Eschatology Decompressing: Some of the Best Books on Hell

There is something of an inner-family debate going amongst the evangelical family. At the moment, the traditionalist father is somewhat uneasily passing the potatoes to the conditionalist mothers, who is eying both the father and the kids, who are patiently waiting for the aforementioned potatoes because, well, it will get to the end eventually.

You see, the debate has become far more interesting and respectable as of late, what with the father being will to pass the now cooling potatoes to the mother and all. The mother, bless her strong heart, is happy to pass the dish either way, but she is more likely to double check with the father because...

Okay this analogy has become significantly less funny to me so I shall move on. Thanks for humoring me. Anyway.

There is an abundance of materials out now concerning the evangelical debate on the nature and duration of final punishment. While it is easy to simply google the various phrases (and if you did and ended up here, welcome!), I figured it would be helpful to simply list the various texts that have some significant pull in the world between the Church and the Academy.

I shall start with universalism, mostly because Universalism hasn't gotten a fair shake amongst many evangelicals. For good reason or not, one ought to engage with the best texts on the topic and I have listed them below:

Thomas Talbott's The Inescapable Love of God has just been released and has been quite influential in some parts of the evangelical world. It even has some traditionalist scholars praising it such as Jerry Walls.

For a broader view of the family dynamic, see Universal Salvation: The Current Debate. Reasonably respectful, though there is some sniping as to be expected, since the potatoes by this time have gotten quite cold.

Robin Parry, who is a lovely fellow, has written a book on the topic that I find quite attractive--though not enough to be an Evangelical Universalist (again). I found it far more persuasive than Talbott's and it merits some consideration.

For the traditionalist side of the family table, there are many books and a few of them are helpful. That may sound like a bit of a snipe, and it is. Unlike God, I'm allowed to not play favorites.

The singular best text that was written to explicitly defend the traditional doctrine of eternal conscious torment is Hell Under Fire. That said, there are issues within and the best chapter is Douglas Moo's contribution on Paul. The chapters that object to annihilationism and universalism likely won't change the mind of either party, and we're inclined to keep those potatoes at our end of the table thank you very much.

However, if one is a philosophy nerd, Jerry Walls' Hell: The Logic of Damnation is helpful. It is not the kind of book you break out at the dinner table (none of these are), but if one is partial to C.S. Lewis, one might find it attractive.

Judith Gundry-Volf's contribution (entitled "Universalism" pgs956-961) in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters directly tackles the topic of Pauline Universalism. She concludes that, “universalism may perhaps be best defended as an implication of some statements in Paul.” I found her case remarkably compelling. 

For those of us who prefer large books that are heavy enough to beat a goat to death with, Edward Fudge's The Fire that Consumes (edited by Robin Parry) is the standard weapon of choice. He tackles both Testaments and does so in a persuasive manner. Richard Bauckham notes that the book "is likely to remain a standard work to which everyone engaged with this issue will constantly return."

Hans Schwarz, Eschatology, is a helpful survey of the relevant biblical, scientific and theological terrain of the current landscape. Some may bristle at his rejections of both AN and UR, and many Dispensationalists will take offense as well, but its a great text. I reviewed and praised it here.

Samuele Bacchiocchi is a 7th Day Adventist (and pretty shockingly conservative, even for many conservatives) and he defends a synthesis of physicalism and annihilationism. I find some of his work a bit too general but his larger arguments are helpful and its a free pdf. Enjoy.

Oscar Cullmann is always awesome. I recommend him highly too, even for such a slim book its quite potent. Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection from the Dead?

For a great site dedicated to the topic of final punishment, enjoy the Rethinking Hell site.

I write this post mostly due to the fact that I just finished a research paper for Dr. Oliver Crisp, and I'm so full of hell that I need to write this to decompress. Now, where are those potatoes?

NQ

Women in the World of the Earliest Christians: Some Reflections

I hated history in high school and during undergrad. Mostly, it was listless and detached from my own reality. Of course, now that I've stepped out from that mindset, the ancient past has come to life in some curious ways. Reading literature about the New Testament, including the social and political world has added multiples layers to my understand. One of the chief texts is Lynn Cohick's Women in the World of the Earliest Christians.

So far, there are four main facts I've learned in the first three chapters. One, the lack of female representation in marriage documents is astounding. Simply, women, with few exceptions, weren't allowed to represent themselves. They had to have a male (relative or not) stand in for them. Two, divorce was common but didn't carry any particular shame as regards to the woman. In fact, many women could get their dowry back without much fuss.

Three, barrenness didn't necessarily result in shame. So while a Greco-Roman woman could be divorced (or request or suggest one) if she couldn't have children, most often the husband didn't make a big deal out of it. Fourth and finally, most women married roughly around age 15 and didn't usually get to see their children reach adulthood.

