Episode 63: Lake of Fire

Hi, this is Chris Date, and you're listening to the The Apologetics Podcast, episode 63, Lake of Fire. Today we will continue where we left off in my interview with Larry Dixon uh on the topic of hell and annihilationism. We began by asking him about his testimony, which had particular relevance to this discussion, since it was a fear of hell that led him to Christ. We talked about his experience at Columbia International University University Seminary.

We talked about some of the other books he's written and then we started talking about the book The Other Side of the Good News, which was a response to Universalists and Annihilationists who were challenging the traditional view of hell. Um

that the tr that the topic of hell has been gaining interest in in the media while at the same time has been fading from Christian conversation, which is is a unfortunate thing. We talked about three reasons why he Larry thinks it it's important that we be talking about hell. We talked about uh two forms of a of universalism, uh, which he covers in his book, and then we moved on to uh uh the what he believes is the biblical view of hell.

One based on passages like Matthew twenty five, thirty one to forty six and the separation of the sheep from the goats, um, where the goats go into eternal punishment. He talked about the parable parable of Lazarus and the rich man and what kind of relevance that might have when it comes to the eternal state. Uh he talked about Second Thessalonians one, eight to nine, Revelation fourteen, ten to eleven, and Revelation twenty, ten to fifteen, and what those passages which with their

eternal destruction shut out from the presence of the Lord, uh tormented for day and night, forever and ever. Those kinds of things. W how those support the traditional view of hell. And then and then he talked about how the traditional view of hell fares better than these alternatives when it comes to things like the absence of God, the misguided choice, a truthful theodicy, and eternal contrast.

It was at that point that we began to look at annihilationism specifically and he commented on Edward Fudge's work, The Fire That Consumes. And then uh we talked some some uh for a little bit about the the nature of the conversation and how it needs to be done respectfully, even though we can be impassioned about it. Uh and then um and then we briefly discuss the issue of whether or not God is morally justified in eternally punishing sinners.

And then finally, before we uh before we ended, we looked at uh uh Larry's response to two questions that were sent to me, one by a listener named Dave and the other by doctor Glenn Peoples, whom I've interviewed in previous episodes on a somewhat related but different topic.

And so it was at that point that uh we uh ended the first half of the interview and and and now we'll move into the second half where I begin to try to challenge Larry with um w with some of the challenges that have led me So without further ado, let's move into the second half. on the topic of annihilation.

Now I'll admit that I found the cases made by Fudge and other annihilationists compelling. Um and what I want to do is something that I've done in many episodes, playing the devil's advocate and challenging challenging your view. Now I was gonna start Um with part of the positive case that Fudge made in the interview that I that I had with him.

Um and he reiterates this in a review of your book. He said, Dixon does not mention the dozens of verbs or scores of metaphors and similes that Old Testament writers employ to foretell the end of sinners, all of which sound like total extinction. And in the up in the interview he pointed to things like being torn to pieces in Psalm fifty twenty two, slugs melting away in Psalm fifty eight eight.

a dream which disappears when one one awakes in Psalm seventy three twenty. But if I've understood you correctly, w would you say that that all of this kind of language from the Old Testament um uh really ought to be understood in light of uh this life, even if Um some of some of them that talk about destruction are not actually suffered by uh by some of the wicked. I mean some wicked, for example, in this life, don't suffer in death.

Right. Right. Right. Um but but would you still say that all this language w w really ought to be understood in light of the death in this life and and not what's going to happen in the future? Uh to be very honest with you, Chris, I'm I I don't think I'd want to make that as a dogmatic statement. I'd want to look at a lot of those analogies and I recognize that he's made a good point that they're a Frome does the same thing in the conditionless faith of our fathers.

uh bringing up dozens of images that he believes lead uh to uh inevitably to the issue of total annihilation or d or um uh extinction. Uh some of them obviously don't. I mean uh uh to talk about the wicked being torn, how does that indicate annihilation and so some of them are o open to question. But I've not I've not researched all those metaphors and all those analogies. I think that work would would need to be done.

Some others have taken a look at those and and have drawn the dis the d the um they they've made the point that they don't necessarily lead to utter annihilation or to the concept of utter annihilation. Um but one aspect is that It seems the Old Testament puts a great deal of focus upon the present life and that uh book of Job, for example, that the wicked are uh no longer of any influence at all. Um Is that making a statement about their after death?

Situation. Not necessarily, but I'm not prepared to make a dogmatic comment about each of those.

Well I understand. And and maybe and like you said, maybe this is an area of discussion that uh or an area of study that still needs still needs to be done. Per perhaps it is true that there are uh here's the way that Fudge put it in the interview. He said that oftentimes what what traditionalists have done is they go into the Old Testament looking for uh passages that talk about hell by looking for passages that talk about eternal conscious torment.

But he suggests that if we went instead going back and looking at uh what the fate of the wicked is, regardless of what we think that fate is, we might find much more that the Bible has to say.

So m so maybe maybe it's maybe this is an area which traditionally hasn't received the kind of attention it does uh it needs, but maybe moving forward it will receive that this kind of attention and and sure enough there'll be a um uh an answer in favor of traditionalism uh that comes out of that study. Would you say that's fair?

Well that's a possibility. I guess the other point I'd make is this. I I do affirm a principle called progressive revelation. Progressive revelation means that God did not give us all the truth he wanted us to have in one fell swoop in the Old Testament. It doesn't mean the the Old Testament's less inspired, it doesn't mean there's uh that the truth there is not reliable or is replaced by the New Testament, but it means that God progressively revealed truth about himself and about the world.

throughout the two testaments. So for example, on the doctrine of the Trinity, we're given hints of the Trinity and in various ways in the Old Testament, but we really don't get a fuller explanation until we get to the New Testament. I would argue that in terms of espotology. That we do get some statements in the Old Testament about the afterlife, Daniel twelve two comes to mind and uh a few other passages, um, but most of the passages have to do with

uh ceasing to exist and live in this world. Whereas the New Testament I think begins to more clearly define what happens in the after d after death uh situation, especially when we get the teaching of the Lord Jesus. And I'm not advocating that we go back and read New Testament content into the Old Testament. Sure. That actually violates the principle of progressive revelation.

Yeah. But we do take the fuller truth given to us in the New Testament and uh in that light compare it with what we find in the old. I in a sense the question is does the Old Testament take more take precedent over the new or the New Testament take precedent over the Old? It's a it's a fascinating hermeneutical question. Sure, absolutely, and one that's beyond the scope of this interview and would take us uh a lot longer to do.

Now in w in one of his earliest chapters of his book, Fudge argues that the traditional view of hell arose from the Greek belief in the immortality of the soul. How do you respond to the charge made by some annihilationists that early Greek converts to Christianity brought with them their belief in this immortality of the soul, which resulted in the idea of eternal conscious torment?

Well I think that's an important consideration and uh as I try to demonstrate in my book, I don't think that the uh Hellenistic view of uh man's indestructible uh immortal nature is the same as what we have in the New Testament. That ours is a contingent immortality given to us by God. Um and I I don't accept the annihilationist view that it's only those who are redeemed that are given uh e given immortality or or uh continue in existence.

After death. It's interesting that the late Clark Pennock took that even a step further, I think a step further that most of us would be very uncomfortable with, where he argues that even the New Testament writers, these were his words, surrendered entirely to Hellenism. In their view of the soul, the Now Chris, if that's right. If the New Testament writers surrendered entirely to Hellenism, we have a major problem in terms of what we can trust from Scripture.

and it apparently wasn't a major problem for Pennick. He he made quite a number of adjustments in his view of scripture uh in the last few years of his life. But um Again, I would I would argue that there were a number of Christian groups that that wavered from New Testament teaching early in the church and various cults and sects that arose. I don't think one of them was an affirmation of Both the righteous and the wicked's uh everlasting existence beyond death.

Okay. Now now you you begin to answer that question though with something you call a contingent immortality, uh one that Christ gives. And and you said that you don't at all you don't at all believe that that is something that is extended only to the redeemed. But uh from what I understood in your book, the kind of immortality um withheld from the unsaved you argue has to do with the quality of existence, not existence itself.

And the unsaved do continue to exist in hell. But but isn't the net result of this reasoning the same? Does doesn't it still mean that humans are created incapable of dying in the way that Greek dualists insisted? My response to that again, as we've mentioned before, is that death has to be defined. And and I think uh a discussion on what's the first time. Death means in scripture is important here.

Uh as I mentioned earlier, physical death is the separation of my soul or spirit from my body. Eternal or spiritual death is the separation of me from God forever. So I'm I'm affirming human beings die. But does death equal cessation of existence? Um if that's what the Annihilationist holds, then in a sense they're uh it's teaching more than they really want to teach.

