply string together anything and everything he learns about a certain period or event, but rather is seeking particular kinds of answers to particular questions, certain lines of evidence for various sorts of hypotheses, different conceptions of relevance, etc. History as a science is also inherently value-impregnated. The ordinary language that historians use is quite a bit more than merely descriptive. And this is only to be expected, since they cannot properly reduce human history to the history of natural objects -- to do so would be to screen out that which is peculiar to humans: intentions, desires, motives, morals, etc. In approaching the evidence the historian is also forced to use a criterion of selectivity, and this itself involves personal value judgments. Such selectivity enters right into the historian's attempt to find solutions, and not simply into his choice of problems to study. In this selectivity the historian either utilizes a notion of historical causation or a standard of historical importance. In the former case his causal explanations are not value-neutral, for he has to judge that certain conditions were relevant as causes and some were not. Furthermore, a causal analysis of human action and social history is itself a matter of assigning responsibility (thus involving moral judgment). If the historian follows out the idea of historical causation in his selectivity, then he is faced with the selection between competing models of "explanation" (i.e., shall he seek to render covering laws as suggested by Hempel, non-deducible generalizations [Gardner], joint-sufficiency conditions [Goudge], or necessary conditions [Dray; Danto]?). On the other hand, if the historian's selectivity is guided by a standard of historical importance (e.g., what is memorable, intrinsically valuable, etc.), then he is IPSO FACTO doing more than simple description of the past. Thus in all these ways we see how strong the case is against the common conception of objective, neutral historiography.
After a sober consideration of the ten issues we have briefly surveyed it ought to be quite clear that neutral and presuppositionless reasoning does not and cannot have full control in Fuller's or Pinnock's inductivism. The very use of that epistemology commits one to a great deal of unargued philosophical baggage. By its use one wittingly or unwittingly endorses certain crucial assumptions. And in connection with a commitment to inductivism, one inescapably must face difficult philosophical questions pertaining to epistemology and ontology, questions that can be left unanswered only at the price of theoretical arbitrariness and disrespect for the very justifying considerations that inductivism demands for our every commitment -- from beginning to end.
II. Evident Precommitments
When we read the letters Fuller and Pinnock have exchanged, we see quite obviously that each man is committed in advance to so conducting his empirical studies that the teachings of Scripture will be vindicated. Says Fuller, "I sincerely hope that as I continue my historical-grammatical exegesis of Scripture, I shall find no error in its teaching" (p. 332), for "if there is one error anywhere in what Scripture intends to teach, then everything it intends to say is suspect and we have not even one sure word from God" (p. 331). Likewise Pinnock declares that he will not permit naturalistic presuppositions to control his thought, lest he no longer speak as a Biblical supernaturalist (p. 333). Evan apart from having verified every particular statement of the Scriptures, Pinnock generally indicates in advance that "the whole GRAPHE is God-breathed and fully trustworthy" (p. 334). Indeed he does not want to dichotomize the Bible into factual and revelational truths, lest the revelational material shrink "before the advance of the latest critical charge" (p. 335).
Therefore it is manifest on the very surface of their letters that Fuller and Pinnock are NOT after all neutral and without their scholarly precommitments. The kind of thing we have just witnessed them saying would, in a hostile atmosphere, be sufficient to indict and convict them for failing to be impartial and requisitely objective (or "open-minded") in their approach to the Bible's veracity. These two writers simply need to be honest with themselves and recognize that, because they are saved by God's redeeming grace and have submitted in faith and love to Jesus Christ, they are dedicated in advance to protecting their Savior's word from discredit. That, however, is NOT presuppositionless, neutral inductivism.
III. Scriptural Declarations
Finally, we know that presuppositionless impartiality and neutral reasoning are impossible and undesirable because God's word teaches that (1) all men know God, even if suppressing the truth (Rom. 1); (2) there are two basic philosophic and presuppositional outlooks -- one after worldly tradition, the other after Christ (Col. 2); (3) thus there is a knowledge falsely so-called that errs according to the faith (I Tim. 6) and a genuine knowledge based on repentant faith (2 Tim. 2); consequently, (4) some men (unbelievers) are "enemies in their minds" (Rom. 8) while others (believers) are "renewed in Knowledge" (Col. 3), and characteristic of these two mindsets is the fact that the former cannot be subject to God's Word (Rom. 8) but sees it as utter foolishness (1 Cor. 1), while the latter seeks to bring every thought captive in the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10) in whom is found all the treasures ***** BOTTOM LINE OF PAGE 300 IS MISSING ***** beginning of knowledge (Prov. 1). This mindset submits to Christ's word, just as the wise man builds his house upon a rock (Matt. 7); and it views the alleged foolishness of preaching as indeed the wisdom and power of God (1 Cor. 1). Presuppositionless neutrality is both impossible (epistemologically) and disobedient (morally); Christ says that a man is either WITH him or AGAINST him (Matt. 12:30), for "no man can serve two masters" (6:24). Our EVERY thought (even apologetical reasoning about inerrancy) must be made captive to Christ's all-encompassing Lordship (2 Cor. 10:5; 1 Pet. 3:15; Matt. 22:37).