So I highly recommend this text. Cohick deals with papyrus, ancient rhetoric (some of it so sexist it will make your toes curl) and seeks to provide nuance and clarity to the modern stereotypes of ancient women. Well worth your time.

Plus, if that isn't enough, I bought this book for my wife and haven't let her read it yet! Of course if she asked, I would mutually allow it.

--Nick

So What am I Reading?

I had a friend ask me recently about my book list, and what I had on it. Well, a lot of things. I tend to skim books like some people tend to argue: very quickly and with the purpose of highlighting for later. These days, I'm brushing up on many related and unrelated topics, mostly in preparation for Fuller. While my attendance date is up in the air, prospects are looking bright. In between studying Greek and drinking a lot of coffee, below are the books I'm currently reading.

1. The Eternal Generation of the Son by Kevin Giles

The Trinity and the contemporary gender debate has been around, at least in my circles, since Biola. When I first began to question my views on the ordination of women, one of the first arguments lobbed my way was in regards to the Trinity. Of course, this text isn't about gender roles, but I've made a point of studying the doctrine in as much depth as possible.

2. Jesus is Lord, Caesar is Not by Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica

This very tense debate is simmering over at Fuller, as is the pacifism/just war debate. I love McKnight and many contributors in this text, so I think I've chosen ... wisely.

3. The World of the New Testament by Joel B. Green and Lee Martin MacDonald

Allison and I were graced by a free autographed copy of this text by one of the editors, Dr. MacDonald. Although I didn't particularly enjoy history at Biola, now I've become so drenched in the world of the New Testament that history has begun to breathe for me.

4. Paul: A Critical Life by Jerome Murphy-O'Connor

While I don't agree with everything here, Murphy-O'Connor has shown me multiple new ways of considering the apostle Paul.

5. The Crucified God by Jurgen Moltmann

Love Moltmann, and finding his Christology to be intriguing as well as eminently quotable.

6. Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testament by John Goldingay

Goldingay reads as smooth as a syrup milkshake, with plenty of protein for thought thrown in there. Distinguishing between formal contradictions and differences helps a lot.

7. God's Word in Human Words/ Sacred Word, Broken Word by Kenton Sparks

Mostly, these texts deal with historical criticism and the effect it has/ought to have on evangelical theology. Sparks sometimes seems to bite off more than he can chew, but there is a lot of interesting material here. I prefer GWiHW over SWBW.

8. Pauline Christology by Gordon D. Fee

So far, a marvelous and heady and exhaustive treatment of the Pauline texts.

What's on your list?

--Nick

Most Anticipated Books of the Year

MOST ANTICIPATED OF 2013

To state the obvious, I am just now beginning to check these out.

Veli-Matti Karkkainen -- One With God

Karl Barth's -- Church Dogmatics (yes, all ten thousand pages)

Thomas Tobin -- Paul's Rhetoric in Romans

John Goldingay -- Old Testament Theology Vol 1-3

Rob Bell -- What We Talk About When We Talk About God

Shane Hipps -- Selling Water by the River

Veli-Matti Karkkainen -- Christology: A Global Introduction

John Sanders -- The God Who Risks

Veli-Matti Karkkainen -- An Introduction to the Theology of Religions

Jurgen Moltmann -- God in Creation

The Open Future, The 1000 Year Reign & The Inclusive Nature of Book Reading

Well, several topics have come up on my radar, and I finally have the preliminary resources to research them. I'm more or less done discussing women in ministry (though I have a year long discussion with a friend that I hope ends with one of us converting) and I'm simply weary of the debate.

So, I've decided to hop onto a train that has already set sail. Open theism. I'm currently staring at a copy of The Openness of God by Richard Rice, Clark Pinnock, John Sanders and others. I'm told, as far as anthologies go, this is the best (maybe only?) one. This also includes Greg Boyd's The Openness of God, which I'm excited for.

I'm also working through Allah by Miroslav Volf and finding it quite compelling. I'm also planning a review of Matt Chandler's The Explicit Gospel. The "gospel" as a nebulous term is something I'm interested in. I want to grab Scot McKnight's The King Jesus Gospel as another perspective.

So, expect wrestling over open theism, gospel and perhaps universalism. I wish I could afford Tom Greggs' book Origen, Barth and Universal Salvation, All Shall be Well by Robin Parry and Eric Reitan's God's Final Victory. But, I shall make do. I have Robin Parry's The Evangelical Universalist 2nd Edition and The One Purpose of God by Jan Bonda.

I'm also curious about the debate amongst amillenialists and others. Any (cheapish) books anyone can recommend would be cool. I lean amil, but not in any strong sense.