That is let's t let's take a typical unsafe person today who gets, I don't know, hit by a train or, you know, hit by a meteor or whatever, they die.

Do they do they cease to exist at that point? Uh our Adventist friends would say no, they're soul sleep and you know, then they're kind of uh recreated or whatever. Um I I think there are some issues there that that violate uh text of scripture like the Luke sixteen and like some of the passages uh in Revelation that that imply there is an ongoing existence after death.

Okay. And so and so uh the the reason why it so so you would actually say that no, you're not saying that the that humans are created incapable of dying because you define death in in a way that used that the Bible seems to describe death as one of separation, not cessation of being.

Exactly. Now y you write that one might grant for argument's sake that man is not naturally endowed with immortality, but the Bible clearly speaks of the existence of the wicked after death, and and you just alluded to that. Now you made the claim that Daniel twelve two's everlasting contempt

quote, assumes the continuing existence of the object of God's hatred. And in the past I would have agreed, but uh in my meager amount of research into this, the the Hebrew word translated contempt is also used in Isaiah sixty six twenty four not to describe sort of an emotion experienced by the contemptuous

But to describe dead bodies as being abhorrent or loathsome to those who remain alive. So the question I have for you is does the everlasting contempt of Daniel, to which the wicked will rise, really assume that they will continue to exist? Well I think I think the answer is by simply reading the text here. Daniel twelve says this, uh one and two. Uh at that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people will arise, there will be a time of distress.

Such as not happened from the beginning of nations until then, but at that time your people, everyone whose name is found written in the book, will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake. Some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. So I I think looking at that text it it certainly seems to sound like Matthew twenty five, doesn't it?

Sure. In in terms of you know there being two categories of individuals those who will awake to everlasting life, those who will awake to shame and everlasting contempt. So um I I've often had um Students say, uh, won't God still love the wicked forever? And I think the Bible indicates no, God will his holy hatred will be poured out upon the wicked. They will not be objects of of his love forever, but they will be objects of his righteous contempt, and that will be everlasting shame.

So I'm I'm cu wha what what about that would require Um like you said, they they would be object of God's contempt or shame. Uh and in Isaiah sixty six, twenty four, the dead bodies are the object of the righteous shame. But they're dead. They're they're not able to experience. So I guess what what I'm what I'm getting at is what is it about the language here that requires that their rising to it everlasting contempt means they rise to being able to eternally experience contempt.

Well, I I guess this also gets to the issue of of how um traditionalists have been accused of smuggling the word conscious. into the expression eternal punishment. And I think Alan Gomes makes a great point where he says, um, you know, a a person who does not exist cannot be punished.

It's a person who exists who who can be uh punished. And so uh I don't I'm not sure that we're really trying to sm smuggle words in, but the the fact is they're described as rising to everlasting contempt and shame.

Uh how would they experience that if they no longer exist? And I think your Isaiah sixty six passage is is one worth looking at further, but it it's describing the righteous looking at those dead bodies, but those dead bodies I would suggest are indicative of lost souls that are under God's judgment. So would you say that the that the dead bodies there are experiencing contempt because it's only their bodies that are dead, but their souls continue to exist and experience that shame?

Um, I I don't know that I'd put it that way, but uh and and it may well be that the language is being used somewhat, you know, metaphorically to say, you know, the bodies are kinda standing for the whole person, but the whole person is not just the dead body. Because because then there would be no soul, but rather uh it it's it's indicative of God's uh judgment upon the wicked. Okay.

Well now I want to come back to the the conscious punishment issue in a little bit, but um but there's a there's an argument that you make uh early on in your chapter on annihil annihilationism. You quote Robert Peterson in the book that he co authored with Fudge, Two Views of Hell. Saying that one of his most powerful arguments against Fudge had to do with the Christological implications of his view, something that I I've discussed at length with several other guests.

You had quoted him as saying, Robert Peterson that is, to hold that Jesus was annihilated when he died means either that his whole person, deity and humanity, was annihilated, or that his human nature alone was annihilated.

But it seems to me that this is really an argument against what what might be called monism or physicalism, because as Fudge pointed out when I interviewed him, a dualist could say, and some do, that the human soul continues to exist after the first death, but is destroyed in the second. So would you agree that that a dualist annihilationist could hold this view without facing this dilemma that Peterson described?

Um I I think that makes sense. I'd want to ponder that a little bit more, Chris, uh that particular question. Um But my understanding is uh and y y you correct me if if you think this is wrong, that um that fudge indicates that when Jesus died he was experiencing annihilation.

Uh I'm not familiar enough. Well what was annihilated. Uh the impression I got is that Jesus as a being ceased to exist, although his deity could not cease to exist. So if his human nature ceased to exist Then as Peterson argues at the resurrection there has to be another incarnation. Right. And that and that is certainly uh the position that some annihilationists hold. Uh Fudge when I interviewed him actually said that he on some days leans one way and other days leans another.

Uh but the point that I'm making is it seems to me that there are many dualists who would say that it is only the body that is annihilated in the first death, and in fact we're gonna get to a question about that a little later as well. But that it's in the second death when both body and soul are annihilated. And if that's the if that's the case, uh I'm not weighing in on that.

point. But if if that's the case, if if if a dualist can uh holds that position, then then wouldn't they be able to say that the Son of God continued to exist as both deity and humanity, even though his body was annihilated? Yeah, I'd have to ponder that more. I mean th the very uh the very idea that his body is annihilated of course didn't happen, did it? Well, fair enough, but it died. Well again it comes back to a definition of debt.

Yeah, I agree. And and and maybe that's something that uh that I found some traditionalists somewhat misunderstand. A lot of times the word annihilation is understood in some sort of metaphysical dissolution of the of the uh of of you know, material kind of sense, some sort of uh um uh you know it's it uh s it poofs out of existence. But m from my experience, most annihilationists I've spoken to, when they use the word annihilated, they just mean die.

They they they they don't literally mean that at at that at that instant the molecules that make up the body uh poof out of existence. And so in that why use then why use the word annihilation? Well...

we would say we use that word that w that way sometimes. We might say that that person was just annihilated, you know, and granted we're typically using it metaphorically to talk about being defeated in a sports game or something like that. But the point but the point is is that I've ne I let me put just put it this way, I've never met an annihilationist, and granted I've only talked to a few, uh who who have said that what happens in the second death

is that the um the molecules that make up a person poof out of existence instantaneously. Rather they would say that they're destroyed. And what they mean by that is they die. If that makes any sense to you. And what does that mean? It means they they cease to be alive and conscious in any sense of the word imaginable.

They're no longer conscious, alive, or or but but that doesn't mean that they cease to exist at least instantaneously. I mean their their body would presumably uh r you know, remain there just like Jesus did at least for a short time. That's that's a new thought for me because the Annihilation is that I've read, I've gotten the impression that they do mean utter destruction or utter cessation of existence. Right, but the question would be how would they define that?

Um you know, uh uh traditionalists and and even I um struggled for some time to understand w how they could say that uh in light of some of the things we've been talking about. But like I said, w th when they say cessation of existence. What they mean is um that the person ceases to be th to exist as a person. They cease to b they cease to exist as a as a living uh creature. But that that doesn't mean that their molecules cease to exist instantaneously. Now, granted

Um, you know, as as we might talk about con you know as we continue this interview, um they they they they're thrown into uh a lake of fire that consumes them. They burn up But even but even when we burn something up, um its molecules don't s poof out of existence. They're you know, converted or whatever. Um but the point is is that the destruction that they're talking about when they talk about annihilationism

is one that uh is one that kills them. They're really trying to say they're killed in every imaginable sense, not that that person poofs out of existence. And and so I just to bring this back to the question at hand, all I'm saying is uh it seems to me possible that somebody who's a duelist could say the body of Christ was annihilated in the sense that it w died, but it didn't cease to uh th the body didn't literally cease to exist'cause it was still there in the tomb. Um

But the soul continued to exist, and that's why he the sun could r remain human and divine during those three days. But that in the second death, when a person is destroyed or annihilated, it's both the body and the soul that's annihilated. It seems to me at least possible to hold that view. So what did Jesus undergo on the cross? Death. Just the first?

Just the first Yeah, that's that's that would be what they would say, I think. See, because I I think and it this this sounds very crassly materialistic, but I think many traditionalists would would lean toward the idea that what Christ underwent on the cross was not just physical death. He suffered eternal death for me as a Okay. He suffered the wrath of God on my behalf. It was not just a matter of him physically dying, but he bore my he bore my sins and he bore God's wrath.

Which uh which is a bit of a different issue, isn't it? Yeah, but uh again I d I don't think that they would say that there was a sense in which the son didn't experience the wrath of God or didn't experience eternal death. Uh the the point I guess uh th they they would see that the the second death, that phrase second death, is not saying an entirely different kind of death, except some dualists might say body and soul, whereas the first death is just body.