Therefore in response to the Fuller-Pinnock Thesis II we must say: As a matter of fact, no man is without presuppositional commitments. As a matter of philosophical necessity, no man can be without presuppositional commitments. And as a matter of Scriptural teaching, no man ought to be without presuppositional commitments.
We come, then, finally to Thesis III, viz., that the question of Biblical inerrancy must be settled indictively, not presuppositionally.
Is this doctrine about Scripture to be formulated on the basis of what Scripture says about itself (and thus presuppositionally), or rather do we take the phenomenological approach of handling the various Biblical phenomena and claims (among which are the problem passages) inductively with a view to settling the question of Scripture's inerrancy only in light of the discovered facts of empirical and historical study?
Another way of laying out the different approaches here is to point out that the Bible makes a large set of indicative claims (e.g., that David was once king of Israel, that Jesus was born at Bethlehem, that Jesus was divine, that salvation is only through his shed blood, etc.). Needless to say, this set is very large indeed. Now among this set of Scriptural assertions is to be found certain self-referential statements about the set as a whole (e.g., "Thy word is truth," "The Scripture cannot be broken," "All Scripture is inspired by God," etc.). The question then arises: Does one decide the question of Scriptural inerrancy by an inductive examination of the discursive and individual assertions of Scripture one by one, or by settling on the truth of these special self-referential assertions and then letting them control our approach to all the rest?
Christianity does not thus need to take shelter under the roof of "known facts." It rather offers itself as a roof to facts if they would be known. Christianity does not need to take shelter under the roof of a scientific method independent of itself. It rather offers itself as a roof to methods that would be scientific. [16]
The point is that the "facts of experience" must actually be interpreted in terms of Scripture if they are to be intelligible at all. [17]
With this background we can better understand the general thrust of presuppositional method in apologetics:
To argue by presupposition is to indicate what are the epistemological and metaphysical principles that underlie and control one's method. [18]
The Reformed method of argument is first constructive. It presents the biblical view positively by showing that all factual and logical discussions by men take place by virtue of the world's being what God in Christ says it is. It then proceeds negatively to show that unless all facts and all logical relations be seen in the light of the Christian framework, all human interpretation fails instantly.... What we shall have to do then is to try to reduce our opponent's position to an absurdity. Nothing less will do.... We must point out to them that univocal reasoning itself leads to self-contradiction, not only from a theistic point of view, but from a non-theistic point of view as well. It is this that we ought to mean when we say that we must meet our enemy on their own ground. It is this that we ought to mean when we say that we reason from the IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE CONTRARY.[19]
I. Unargued Philosophical Baggage
In discussing issues under this rubric, my aim is to point out that inductive empiricism is not a philosophically neutral or unproblematic tool by which evangelical apologetics may proceed.
(1) Inductivists are not as thoroughly inductive as they think, for the reflexive theoretical statements of the inductivists about their procedure and practice, its merits and criteria are not inductive or empirical in nature. Hence extra-inductive commitments are immediately discernible.
(2) Should the Christian inductivist assume universal uniformity or regularity in nature and history so as to provide the metaphysical precondition of his inductivism -- but thereby exclude miracles? Or should he begin by allowing miracles (which, by the way, is a supra-empirical commitment to the range of the possible) -- but thereby dismiss the reliability and uniformity needed for inductive knowledge?
(3) What sort of rational basis or evidence does the inductivist have for his implied belief in natural uniformity (e.g., against Hume's skeptical attack on induction)? Such issues as the nature of induction, its preconditions, and the basis for a commitment to the uniformity of nature are rarely discussed by evangelicals. But this is at the heart of inductive epistemology, and it is still central in philosophical disputes today.