Open Theism. Universalism. Gospel. Amillenialism. In this is included the perennial debate amongst restrictivists, exclusivists, inclusivists, pluralists and universalists.

So it should be fun. And that is rooibus tea with a base of carved whole limes and chamomile. I wish it was beer. Almost.

--Nick

Top Ten Most Read Books

Makes sense. Sad, but true.

--Nick

Scot McKnight, "Top Five Most Influential Books"

Mine are in no particular order:

1) The Inescapable Love of God by Thomas Talbott


Thomas Talbott's ability to make an exegetical and logical case for trinitarian exclusive universalism that leave room for a will that could be free is refreshing. A very logically concise and rigorous example of an evangelical universalist who deals with proof-texts and actively engages with those who disagree with him.

2) The Coming of God by Jurgen Moltmann


As Talbott is logical and philosophical, Moltmann is very Eastern in his thinking. He writes as if he is telling a very grand story that is far beyond anything you've ever heard. His background as a drafted German soldier experiencing hell in prison camps and him saying "Jesus found him" is not only a powerful example of God's sovereignty, but also God's desire to be all in all. An intimate and powerful case for universalism. 

3) Man and Woman, One in Christ by Philip B. Payne


I was raised Complementarian, and this book certainly helped changed my mind on the entire issue. Payne spends countless pages addressing each counter-example, using his experience in textual criticism and detailed exegesis, leaving no stone unturned. His findings on I Corinthians 14 are unprecedented, and he has indeed shown me that it is very reasonable to be an Egalitarian. Of which I proudly am. 

4) Fear and Trembling by Soren Kierkegaard


Most people put Mere Christianity here. When I first read MC at Biola, I was going through a pretty rough time spiritually, and found MC trite. This is not to suggest that MC *is* trite, but after rereading it several times, I didn't find much of it compelling. However picking up F&T did indeed offer a different way of looking at things. That is the strength of Kierkegaard. 

5) God At War by Gregory A. Boyd


If one is looking for not only a holistic take on atonement, theodicy and God's foreknowledge, look no further. Boyd tackles all three in this weighty book, which reads like a textbook filled with mythological battles. His use of Scripture is compelling, his belief in Christus Victor has given me much food for thought, and even his "open" view of God has shown to be reasonable, even if I don't believe in it.

Jesus Creed/ Top 5

McKnight's top five are:

Martin Buber, I and Thou
Augustine, Confessions
Dante, Divine Comedy
John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Discipleship

Which books make your top 5? Excluding the good book, of course.

--Nick

"Adults Should Read Adult Books"; a brief response to Joel Stein

I recently read this post. Here is the link:

NY Times/ Joel Stein

In essence, Joel is writing that adults should -- well -- only read adult books.

This is problematic for several reasons.

1) He never defines what constitutes an adult book. He misses the simple fact that adults can write books for children and explore complex themes within them. Read George MacDonald. He wrote about universalism, theodicy and suffering within fantasy. And often for children. See C.S. Lewis as well.

2) I agree with him about Twilight, but I could care less if an adult (which he makes out to be a man in order to humiliate -- I wonder if Joel would have the same response if an adult woman was seen reading Twilight) reads a book. Freedom entails people are allowed to read whatever they please. This includes Joel's column.

3) The issue is, Joel essentially dismisses all literature he deems as "non-adult" and sweeps them under the rug without first having done his own research. For all he knows, these books tackle appropriate themes and issues of identity. About how they do so and to what degree they are effective is an entirely different argument. Joel is begging the question.

4) I think much of Joel's response is a reaction against a personal preference, and he extrapolates this above into something larger. This is where personal preference comes in, and frankly, I'm not convinced Joel is thinking outside the bounds of his own little box. Which is what reading adult books ought to teach.

Except children's books can very easily teach tolerance and kindness.

5) Joel also misses another simple fact: teachers often require students to go out and see movies. And, since Mass Effect 3 is just out and reads like a novel in of itself, again I think Joel is simply reacting against something he doesn't like in a childish way.

This is not a call for Joel to read The Hunger Games. Frankly, I could care less if he does at this point. However, I do think Joel is not only condescending but also grossly misinformed. A reflective man would realize that there are different modes of communication and expression within art and this can easily be reflected in books for children or young adults. I see no reason why an adult can't enjoy a book for young adults.

I don't like Twilight, because I think it was poorly written, illogical and a prime example of boy-idolatry. That said, I'm glad I read it because now I have an informed opinion about it and can confidently articulate my thoughts.

Joel has not read it, and since he has not read it, I think quoting Christopher Hitchens is enough:

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

I think Joel's piece on this matter fits in perfectly with Hitchen's paradigm.