Either way it would still be a the the the punishment of death. Um it's just one would one would be a death that extends to the annihilation of the soul as well, perhaps. Well I would w I'd want to check into that further because I I think I saw a statement by FUD. Where he used language like Jesus ceased ceased to exist.

Well and like I said, Fudge told me in the interview that some days he leans one direction on dualism and and and another toward monism. So like you said, maybe that's an area of of research in and you know one one point I'll make in in in defense of the statement that you made uh that brought up this whole question that we've been spending a lot of time on. Uh is is that some annihilationists have told me that um while they think that the evidence in favor of annihilationism is

far uh far stronger to the evidence that they feel is in favor of monism or physicalism. They would say that annihilationism inevitably leads to the view that the sun ceased to uh cease to be as a as a as in both body and soul. And so in other words, uh even though some dualists might

Hold that the sun continued to exist as a human soul in death, um perhaps are doing so inconsistently inconsistently with their view of annihilation annihilationism. Then my question is what happens next? Let's assume that's correct. Uh at at his resurrection, is there a is there a second incarnation? No. Well, would they would they then affirm that the second person of Trinity um then lost his humanity and so we don't have a man in heaven interceding for us, we just have God.

Uh no, they would say that the human that rose from the grave, Jesus, who is also God, uh ascended to heaven and began his intercessory work for us. I'm not sure I follow where you're going. Well it it sounded like some would say that he indeed ceased to exist as a human being.

Well if that's the case then then there had to be a reconstitution or a recreation Well that gets into the whole philosophical arguments uh surrounding monism or physicalism, which uh I've done episodes on in the past because that's an area that I'm interested in and and c wondering about myself.

I don't know if we could get into the philosophical discussion about whether it was a reconstitution or a you know or a resurrection uh in the limits that we have in this interview. I I understand. Just one further point though, Chris. then in order for us to have the God man interceding for us in heaven, there had to be there had to be the the bringing into existence of a second incarnation

Which to me is just a that's an overwhelmingly outstanding idea. I mean not not a good idea, but But a d a dramatic idea which of course as far as I know nobody in the history of Orthodox Well and neither do the annihilationists who would who would hold the kind of view that I think you're critiquing. They wouldn't say that the sun

cease to exist. Now if fudge did, that that would be a surprise to me. But even for example, one of the questions I read to you a few moments ago was from a guy named Dr. Glenn Peoples. Um he's a physicalist and he's also an annihilationist and he says that when the sun died, he ceased to be alive and conscious in every imaginable way, both body and soul, in the sense that he understands soul to refer to as a physicalist, died.

Um but he doesn't say that the sun ceased to be that it ceased to exist. Mm-hmm. So that's why I say this could take us into a whole nother hour or two or three of of talking about physicalism and and and uh

the philosophy around that. But suffice it to say that there let's just close the the door on this question and say that um perhaps a duelist and maybe you can tell me if you agree with this perhaps a duelist Who holds that the body is destroyed in death in the first death, but not the soul, at least not in the same way they would say it dies in the second death.

Uh could could maintain that view and and annihilation, um, but perhaps there's an inconsistency there that they're not aware of that maybe w could be highlighted.

Yeah, I th I think it's worth further further thought. Um, but maybe like you, my head's hurting now. No, I don't mind to Yeah. Well let's let's move on then to maybe some areas where our head won't hurt quite so much. N near the end of the same chapter I was talking about, uh you present what seems to you what what seems to me like you think is another very powerful argument against annihilationism.

writing this quote Annihilationism's Achilles heel appears to be the issue of degrees of punishment. Now I I asked this of Edward Fudge when I interviewed him, and he said that in his view, there's an infinite number of possible combinations of intensity, duration, and type of suffering in the process which culminates in the wicked's destruction. Why in your view then doesn't this sufficiently account for the Bible's teaching of degrees of punishment?

I guess the question here is um would those passages that seem to imply degrees of punishment relate to a temporary or an eternal state? That's really the issue.

Uh so when Jesus says, you know, Woe to you, Korzon and Besseda, you know, if the miracles that were done in you had been done in Sodom and Gomorrah, uh they would have repented by now. Uh there seems to be with greater opportunity, greater responsibility, degrees of punishment, and I guess I'm coming at from from the perspective of there will be eternal degrees of punishment based on opportunities to believe the truth.

Okay. And and where in any of those passages about degrees of punishment does it say that those degrees of punishment will be uh experienced in varying degrees eternally. Rather than a one time uh punishment that is everlasting but which is but which un which but as part of which people undergo varying degrees of suffering. Yeah, I'm not sure that I can prove that at this point, Chris. I've not I've not examined those passages afresh.

Um in in fact if I recall correctly, Jesus is really talking generally about the day of judgment. Sure. It it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for you. So that would lead us into a discussion of the day of judgment is that. you know, the day of the Lord? Is that e you know, e eternity? I mean what what's really being spoken of there? And I I think that would uh we'd have to kind of go after those questions. Okay. Understood.

Now we talked earlier about the parable of Lazarus in Dives and You acknowledge that if the parable is to be taken as a real descrip description of life after death, it's describing the intermediate state, not the eternal one. Now you you did point out that it seemed to you that the Bible doesn't seem to say that what happens there is

uh done and over with after the resurrection, but rather that it gets far worse. Would you do you want to add anything more beyond that that that would help us understand why um why this parable, even though it's describing the intermediate state, does have application to the eternal one? Yeah, it would seem to me that the burden really here is on the annihilation. To prove that the eternal fate of the wicked is substantially different

uh from the intermediate s state described in Luke sixteen. Um I think it's somewhat different in that the wicked will have resurrection bodies. But um I I it seems to me that that that parable is indicating uh what the im intermediate state will be like and is a hint as to how awful the eternal state will be.

But um I I you know I think the burden really is on the annihilationist there to prove the difference I if they were right, speaking of that burden though, if they were right about some of the language that they think uh lends itself in their favor, um

i if they do believe that the eternal state is one where uh after the close of the intermediate state the bo the wicked rise in bodies and then those bodies and souls together are destroyed, i w w could it be that in fact um They're how what am I trying to say here? If they're right about those passages that talk about the the final state being destruction, wouldn't it

w wouldn't that parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man if it's talking about the the uh the real state of the wicked and and and the righteous in the intermediate state as opposed to being just metaphor or something like that. Wouldn't that in fact be

consistent with their view that that it was a temporary holding place, one which is definitely one of torment, but it's a holding place, a prison of sorts, at the end of which they're destroyed, much the same way as we might send a somebody that's going to be sentenced to death to prison for a while before they're destroyed. Well, sure, if I grant your premise your conclusions follow. And if the if the if the premise is the language of Scripture indicates the final destruction of the wicked.

Then I'd have to say that what's described in Luke sixteen is temporary and has purposes other than being a hint at what the eternal state will be like. I think part of the problem there is we do get language in Revelation fourteen, Revelation twenty, other places That destruction is not the final fate of the wicked.

Okay, so then this d if I'm understanding you then really this this debate will center not so much on Lazarus and the rich man, although it does have some application, but rather it's gonna focus on some of these other passages that uh that seem to be a little clearer perhaps. Uh I'd I'd put it differently, I would say that what happens in Luke sixteen is uh an indication of uh a much worse eternal fate.

And uh and so again I would say the burdens on the annihilation is to say that the eternal state will be dramatically different than the intermediate state. Okay. Now in arguing against the view that Hell's fire consumes in the way claimed by annihilationists,

You ask why there would remain any smoke if the work of destruction is complete, since in Revelation fourteen eleven and nineteen three the smoke rises forever. This this goes back to some of the Revelation passages that you've talked about. But in Isaiah thirty four ten, the destruction of Edom results in fire from which smoke rises forever and ever.

And it seems to me, uh meager student of the word as I am, what is being communicated is the finality and permanence of its destruction rather than its being continuously ongoingly destroyed. Um if if I'm if the r the language from Revelation uh and uh comes from Isaiah, and if Isaiah comes from like Genesis nineteen in which Abraham sees Sodom the day after it was utterly destroyed, smoke rising from its ashes.

Wouldn't this language's use in revelation then at least be compatible with annihilationism, even if it doesn't necessarily prove it? Well, I think that's a good question. I I would argue that the same Greek phrases which are used to describe the eternality of God are used to describe the eternal punishment of the wicked. But the punishment of the wicked will last as long as God exists.

Uh in the Old Testament, forever and ever is often used as a Hebrew idiom for lifelong or earthlong consequences. That's the Old Testament, uh rather than that which is absolutely eternal. So I think we get some difference here between the Old New Testament So forever and ever or forever can be used in the Old Testament retain um pertaining to a particular period.