(8) Given the inductivist's commitment to empirical procedures, we can press even harder philosophically and ask whether sense perception is reliable, in light of (a) the problem of illusion (since the non-veridical nature of an illusion is not recognized while the illusion is experienced, how can veridical perception ever be distinguished reliably from illusions?), and (b) the problem of perspectival variation (since various visual images I receive from different perspectives on an object cannot reasonably be attributed to the changing qualities of that object itself, perception seems not to be telling me the truth about those objects).
9. Space will not permit us to speak further about such problems as (a) the traditional way of distinguishing inductive and deductive arguments and how it undermines the use of probability, (b) how to rate probability and explicate its nature in inductive study (especially in cases of the testimony of historical writers0, or (c) how to explain the analytic/synthetic distinction that inductivism assumes, and especially how to explain the distinction in a way that does not commit us to such awkward and extra-empirical metaphysical furniture as necessity or essences. Suffice it to say that each of these issues presents a solid challenge to the credibility of Fuller's and Pinnock's espousal of exhaustive inductivism. How are they to delineate and delimit sharply their "inductive" method or the "synthetic" area to which it is applied with the calculus of "probability"?
It is clear to anyone who will reflect seriously on this question that the statements of Scripture ABOUT Scripture are primary and must determine our attitude toward all the rest. Why is this so? (1) An exhaustive inductive examination cannot be carried out in practice. The doctrinal profession of the Bible's absolute truthfulness such that alleged errors or discrepancies are only apparent could take inductive scholarship as its sole or central foundation only if each and every assertion had been examined and publicly vindicated (the requirements of which stagger the imagination), but even then all of the external inductive evidence cannot be presumed to be in (future discoveries and refinements of evidence might pervasively change the complexion of the pool of relevant data) -- in which case the theologian could legitimately (i.e., by cautious, circumspect, presuppositionless, inductive warrant) profess only a provisional and qualified inerrancy, even if he had successfully completed the enormous task of inductively confirming all of the Bible's numerous assertions. (2) By their very character, many Scriptural assertions cannot be tested inductively but must be accepted, if at all, on Scripture's own attestation (e.g., Christ's interpretation of his person and work as being divine and redemptive.[20] We must not forget that the necessity of special revelation does not arise as a shortcut for the intellectually ungifted who do not pursue their inductive homework thoroughly and accurately, but rather stems from the fact that there are divine truths that all men, especially as fallen, could never discover on their own but that must be unveiled by God to them (cf. Matt 16:17). Such revealed truths (e.g., that the ascended Christ now makes continual intercession for us to the Father) are not subject to our inductive examination and confirmation; they are accepted on the authority of God speaking in the Scripture itself. And yet they are just as much members of the set of Scriptural assertions (and as such included in the range of the set-reference statements) as are the apparently more mundane historical assertions (e.g., that Judas of Galilee rose up after Theudas). (3) As we have seen already, inductive study itself has crucial presuppositions that cannot be accounted for except on a Biblical basis, and therefore in a profound sense of inductive study is already committed to the content of these self-referential statements of Scripture.
We see, then, that the self-referential statements are and must be primary in our approach to the nature of Scripture and the question of its authority. The question of Biblical inerrancy must be resolved presuppositionally. Central to evangelical Bibliology and apologetics is the issue of inerrancy and inductivism, and yet we must see that the latter is in no position to serve as the foundation for the former. If intelligibility in our doctrinal affirmation of inerrancy depends on the intelligibility of the presuppositionally pure inductive theory of apologetics, then the doctrine has been scuttled for sure.
And so we can agree with Pinnock against Fuller. One cannot but let the Bible speak for itself about its own nature and attributes, and consequently one cannot choose to submit to Scriptural truths at some points (e.g., Christ's deity and redeeming work are beyond the adjudication of empirical criticism) and reserve self-sufficient critical authority elsewhere (e.g., historical data are accepted or rejected on the strength of empirical examination). Fuller's inductive approach is epistemologically and theologically impossible. It is double-minded.
On the other hand, we can agree with Fuller against Pinnock when he says Pinnock has not really been thoroughly inductive, for Pinnock allows certain Scriptural statements a privileged and controlling position -- one that is not subject to the radical demand to let critical thinking prevail.