Then the question is, do we take that language of the Old Testament and impose it upon those examples in the New Testament, or do we take the New Testament passages um uh as they stand and ask how are they to be understood? And I think part of the problem is words do have a range of meaning. So when we get expressions about the nature of God forever and ever and the punishment of the wicked forever and ever. I think those give us hints that uh that you know there there is an eternality there.

اشتركوا في القناة confused because I thought and and I'm I'm trying to look it up right now so I can take a look for myself but what I recalled in writing this question was that it was the the smoke which rises forever and ever, not not the torment itself which lasts forever and ever. Can you show me where that phrase forever and ever is used to describe the the the ongoing torment of somebody and not the smoke which arises from it?

I mean one of the one of the points that I try to make uh is that i if the smoke is rising forever and ever, it sounds like that that which was on fire has not been consumed. So in in that Isaiah passage you would say that the that the smoke that's rising is only rising because Edom is continuingly is is still being destroyed? No, I I I I think I would say that for some of those Old Testament texts

there is a use of forever and ever that may not be exactly the same as what we have in Revelation fourteen. No, I understand that, but but hear hear me out for a second. Um because I don't think that the the the Hebrew writer there is saying forever and ever to mean something less than forever and ever, although he might. I I guess the point I'm getting at is that what he's saying is that the smoke is rising still and and will for some time. I think you would grant that, right?

Uh i th the the smoke the smoke is rising for some amount of time, even if it's not actually forever and ever in the same way that the Greek is communicating. But that smoke is rising from something which has already been destroyed. And so in the same way it would seem to me that regardless of however we interpret forever and ever in in Revelation, it seems to me possible that that smoke is rising forever and ever from something which has been destroyed already.

Do you not agree? Uh I'm not sure that I do, Chris. I mean that that I'd I'd want to pursue a little bit more. Okay. Um, but uh it just it seems to me that both from Revelation fourteen and and uh Revelation twenty Uh forever and ever means forever and ever. It's not it's not just evidence that the fire has done its work, it's evidence that the fire is doing its work.

Okay. I understand. Now in arguing hold on a second, I I accidentally started the the same question again. Hold on, let me take a note of this so I can edit it. Now you also argue that since the fire from which the smoke rises is called unquenchable. It means that it's a fire which will never end, and therefore the wicked who fuel it must go on being burned forever.

But in places like Isaiah, which I just mentioned, Isaiah thirty four ten, uh as well as Ezekiel twenty forty seven, Amos five, six and Matthew three twelve, unquenchable seems to mean, as Fudge put it in a review of your book, The irresistibility of God's judgment that consumes, reduces to nothing, or burns up what is put into it. Now how do you respond? W why why is it that we should understand the unquenchable fire of hell differently than in these other places?

Well, I'd want to do a little bit more research on some of those to be perfectly honest with you. Um I I think uh I again notice the references are being made to Old Testament scriptures uh here, which um Are they God's word? Absolutely. Uh do we determine what a word in um in Matthew three from the lips of Jesus do we tr determine what that word means by the Old Testament references alone? Um I mean, what does unquenchable mean itself?

Um that would be one thing I'd want to pursue. I understand. Um just to follow up on it just a little bit though, I mean you asked the question which is what does unquenchable mean? It doesn't seem to me to mean unable to burn out. It seems to me to mean unable to be forcibly quenched. Uh and what's more is y y y you're right, uh Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Amos are in the Old Testament, but Matthew three twelve

Um he's t Jesus is talking about uh chaff, which is burnt up in a barn with unquenchable fire. Now granted he's using a metaphor to refer to the eternal state, but in the analogy in which he uses the word unquenchable, he's talking about a fire that burns up. Chaff. So I guess I'm not sure that I follow how why unquenchable should mean other anything more than unable to be resisted.

Yeah, I'd probably want to do a a bit more of a word study on that for myself. So I I'm not prepared to add too much to that. Except to say one of the things I tried to do in my book was asked what was Jesus' view of hell as disclosed in the book of Matthew. And so n n not to take us a away from this question, but just to broaden it slightly, um

I I think that if a person sits down with the gospel of Matthew and reads every text that Jesus gives us on hell, I don't think he's going to come out with annihilationism. I think he's going to come out with um with a view of everlasting existence separate from God.

Okay. Well well let's talk about Matthew then because uh it just so happens in my next question when we talk about those. Y you seem to suggest that the fire of hell is being described as eternal in places like Matthew eighteen eight and twenty five forty one. indicates that hell consists of eternal punishing and in fact you used that phrase earlier.

But but turning again to Sodom, whose final destruction seems to have served as the basis for rising smoke imagery, Jude verse seven says Sodom underwent eternal fire and serves as an example of what awaits the wicked. So if if Jude says Sodom was consumed by eternal fire, why must we why why must we conclude that the fire of hell's being called eternal means that it consists of everlasting punishing? Well, I think just as um uh the the temptation for annihilationists is to get meaning from

Old Testament references. Um I I think similarly when we go to other passages like the Matthew twenty five, forty six, Like the Revelation fourteen, like Revelation twenty. I I think the ten the the tendency is to want to find what those expressions mean where they're used in other places. And um I i I I do think there are examples of eternal or everlasting being used in the Old Testament that do r relate to an age.

rather th than to everlast in existence. So I I'm I mean I will I will grant that point. But the point uh the question I would raise is Do those expressions in the Old Testament necessarily allow themselves to be transferred and imposed upon what we have in the New Testament? That would be my question.

Well let me answer that from from kind of my thinking first and but then I want to come back to something. Um i it seems to me that hypothetically speaking, if all of the language that traditionalists have pointed to historically in favor of their view is language that in fact comes from the Old Testament. I'm not sure why I understand why we should understand that language differently if it's always hearkening back to Old Testament uh passages in which that language is used.

And then the one other point that I did want to make was that uh I I I I was quoting Jude, which isn't the Old Testament, it's the New. And in Jude verse seven he says uh since Sodom and Gomorrah uh uh uh are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. So this is Jude in the New Testament that describes the punishment of Sodom as eternal um not you know not an author in the Old Testament.

Oh, excellent point. Um I guess I would respond by saying is Jude speaking only of the temporary inhabitants of of Sodom and Gomorrah? Or is he speaking about their eternal destiny? That would be another issue to raise here.

But w but Jude wasn't writing when the eternal fire had begun. I mean right? I mean, the the lake of fire is something that comes in the future at the resurrection, or or are you suggesting that uh that Sodom and Gomorrah were already experiencing um eternal conscious torment at the time that Jude wrote? I I would say they're experiencing conscious torment like like Deities in Luke sixteen. Okay but

Traditionalists would argue that when a wicked person in the Old Testament or the New Testament died, they go to a place of torment, although they're they are out without their body. But there's they are already experiencing God's punishment. The you you would say that the conscious torment of the intermediate state is equally describable as eternal fire as the uh as the eternal fire of the lake of fire in the second death.

Um I think there are differences. I mean we we read in Revelation that death and hell will be cast in the lake of fire. Um I've had people ask me the question, do I believe hell is eternal? My answer is no, but the lake of fire is.

So hell itself is going to be cast into the lake of fire. The c the I I think the issue is the intermediate state, that period between one's death and one's physical resurrection, there is conscious punishment taking place, and perhaps that's what Judah's referring to. Okay. I understand.

Um but by the way, just as a side note, uh I I think it was Hades that's thrown into the lake of fire, not not hell, and and and that to me seems like a uh I think it was with the King James Version of the Bible that that unfortunately the words Hades and Gehenna were translated both as hell.

Well I t I've tracked both those terms down and I would agree Hades seems to be temporary hell, the conscious punishment in the in the uh intermediate state. Gehenna is a synonym for the lake of fire. Right. Okay. Now there's a quote on page ninety nine of your book that confuses me. You write, referring back to Isaiah's prophecy of judgment of the wicked in Isaiah sixty six twenty four, Jesus declares that it is a place where the wicked's worm does not die.

And then you quote an author as saying, worms are able to live as long as there's food for them to consume, but the torments of hell are likened to undying, not dying worms. This is because their supply of food, the wicked, never ceases. Now here's what confuses me. Why should the undying worm, of which Jesus speaks, be understood to mean that the wicked experience conscious torment forever?

When the passage Jesus is hearkening to seems to depict the wicked as dead, unconscious, rotting corpses still smouldering from the unquenchable fire which destroyed them. They are I mean, they're feasting upon those corpses, but uh they don't die because there is always something for them to consume.

I I think it's a metaphor used to indicate uh ongoing existence rather than cessation of existence. Or am I uh am I not following your question? Well no, I I think we're we're we're close to each other. I guess the point that I'm getting at is that the the the even if Even if we were to understand the undying worms reference as being worms which will forever have something to consume, wh which I'm which I'm not sure annihilationists are willing to grant. But even if that were the case

What they're feasting on in the Old Testament are dead rotting corpses, not um uh im not bodies which are experiencing uh eternal conscious torment. Okay, but they are feasting on something that continues to exist. At least for a a time whether yeah, that's right. Well, h how can you say at least for a time when it says they will be undying?

Uh that that's a good question. That would have we'd have to do a word study into the language that's being used there. Um I think so. But but see this goes back to my point, which is that um uh the the point that we sort of got hung up on a while ago, which is what is meant by the term annihilation? Um if you're not going to be able to if annihilationists mean that at the instant th they're destroyed there's no body left to feast upon anymore, then I think that you might have

a little bit stronger of an objection. But on the other hand, if the destruction of the lake of fire um burns them and what's what are left are corpses, if if only for a time. then even if that time is forever, that doesn't necessarily imply that those bodies are uh experiencing torment forever. Well and I I I mean you've raised a very interesting question here uh uh or issue that I would want to pursue more and that that is

How is annihilationism be to be defined? Um uh and and you're you're the first that I've heard that from. I mean I've the ones that I've read have indicated annihilationism means cessation of existence. It doesn't simply mean death, doesn't sim simply mean ruination, but it but it means a cessation of existence. Well you agree, I agree. Uh but again it would have w what is meant by cessation of existence is is something we have to pursue. And you know it's very possible that.

that as as compelling as I found their cases to be, maybe I've misunderstood them and I'm mischaracterizing them. I certainly think that they would all agree that after some period of destruction um the the person is gone from from existence in the way that you're understanding it to mean.

Um but but I from my experience with them they're not saying that uh they are metaphysically they disappear instantaneously. They're um I mean, after all, they're very fond of Isaiah sixty six, this passage that they keep coming back to and what do we have there? We have bodies. You know? So so you're right. This is probably an area that we need to pursue a little bit more and it may be that I've misunderstood them.

Um but but again, just to just to close off this question, uh putting putting the question of cessation of existence aside What are the undying worms eating in Isaiah sixty six? It seems that they're eating unconscious rotting corpses, not um not uh people that are experiencing ongoing suffering. I mean we'd I think we'd have to pursue this more. And it seems to me we're we're we may be pushing the metaphor a little bit too much.

They're undying worms, and what was expected in the garbage pit of Jerusalem was that uh the worms would eventually die, they would run out of material to consume. So the question is what point is Jesus making by that analogy? And and I think his point is there is an ongoing existence. Yes, they're feasting upon uh dead corpses, but

My assumption is he's saying more than that that there are they are individuals that continue to exist. So we may just have to disagree on this one, Chris. Well, at least temporarily, that's right.

Now, in Matthew three twelve and Luke three seventeen, Jesus likens the wicked to chaff which is burnt up and destroyed. We talked about this a moment ago. This seems to come from Malachi four, where the wicked are burnt up like chaff which becomes ashes under the feet of the righteous, is the way that the author puts it there. W why why must we conclude that the wicked are not in fact burnt up like chaff by the fire of hell, destroyed and reduced to ashes?

Well, again I would refer to what we have in the New Testament that seems to imply that the wicked do continue to exist. And that all s all whose names are not found in the book of life, Revelation twenty, are cast into the lake of fire and and they suffer the same experience as as the uh as the devil and the beast and the false prophet. Okay. Language in the Old Testament uh seems to imply that person is no longer present on earth, no longer has an effect upon earth.

Um is that the same is that meaning the exact same meaning that is used there in the New Testament? Okay, so then y you would probably if I'm understanding you correctly, you would say that yes, Matthew and Luke and both those passages I referred to are talking in fact about the lake of fire that is Gehenna.

But that they're using the language of Malachi to communicate something different or at least somewhat more than what Malachi meant when he used the same language. Is that fair? That I think that seems fair, sure. Now in your book you argue that the eternal punishment of Matthew twenty five forty six must be a punishing of eternal duration. Again, this is a point that we've talked about briefly, but I want to get in a little bit more into.

And you write this, the Bible uses the adjective eternal to describe the punishment itself, not merely the result of the punishment. But here's the thing, it it seems to me that in places like Hebrews five nine and nine twelve, the author seems to use the adjective to describe the eternal result. Of salvation and redemption.

since presumably we will not experience eternal saving or eternal redeeming. And then of course there's Mark three twenty nine, which in some manuscripts refers to the an eternal sin, which appears to refer not to an ongoing sin, but a sin with eternal consequences. In light of these, why must eternal punishment be understood differently and not as the result an eternal result of a one time punishment?

Um I I think this is what I would respond to that. Is it not the quality of the salvation which is being referred to? That is the salvation is eternal, everlasting, as the judgment of the wicked will be everlasting. I mean their sin is eternal in that it will take all eternity for the penalty to be paid. Um recently here in South Carolina, a man was was thrown into prison for threatening the life of President Obama. If if he had threatened my life, hardly anyone would have noticed or cared.

The difference is the office and place of the president compared to me and my lonely state. If such a distinction exists on the human level, how much will it be when man is is compared to the eternal God? How far worse it is to offend God? I understand that and that was a question that I raised with Fudge. I'm not I'm not sure annihilationists would agree that it's appropriate to assume that the way that we treat officials in in the world of human government

um is is the way that really ought to be the way they're treated. But that aside, I mean, c coming back to Hebrews five nine, the eternal salvation, I agree with you the quality of what it is that we uh experience as a result of having been saved. is eternal, the the duration is eternal. But uh I mean, y you would agree that we're not ongoingly being saved, right? At least at least after the resurrection when we have imperishable immortal bodies, right?

Well that sounds reasonable to me, yes. So so I guess what I'm wondering is in what sense could Uh the act of saving or the act of redemption in Hebrews nine twelve be one time uh once at once at a point in time and yet be called eternal if we couldn't also say that the eternal punishment of Matthew twenty five was also something that was one time but had eternal, everlasting consequences.

Yeah, I'd probably I'd have to pursue this a little bit more. I I you know, I think you've got you've got some good points there that I want to think about. Um I think I personally think the burden is on the annihilationist with respect to the Matthew twenty five, forty six text. In other words, are we really wanting to say that the word eternal is

has two different meanings in the same verse. Well hold on a second. I I want to respond to that because and you know I know that you probably get the impression that that I've got a horse in this race. I I really don't. I like I told you before It sounds like you do, Chris. I know and and I people have told me that before and and it's and I can understand why.

Well it's possible and I might not know it. It's also possible I'm lying, but but I d I don't think that I am. Uh in sincerely I I I am leaning in the direction of annihilationism, but but I'm not convinced yet and and I've said to other people that largely the reason is because it's hard for me to imagine that for

two thousand years the traditional view has been the majority report uh and yet and yet, you know, um and yet all these things so so so all these passages that seem to me to have gone unanswered must have gone answered. So I'm I'm I really don't have a horse in the race. But It does seem to me that what annihilationists are saying with respect to this eternal life versus an eternal punishment is not

that the word eternal is being used in two different respects. They're both referring to a duration that's eternal. The question is, what is it that's being described as eternal when talking about the punishment? Is it talking about the eternal ongoing punishing, or is it talking about the eternal, everlasting destruction itself, a destruction from which there is never a return? How how would you respond to the question that a person has to exist to be punished?

How can that be eternal punishment? Well I think that we're about to get to that in the next question, so why don't I ask you that and then and then I'll tell you what I think. Uh the the the qu the we we both have the questions in front of us, maybe that's why you asked that question. But here here's the question I had prepared. I said you go on to argue from Jesus' use of eternal punishment, writing on page one hundred ten that we agree with Gomes who states that punishment per se

is conscious or it is not punishment. And then you quote William Shedd as saying the essence of punishment is suffering. In order to be punished, the person must be conscious of a certain pain. So this is where I'm about to answer your question, how I might, if I were to become an annihilationist, answer your question.

That the punishment of execution here in the US, for example, is not the suffering. In fact, we're moving increasingly away from forms of capital punishment which inflict suffering. Um we used to have hanging in the electric chair or the or the or the firing range, all of which inflict a certain amount of suffering. But now we've got things like painless or at least largely painless forms like lethal injection. Now if what you say is true.

It would seem to me that we would be forced to conclude that executed murderers are punished far less than, say, even a minor offender sentenced to just hours of commun many hours of community service. Is that really what you're saying? Uh well, I would say that penalty is defined as the pain or loss inflicted by the lawgiver in outrage over the offense committed against his law.