Before we are tempted to reply to this charge that nonetheless Pinnock does take an inductive and evidential apologetical approach to these self-referential statements of Scripture, let us hesitate and observe that such a reply is hardly tenable. (1) If Pinnock really took a thoroughly inductive approach to such statements, that could only mean that he verified the set-reference statement itself by inductively confirming every particular assertion covered by it -- that is, every claim that is within its range. This then would collapse into the phenomenological approach we have just rejected. It would be subject to its crucial defects, and Pinnock would be prey to Fuller's taunt that a part of him wants to be inductive but that he cannot go all the way. (2) Moreover, it must be observed that the very empirical apologetic pursued by Pinnock in defense of the Bible's divine credentials is of necessity grounded in metaphysical and epistemological presuppositions for which only the Bible can account. That is, he is intellectually dependent on the Bible's veracity even while examining the Bible's claims. (3) Nor should it be thought that Pinnock can credibly work toward an empirical confirmation of SOME of Scripture's historical details and then inductively infer that the OTHER statements of Scripture can also be accepted, for (a) the argument would be thoroughly fallacious (just as if someone argued that because SOME (even many) statements in the KORAN, or in Churchill's GATHERING STORM, etc., are empirically confirmed, we can infer that ALL of the statements in these writings must be accepted as without error); (b) the historical details may very well be veracious without the theological interpretation of them being inductively substantiated (e.g., that Paul was correct in historically asserting that Christ was "born of a woman" is hardly warrant for saying that Paul was also correct in soteriologically asserting that Christ "condemned sin in the flesh"); and (c) this approach would be subject to the same criticism as we have made of Fuller (albeit in a slightly different way) -- that is, the inductive approach to inerrancy by an empirical apologist like Pinnock submits to Scripture's self-testimony at some places (e.g., the interpretation of Christ's person and work is absolutely inerrant) but relies on self-sufficient critical reasoning elsewhere (e.g., the historical data are provisionally inerrant to the extent of empirical confirmation or informity). Pinnock operates inconsistently on two different and incompatible epistemologies: On the one hand the Bible's assertions are endorsed as true, although admitted as possibly untrue, only on the basis of a neutral and critical evaluation of external evidence and independent reasoning (strictly gauged to inductive and empirical credentials), but on the other hand the Bible's assertions are accepted as true without qualification on its own sufficient authority (and in spite of apparent empirical difficulties). He double-mindedly defends a conception of Biblical authority in a way that compromises that very authority by its methodological assumptions. The question is this: What exercises control over out speculation, evaluation, and conclusions -- God's revealed word in Scripture, or some authority external to God's revelation? Do empirical difficulties render the Bible's inerrancy only apparent, or does the Bible's inerrancy render empirical difficulties only apparent? Does critical thinking reign supreme only over PART of the Bible? The errors of Fuller and Pinnock are epistemological and theological twins.
Significance and Conclusion
The reason it is important for us to consider and analyze this important exchange on inerrancy between Pinnock and Fuller is simply that it brings to the surface certain latent issues and inconsistencies in the popular evangelical witness today. There is a basic intramural dispute that must be resolved in our approach to inerrancy, and this resolution is a necessary first step toward our apologetic reply to those who are antagonistic to an evangelical understanding of Scripture and its authority. Fuller correctly observes, "But we evangelicals have a basic question we must settle before we can talk very coherently with those farther afield" (p. 330).
That basic question is epistemological in nature -- viz., whether we should take an inductive or presuppositional approach to the nature and authority of the Bible. We must conclude from our previous discussion that Christ's Lordship -- even in the area of thought -- cannot be treated like a light switch, to be turned on and off at our own pleasure and discretion. Christ makes a radical demand on our thinking that we submit to his Word as self-attesting. To do otherwise leads away from a recognition of his divine person and saving work, for it leads away from an affirmation of Scripture's inerrancy. Moreover, it simultaneously leads away from the intelligibility of all experience and every epistemic method. One must begin with the testimony of Scripture to itself, rather than with the allegedly neutral methods of inductivism. And this means acknowledging the veracity of Scripture even when empirical evidence might appear to contradict it (following in the steps of the father of the faithful, Abraham: Rom. 4:16-21; Heb. 11:17-19). The classic inter-school encounter between Pinnock and Fuller points beyond itself to the basic and inescapable need for a presuppositional apologetic, rather than the allegedly pure inductivism espoused by Pinnock and Fuller. Speaking of such a presuppositional approach to the issue of inerrancy, J.I. Packer said:[21]
[1] "Daniel Fuller and Clark Pinnock: On Revelation and Biblical Authority." CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS REVIEW ***Check original footnote***
[2] C. Van Til, A SURVEY OF CHRISTIAN EPISTEMOLOGY, Vol. 2 of the series "In Defense of Biblical Christianity" (den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1932; reprinted 1969)7.