The murderer who is executed is deprived of all the opportunities for joy and happiness from the moment of his death. I think that's exactly how an annihilationist would put it. Well, I'm not an annihilationist, so maybe we maybe we have that in common, but um y you know, I think Uh it's it's not just the death that is the punishment, it's what happens thereafter.

Well and that that is exactly where I think annihilationists are going to disagree because The the point that I'm getting at is at least in our code. At least in our uh legal system, which of course isn't necessarily the model of uh of eternal um justice. I totally grant that.

But it does seem to me that uh that the punishment is death in the sense that in our in our legal system, the punishment is death in the sense that um they are they are killed and whatever punish whatever suffering they might uh experience as a result of that uh process.

is not really the punishment itself because if it were, then we wouldn't be moving to painless forms of capital punishment like lethal injection. And so it seems to me that one could say that I I guess what I'm getting at is this. I'm not sure I'm willing to buy yet. that punishment is in fact conscious per se, or else it's not punishment, because then murderers who are executed by lethal injection would would not be punished.

Except for the fact that they are cut off from all further opportunities of happiness and joy. Right, exactly. Which which a universe which an annihilationist would say as well. Um in fact, Fudge, I think, said that very thing. He said that uh that

I I had posed to him a challenge um that a fr that somebody that I listened to, his name is Matt Slick. I don't know if you've heard of him, but he runs the uh CARM.org. Um he he he when I called his show and asked him about it, he said Uh uh he said that i if you if you don't exist and then you exist and then you cease to exist again, what is the difference between the eternal s the the final state and and the original one in which there's no n no one exists anymore?

And what Fudge Fudge responded with was with or what he responded with was, well, is he forgetting what the Bible offers the person who turns from their sin, eternal joy, bliss and and and fellowship with the Lord forever? And and so the point that I'm getting at is that in an annihilationist's view, the one the wicked that is destroyed also experiences a deprivation eternally of the kind of bliss and joy. They just don't also have suffering. But they're not conscious. Right. They don't exist.

So how can it be described as punishment? But see this is the very this is the very premise which annihilationists are challenging, which is what makes punishment what requ what what about punishment requires consciousness? Because again, the the person the person that is killed in the elec in in the in the lethal injection, he is deprived of any further chance of of uh of experiencing uh life and joy and all these other things.

But it's but there's but the the death is final. It's it's it th th there's very little suffering, if any at all, in certain cases. So I guess I guess I'm not trying to understand why, given the way that in our legal system we treat punishment in the case of capital punishment, why it is that we must assume that punishment requires consciousness. I don't know, Chris. It just seems to me that for someone to experience punishment, they have to exist. Okay. Fair enough.

And and and and just and just to be clear, because annihilationists don't think that the uh or at least some of them I I can't speak for Seventh Day Adventists or Jehovah's Witnesses, I don't I don't know about them. But people like Fudge and Glenn Peoples and other people, uh the process of annihilation is one that inflicts suffering. So let me ask you this before before But it but it's temporary and it ends in cessation of existence. Correct.

Well, they would point to some of the passage we've talked about, the the course, so well so the point I'm getting at is W this question about punishment be requiring consciousness, it sounds to me Like that's a an assertion that that I I I haven't seen the justification for.

Now granted there that we we could talk about what the in what Scripture says, and in fact that's what we're doing and we're going to continue to do for a while longer. We could talk about what the Scripture says uh the the eternal state is, what it's like. But the question of what the word punishment means, does it require consciousness? That seems to me to be an assertion that traditionalists are making without justifying.

I my only response is if words mean anything then to say a person is experiencing joy or punishment they have to be conscious. Otherwise words don't mean anything. There's nothing there.

Okay. Let's move on, absolutely. Now, one argument from traditionalists which I'll admit I find particularly weak. Um but then again I'm I I'm a meager student of the word. It is an argument that it seems like you make on page one hundred three where you quote Robert Peterson as saying annihilation is relief from punishment. The damned in hell would love to be annihilated, for this would deliver them out of their terrible suffering.

Now I find this weak for two reasons. First, going back to the capital punishment analogy, when a murderer uh when a murderer dies on the electric chair, I really don't think many people would think of this of this death as relief from his suffering on the chair. And still fewer would think that it was unjust. The punishment is, it seems to me, the death itself and the deprivation of the of the life that they would have otherwise experienced.

Second, it doesn't strike me that we should determine our theology from what we think the damned in hell would prefer. If God says the punishment is not the suffering but the final destruction, and yes, that's a big if, then it seems to me that the desire of the impenitent is kind of irrelevant. If I'm wrong, why?

Well, I I would agree with you that the desire of the impenitent is is irrelevant. I certainly would agree with that. But it seems to me what person faced with the option of an eternal suffering separated from God versus cessation of existence? Doesn't it make sense that one would prefer the one over the other?

Uh I somewhat agree, but again the question is what is that what what how does that help this debate? Should should should we should we understand the scripture in light of what we think the damned would would prefer?

No, I and um I mean that's not the primary point that I'm making there. I think the primary point is um It it seems to me that the message the wicked would love to hear is that they can live this life any way they they choose, and at the end of this life when they die they cease to be. There is no there is no eternal judgment before God. It may it may be a minor point, but I think I think it's a point worth noting.

Well I'm I'm I'm not sure I followed. I apologize. The the the the annihilationists, at least not the Jehovah's Witnesses one, but but evangelical uh annihilationists if if you're comfortable with that phrase, would would would not say that the person doesn't face a judgment. They certainly do.

So I'm I'm f I forgot I apologize, I'm not sure I follow. Well, it's a temporary judgment. It's not an eternal judgment. Well the experience is temporary, absolutely, but but the p but they would say that the judgment and the punishment are in fact eternal. The result of

Well, i no, the punishment itself. Again, this goes back to the premise that that you and annihilationists would disagree on, which is is punishment consciousness? If it isn't, if if the punishment is the death itself and the cess the cessation of being.

then the punishment is eternal because they're not they never they never come back from that. There is never a uh uh there's never a a second resurrection. Right. Yeah, I guess uh I mean I mean to me how can that be described as eternal punishment? There's there's there's an end. There's a cessation. There's a there's a co there's a completion. There's not a tormented day and night forever and ever kind of.

Okay. Well, before before I move on to the next question I had for you, I do want to throw one in that I just that just came to me and if if you're not comfortable because I didn't give you time to prepare, I'll totally understand.

But but uh but the reason I bring this up is because throughout this interview there have been a number of times where we've used the phrase shut out from the presence of God and stuff like that. And it just dawned on me that that that that probably at least one passage that that probably draws on is Second Thessalonians one nine, which we talked about in the first half of the interview.

Where it says that these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power. Now, certain translations do seem to render that in a way that suggests that they're being shut out from the presence of God. But in Acts three nineteen, the identical Greek phrase is used.

Where it says Repent and return so that your sins may be wiped away in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord. Now that phrase may come from the presence of the Lord is the exact same Greek phrase, I believe, as is used in Second Thessalonians one nine. And so the qu and so the question I'm getting at is um could Second Thessalonians one nine be saying in in the same way that Acts three nineteen says that the refreshing come from God?

Could it not be that the eternal destruction comes from God in Second Thessalonians one nine, rather than saying that the destruction is experienced away from God? Um I I would have to pursue that a little bit further. I think of other statements where Jesus talks about people coming to him and and knocking on the door and he says, Depart from me, I never knew you. Um, that there is the there is the language of exclusion. There's it the language of being kicked out of the kingdom.

So it seems to me that's that's more consistent with the th Second Thessalonians one, that there is somehow a separation between that wicked person and God. Okay. Alright. Well like I said I I I didn't that that just dawned on me and so I I sorry sorry that that wasn't included in the original uh questions that I sent you.

Now there there are two last challenges I have. Um and and at least this this first one is one that I found very compelling. In Revelation twenty fourteen, as you've pointed out earlier in the interview, death itself, along with Hades, is thrown into the same lake of fire into which the wicked are thrown. And if I've understood Corinthians fifteen correctly, this would seem to mean that death itself is not ceases to be. It's gone. It doesn't exist anymore.

Now Certainly death is not tormented eternally. So why should we conclude something different? Let me put it this way. As experiencing the same kind of thing that the de that the devil and the a false prophet experienced. But what about death and Hades? Well, they're not personal, are they? No. Uh does that then mean, because death and Hades are not personal, that there is not a personal judgment for individuals?

It's it seems to me the connection between what happens to the personal individual, the devil in Revelation twenty And what happens to uh the dead in Revelation twenty twelve, the dead small and great, standing before the throne, all whose names were not found in the book of life were thrown into the lake of fire. I mean uh Death, Hades, The wicked will all be thrown to the lake of fire, so Are are you implying that because death and Hades can't be consciously tormented?

Therefore the other category can't. No, no, no. What I'm what I'm suggesting is the possibility that uh that if death L me ask you this, what do you think is communicated by the idea of death and Hades being thrown into the lake of fire? Oh, I think it's God's wrapping up history, wrapping up judgment. Th there will be no more death in the new heavens and the new earth.

So presumably there will not be uh uh death for the redeemed and for the wicked, they have already died. That is they have already experienced physical death, separation of their body or soul their soul of their spirit from their body. Uh they are they are undergoing eternal death, permanent separation from God. So yes, death will be no more uh not to be feared by the righteous, not to be experienced by the wicked.

Um Hades, as I understand it, would be that temporary abode, that intermediate state of the of the wicked. It's tossed in a lake of fire. So what was temporary in a sense becomes permanent? I I don't see a problem in that tackle. So then you wouldn't say that the that the um death and Hades being thrown into the fire communicates the cessation of their existence?

I mean obviously like you like like you said, death and Hades are not personal entities, although some would argue that neither are the beast and false prophet, but we can set that aside. Uh if i death and Hades it seems to be I hope they would not say that about the devil. No, they they certainly would not say that about the devil. You're absolutely right. And that's why I don't think that's a a a worthwhile avenue to pursue. But it does seem to me that Death and Hades I've always understood

What's being communicated by death and Hades being thrown in the lake of fire is that they are destroyed and never they they cease to exist. There is no more death, there is no more Hades. Are you suggesting that that's not the case? That maybe that that would that ought to be read somewhat differently? Uh uh No, I'm not s I'm not suggesting that they would then continue. I think I think they're being it it's God's summing up of all things. And uh uh it well it

It it just it just seems to me that we are it's uh apples and oranges is not the right expression, but it's the only thing I I can think of at the moment. Um death and Hades Hades are certainly in a different category than the um than the wicked who are cast into the lake of fire. But I think you're kind of skipping over what's happening to that personal

being called the devil, being tormented day and night forever and ever in verse ten. It just seems to me the power of logic is what happens to the devil and those others is also going to happen to all of those whose names are not in the book of life. I'm sorry. I I yeah, I I I totally understand and and uh this I I think many annihilationists would agree that the devil's being described as being tormented forever and ever in the lake of fire.

is f is the strongest argument against their view. At least at least many that I've talked to would admit that. Uh the reason why I haven't talked about that, and we can if you like, is that uh the the question then becomes What is the nature of the uh of the language of revelation?

Um when it comes to eschatology, as I'm sure no you're you're familiar with, there are a number of views, uh one of which is is a premillennial view, uh a futuristic view. There's also um what what I call hyper preterism, which is a view that this is uh symbolic language that

that in its entirety refers to something in the past. But then there's also of course a uh a historically orthodox, even if it's incorrect, view uh called preterism. Um and then then of course there's also idealism, both of which

would view this language as being highly symbolic. And even even the most ardent dispensational premillennialists would admit that when when it describes a woman being clothed with the sun, it's not actually saying that a woman puts on the sun like a backpack. I can't imagine what that might do for her complexion.

But the point that the the point I'm getting at is that i if if if we're ag if we could agree that much of Revelation is uh uh is apocalyptic imagery akin to the language used it throughout the Old Testament as well, and even by Christ himself on the Olivet Discourse. If we could agree with that, then it would seem to me that the devils being tormented in the lake of fire for an ever forever and ever could also be imagery.

And that's and that's why I didn't pursue this is because now we've got into get into a question, but we can if you'd like. We've got to get into a discussion about um sh ought we to uh w At what point ought we to understand Revelation uh differ uh something other than figuratively, the way that it seems to be when it talks about the devil or the the the dragon casting stars from the sky, the woman clothed with the sun, etcetera?

Well, I mean that's an interesting discussion maybe we can have on some other occasion, but it seems to me that um do we really want to relegate and I'm not saying you're necessarily doing this, do we really want to relegate the book of of uh of revelation to merely symbol and allegory and metaphor. Uh if so, then we're talking about a whole lot more than the fate of the wicked. We're talking about the new heavens and the new earth earth. We're talking about the eternal state of the righteous.

Um for that reason I would say yes, there's a lot of symbolism in the book of Revelation, a lot of metaphor, but symbolism and metaphor stand for something. Oh sure, and I agree. And and as a orthodox preterist, not a hyper preterist, uh I I'm very passionate about the re about Revelation and about its the reality that is uh that is symbolized by the figure by the symbolism that's used. And I would even argue that in in in in the passages in Revelation about the new heavens, the new earth

I I'll admit that it doesn't strike me as being very literal when it describes uh the holy city, New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God. That seems to be to be a reference to the church as is used by other New Testament authors. Uh particularly in given that it's uh like a bride adorned for her husband. When it talks about the the the um lake of glass or something like that in in Revelation twenty two, what is it, the um uh oh the the crystal crystal river and stuff like this.

Uh it seems to me that while while even the most ardent idealist or preterist for that matter uh would admit that this is talking about the eternal state as being one that's of eternal bliss Nevertheless, we would we would say that there is figuratism uh symbolism being used to describe that reality. And even if we didn't, even if we did want to say that Revelation twenty two uh is speaking very literally

Um the fact of the matter still remains, as I'm sure you'll acknowledge, that the woman clothed with a sun is a symbol. And so the question becomes again, um why ought we to understand the devil's being tormented forever and ever in this in this in this imagery if it in if it in fact is imagery. Uh why we should why should we understand that to be literal when we don't understand the woman clothed with the sun literally? Does that make any sense?

Uh a little bit. Sounds uh sounds sounds a tad like you've fallen back on this argument in order to avoid the what I see as the clear logical progression from the devil being tormented day and night forever and ever. Pretty strong language. to what happens to the mass of humanity not found in the book of life. I I I just don't I don't buy it, Chris. I don't I don't buy the approach that says the book of Revelation is highly symbolic and therefore maybe this is symbolic of something else.

Well, like I said, uh i I think that many annihil annihilationists and and even I somewhat find this compelling. The fact that the fact that death and Hades are thrown into a fire meaning to communicate that they cease to exist. Uh and the fact that death and Hades aren't even entities that could be thrown into a fire. would seem to suggest that the lake of fire itself is is is imagery and what's being communicated is something beyond uh What the imagery is

would be would mean if it were taken literally. That would seem to tha that's I think how they would respond. And I would agree that it sounds like what they're trying to do is fall back on this as a way to escape the clear meaning. But then the question becomes I I th I would I I think every view that is discussed within the church uh when you've got two sides. Each side has

uh at least a couple of passages that are somewhat more difficult to deal with than others. I think that uh I I think that some listening to this conversation today would say that some of the passages we've talked about, uh like Malachi fours, you know I don't think the Annihilationists are doing anything all that different. Well, that's certainly uh that's your perspective. Is is is it becoming clear to you that you do have a horse in this race?

Well no, I mean uh that depends on how you define it. Well no. Uh on look, I I I'm being completely honest when I say I'm not convinced. Uh yes. Um now I may be arguing very heavily in favor of one view, um, but the only reason I'm doing that is because these are the arguments that have compelled me to move in one direction. And if there's an answer to them

Um I wanna find it because as I talked to you before we started recording, uh I don't want to affirm a view that's gonna you know, close doors to me in ministry. I'm uh very passionate about ministry and I and I wanna um impact as many people as possible for God's kingdom. So I don't want to have doors closed. I don't want to accept annihilationism

Um i if it's untrue. And like I said, the fact that for two thousand years a very minority uh of Christians have affirmed this view um i is telling to me. So while i I I think that what you're interpreting as having a horse in this race is just me finding one particular line of evidence pretty compelling and and struggling to find any reason to reject what has seemed to me thus far to be compelling.

Well and I would encourage you in your further pursuit, Chris, because uh you know, as you and I talked before the interview Um this has not been my major focus for the last ten years. I have not been pouring myself into examining every one of Fudge's arguments. And so uh j just to be completely candid with you, I feel like I've not done the best job a traditionalist could do on answering some of the questions that you've raised.

Um I also think you need to you need to make it kind of clear that the way you've raised the way you've phrased about twenty out of your thirty questions uh have been, you know, pretty direct in in terms of going, you know, right to the heart of some of the issues. Um I can't fault you for that.

But on the other hand, I'm just not sure that you can describe yourself as being objective in the way that you've posed the questions. But I do feel I do feel badly that I have not answered all your all all your questions and, you know, to to the degree you use this interview, I feel badly if people take all that I've got to say and say, Oh, that's all the traditionalist have got. Ah, I'm gonna join FUD.