[3] C. Van Til, A CHRISTIAN THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE (New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1959)35.
[4] C. Van Til, CHRISTIAN-THEISTIC EVIDENCES (mimeographed syllabus, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1961)52.B****
[5] C. Van Til, AN INTRODUCTION TO SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY (mimeographed syllabus, Westminster Theological Seminary, reprinted 1966)45.
[6] SURVEY, pp. 7, 120, 9, 10.
[7] THEORY, p. 293.
[8] For example, Van Til has consistently criticized allegedly "Christian" approaches to science which maintain either that the circle of naturalistic interpretation vaguely points beyond itself to certain religious truths (i.e., projection into theology or that the scientific interpretation of the facts can also be supplemented with a religious perspective (i.e., imposition of a theological dimension). E. g. see Van Til's articles "Bridgewater Treatises" and "Butler, Joseph," THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CHRISTIANITY (ed. G. G. Cohen: Marshallton, Deleware National Foundation for Christian Education, 1968), 2. 178-179, 238-239, and Van Til's reviews of THE SCIENTIFIC ENTERPRISE AND CHRISTIAN FAITH by M. A. Jeeves, WTJ 32 (May, 1970) 236-240; THE PHILOSOPHY OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE by A. Eddington, WTJ 3 (November, 1940) 662; and THE LOGIC BELIEF by D. E. Trueblood, WTJ 5 (November, 1942) 88-94.
[10] EVIDENCES, p. 37. Van Til's clear opposition to fideism is not sufficiently countenanced and credited by some fellow apologists (e.g., N. Geisler, 'CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976] 56 ff. In fact Van Til has made a very similar, but much earlier, critique of fideism than Geisler.
[11] C. Van Til, "Introduction," in B. B. Warfield, THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1948)36,67.
[12] THE DEFENSE OF THE FAITH (1966) 258; also in THEORY, p. 293.
[13] "Introduction," p. 37.
[14] EVIDENCES, p. 63.
[15] DEFENSE, pp. 119, 120.
[16] EVIDENCES, p. 56.
[17] THEORY, p. 26.
[18] DEFENSE, pp. 116, 117.
[19] SURVEY, p. 225, 204, 205.
[20] Lest it be thought that Christ's interpretation, rather than being self-attestingly established, is and vindicated by some informal logic such as "If Jesus rose from the dead, then he is God and accordingly speaks the truth at every point," it should be commented that this very logic is far from reflecting the unbiased, accepted and uniform conclusion or thinking of the world of advanced scholarship? That is, the logic of such an argument is itself derived from and warranted by the Scriptures (if they are in fact properly interpreted as teaching this line of reasoning), which means that Christ's interpretation is after all still based on Christ's own word. That this reasoning is subject to dispute is perhaps illustrated by considering just three aspects of it: (1) The inference "if resurrected, then divine" is hardly acceptable if applied in a discriminating and special pleading fashion so as to avoid concluding that Lazarus was also God; (2) the committed secularist would almost certainly look upon such an inference pattern as a manifestation of primitive, mythic, God-of the-gaps thinking and present an alternative inference pattern congenial to naturalism (e.g., "If Jesus rose from the dead, then very complex and sophisticated biological principles and factors surpassing those presently recognized and utilized by scientists remain to be discovered and rendered in natural formulas"); and (3) one clearly begs many important questions, the unbelieving philosopher will note, if he simply reasons that "if Jesus was God, he always spoke the truth," for this naively utilizes only one of many competing conceptions of deity -- e.g., the Greek gods were not unfailing truth-tellers! The evangelical apologist must finally realize that what should count as an acceptable test for recognizing and acknowledging something as a divine revelation can only be set forth and warranted by God himself--which could only be done by revelation. That is, the criteria for identifying revelation would themselves have to be revealed if they were to be objectively trustworthy and properly accepted over against the competing and mistaken options of man's imagination. Divine revelation must be self-attesting, for God alone is adequate to witness to himself; cf. J. Murray. "The Attestation of Scripture," THE INFALLIBLE WORD (3rd rev. ed.; ed. P. Woodley: Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1967 [1946]) 6, 10, 46-47.
[21] J.I. Packer, "Hermeneutics and Biblical Authority," THEOVELLOS 1/1, p. 12.