I I don't think that's the case. I think that some of the answers you've had have been compelling. I I will point out that I've I took the same approach when I interviewed Fudge. I I grilled him for over an hour, I think it was, with the very same kinds of questions that that you've raised. Um many people I've interviewed um

Uh that even ones that I hold the same opinion for uh with. Like for example, preterism. Um I interviewed uh a friend of mine named Didi Warren who has a podcast and and she's uh a a proponent of preterism and I grilled her for uh an hour or longer with questions challenging her position as well. So I I hope that I hope that the fact that I've leveled challenges at your view

Uh doesn't necessarily indicate that I agree with those challenges, even if I find them somewhat compelling, because like I said, I've I did the same thing with fudge. What I'm trying to do. Um what I try to do oftentimes is uh take a view, whether I agree with it or not, and try to hit it with as challenge with as big a challenge as possible, because if it comes out unscathed on the other end of the of the of the trial, um I I think that that really says something about its merit. So anyway, um

But I but I appreciate your exhortation and and I and uh you know um and and your time and like I said, I don't think that anybody's gonna walk away with this thinking, Oh, this is the best traditionalists to have to offer offer. I think you've you've you've had some some answers. Um but but I'll be reaching out to others and and hopefully um you know, we we've mentioned Robert Peterson, uh I also reached out to Chris Morgan. Hopefully some of th the people that I reached out to that couldn't

uh take the time to do the show. Hopefully there will be others who can so that we can get um you know a a broader variety of perspectives that are that are all on the traditionalist view. Um and where there might be gaps if there are any in some of the c answers that you've given, maybe some others will be able to fill those gaps in. So I wouldn't worry about that.

Sounds good. Now but but let me do challenge you with one last question before we start to wrap up, if you don't mind. Uh I know I've taken up a lot of your time. Um but in Matthew ten twenty eight, Jesus says, Do not fear those who kill the body or who can kill the body But are unable to kill the soul, rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Now I understand that in the second clause there, Jesus uses a word for destroy, which uh is argued to sometimes mean something more akin to ruin, although it's not always used that way. And for the sake of time I won't argue against that. But Jesus does seem to say that what man can do to the body only, God can do to the body and a soul. So whereas man can only kill the body, God can kill it and the soul in Gehenna. Why why should we not read the passage in quite that way?

Well again it gets back to our earlier discussion uh as to what the word destroy means. I mean when my my son first started to drive, uh it was his only it was his first occasion taking the car out and he drove it right into a disc. And destroyed. I mean he totaled it. Uh so I mean one of one of the issues is what's meant by that term. Uh does it mean uh ceasing to ex exist or does it mean utter ruination?

And and I I really believe that uh, you know, I'm not to fear um the harm that people can do to my body, but I am to have a an ultimate respect for what God can do to me in my totality as a person.

And uh so again I would I would just say that I I think the burden is on those who would say destroy means you know, ceasing to exist here rather than complete ruination. Okay. Um Okay, well for those listeners who have found your arguments compelling and who don't at this point find the case for annihilationism persuasive as as perhaps I do.

At least one question remains. How should we think of those who advocate it? Should they be considered Orthodox in the sense of at least not being heretics? Uh where where on the spectrum from something like a minor error to outright anathema do you think that this view falls? I I think that's an excellent question and uh some Christians are gonna answer that differently than others. Um my point would be that um we would say the good news is one and not many, that is who those who

uh twist the good news and preach a different gospel. For example, we have to believe in Jesus plus teeth keep the Ten Commandments, for example. Um we would say have abandoned the gospel much as Much as Peter did in the book of Galatians, and Paul had to uh you know accuse him of of of distorting the gospel. If the if the good news of the gospels one and not many, I I would argue that the bad news of the gospel is one and not many. And if that's if I'm right about that, then then

figuring out what the bad news of the good news is, we all need to be consistent in that regard. Um in light of the not too long ago death of uh the esteemed John Stott, um as I mentioned earlier. Highly regarded, I recommend all of his books. I would not have him teach us chatology in my seminary if if it were up to me because I think that he's embraced a view

that though he thinks is scriptural does not really stand up under uh strong scrutiny and and minimizes the bad news of the good news. So I I I'm not prepared to call my Seventh day Adventist friends who hold to annihilationists heretics. Um Do I think they fall into false teaching? Yes. Of course the term heretic carries a lot of a lot of meaning with it. It essentially means to make a to make a choice, um and you know, making a choice against God's word as well. Never a good idea, so

Har it's a hard question. Hard question. Would I uh if I had somebody in my in my uh church that was preaching annihilationism, w what what would I do? I mean I would probably uh I'd have to pursue that. I wouldn't say that's a viable alternative position. That's just where I am. No, that's okay. I understand. I guess the the reason I ask is um there there are some errors which I think even scripture itself would call damning.

Uh for example, um uh you know, you and I have both referred to the resurrection of the dead, which is something that a lot of Christians uh either intentionally or unintentionally deny. Um but but but Paul uh called a couple of fellows named Phil uh Philadus and Hymenaeus. He said that they were spreading gangrene when they descri when they said that the resurrection had already taken place.

Uh and he called them anathema if I recall. Uh so the point that I'm getting at is that there are some there's some doctrines which if we affirmed, uh and I would also categorize the deity deity of Christ, rejecting that would be something that would that would indicate you're probably not a Christian.

Um are are very grievous. Whereas others, like for example, you you and I might disagree a little bit when it comes to soteriology, me being a five point Calvinist and maybe you you might not uh hold to all five points.

Uh we would each say that the other person is probably wrong, but I don't think that either of us would say that that's an indication that they're not a Christian. And so the question is, would you say that annihilationism falls somewhere in that w realm, or if it's quite not or if it's not quite as grievous? Yeah, I I try to make uh I try to help my students uh see a difference between the essentials or the non-negotiables and the distinctive.

And uh am I prepared to put the issue of eternal conscious punishment versus annihilationism in the category of distinctive? I don't think so, Chris. I I tend more to put it in a a major category. Now that does that jeopardize that person's salvation? I would I would argue no, not necessarily. And I would say that the

the the matters that establish heresy are not simply soteriological. They're not simply the ones that impact my salvation. That's pretty man centered. And so I I mean I would put something like open theism in the category of heresy. Annihilationism is a it's a tricky one, but I think it's also part of or can be for some a part of pat uh a part of a pattern of moving away from a a strong conservative orthodoxy that eventually moves one to a different view of the atonement.

uh to a different view of sin. I think uh in in a sense, the doctrine of hell is an easy doctrine to start with. I see. you know, not necessarily minor but also not uh salvation um uh risking. Uh but the but the down but the downstream effects of it uh if in fact there is a connection between the downstream effects of it and and itself. those downstream effects might be far more serious than even as serious as annihilation is. Yeah. Yeah, that's a good summary. Okay.

Well you've given us a lot to think about and you've given me a lot to think about and I appreciate your time. As we wrap things up, is there any sort of parting message that maybe you'd like to leave us with? Something that you hope sticks in our minds more than anything else that we've talked about today?

Well, we talked about it at the very beginning that uh Christians are often quite reticent to talk about the bad news and the good news, and we need to do that. Um it seems to me both camps can agree on several things. that salvation is only through Christ. Um, that uh one must believe in him to have eternal life, that there is uh an eternal um There's an internal circumstance of separation that takes place for those who die without Christ.

And uh you know, I think there are a number of areas where we can obviously uh obviously disagree on things. But I would I would hope that your listeners would come away saying, I want to be more determined to share the gospel in all of its fullness, both the good news and the bad news with everybody I meet. Yeah, Amen. I absolutely agree. Well, where can my listeners and I go to learn more about you and get our hands on your books? Uh you've got a blog. Where where can we find all that stuff?

Yeah, it's pretty easy. It's simply my name, Larry Dixon, L A R R Y D I X O N dot WordPress dot com. That's my blog. And uh my most of my books are available on Amazon and uh you know, I'd be I'd I'd I'd like to hear from uh listeners uh their response to our interview. That'd be great. How can they get a hold of you?

Uh email address is very easy. I teach at Columbia International University. So LDixon at CIU dot edu. Ldixon at CIU dot Edu. All right. Well thanks very much, Larry, for your time. I really appreciate it. Chris, thank you.

Okay, well there you have it. That was Larry Dixon on Hell and Annihilationism. I hope you enjoyed the interview as much as I did. Uh I have some thoughts, but I think I'll preserve them until after next week's debate. A debate between Turitan fan and a listener and friend named Ronnie on the topic of Annihilationism.

Uh but if you want to share and discuss your thoughts with me, you can email me at theapologetics at hotmail.com. Or if you want to share your thoughts with the theapologetics community, if it's safe to call it that, uh you can post your comments at the podcast webpage or the blog or the Facebook page. uh and I'll look forward to any conversations that ensue. So uh with that, I hope you'll join me next week uh for the debate. Until then