--Nick

An Atheist's encounter with Rob Bell & Love Wins

LINK

The article is interesting and I agree with much of what he has to say about Rob. I'll be forthright, I like Rob but I was not blown away by Love Wins. I do think the fever people had over it was unjustified and contributed greatly to it's success. But, I'm with Ben Witherington in regards to Love Wins, and it is a work of artistic poetry, not systematic theology. It is more like Psalms, not Romans.

That does not excuse the instances of Love Wins' poor theology, but it ought to at frame the discussion.

The guest author (and atheist) Ronnie Stockton offers several thoughts in this article I found compelling as well as perplexing.

First, the perplexing.


He quotes George Bush Sr., who makes (at least it appears) an incredibly restrictivist (and also isolated) comment about how atheists should not be considered citizens or patriots. There is no citation given for the quote, and although I'm confident that Bush may have had one of his legendary slipups, to not cite the quote in it's entirely in a footnote doesn't quite aide Ronnie's case about much of "US evangelical Christianity, which can appear to be the shallow religion of a narcissistic, self-interested, rampantly capitalist society." It appears uncharitable, which is odd given that most of the article is actually pretty respectful. The quote by Ronnie is overly simplistic. 

I've had someone ask me why all prominent Christians don't act like Jesus and pray for their enemies and those that persecute them. I answered because these days, if you want to see Christians being truly persecuted, go to China or the Middle East.

But even then, the issue seems to be a superficial view of the prominence of some rather than the sincerity of most. I will concede that too much of Christendom is shallow, uncritical and self-interested. And it must be changed. But too much means that there ought to never be such a thing. His question is a generalization based upon a stereotype. The issue with stereotypes and the people that break them is that often those who break stereotypes are labelled simply as exceptions and dismissed. "Just because you've become enlightened doesn't mean your system or your camp is correct" is often what this can become.

Ronnie then offers a distinction between Rob Bell and George Bush. I'll let you chuckle over the obvious differences between both men. He points to Rob's inclusive statement about Jesus, citing this as clear and honest. And I agree. But Rob Bell is not the only theologian, scholar or pastor who is inclusive about Jesus. Roger Olson, Greg Boyd, Jurgen Moltmann and many others are great examples of people who hold to the same inclusive love.

Now, I disagree with Rob Bell when it comes to inclusivism, as I am an exclusivist. But this is not something I care to die upon. Just to note it. There are better and more scholarly examples to offer than Rob Bell on this subject. I may explore inclusivism in the future, if anyone is interested.

So I'm not convinced that the dichotomy built Bell and Bush is correct.

Lastly, the compelling.


I appreciate, first and foremost, Ronnie's honestly. By the end of the article, he has shown to be considerate and without condescension (except for the notes above). The attitude helps quite a bit in furthering genuine dialogue.

Ronnie's openness to Rob has nothing to do with Rob. I think Rob would say the same thing, and point Ronnie instead to Jesus. Which, it seems, Ronnie is now beginning to investigate for himself. I also agree with Ronnie specifically about factional politics within the United States. After watching the debate between Jim Wallis and Al Mohler, I was struck by how different both men approached Jesus. Both had a systematic lens, but through very different methods. Both are Christians and love Jesus, but the emphasis is different. To someone seeking a more rigorous and apologetic-driven case, Mohler is appealing. To someone seeking a more open and practically-driven case, Wallis is appealing.

People need both systems. I see no reason to separate the two and think if one can figure out a solution to combining them, we might have something magical on our hands. If anyone has a book to recommend, hit me up in the comments.

Rob's emphasis on God's love for us seems to be quite appealing to many atheists. I know of several who have paused quite a bit when I mentioned God's overwhelming love for us, especially if it is transcendent and something they can experience, even so dimly. It seems that Ronnie desires a relationship with Christians and, simply put, to talk about who we are. Nobody likes being talked *at* but people love talking about themselves.

Its time we sat down and let them speak. The more we learn about them, the more we can empathize and love them. Even Ronnie admits that what Bell did was point him to Christ.

"What is increasingly apparent to me though of course is that Rob Bell is talking about Jesus – thus the story that speaks to me is the story of Christ. Before this recent stage of my journey, I positioned my atheism from the perspective of someone who does not believe in organised religion. But now I want to explore the ties that bind my ethical beliefs to the perspective of faith. What I’m learning is that the Christian message chimes far more tunefully with my own than I had realised."

I'm not certain how I feel about him believing Rob Bell is a spokesperson for a generation, as I think Bell has quite a ways to go to figure out his theology, but I understand the sentiment. I do not think the progressive politics and theology are necessary, as Ronnie seems to indicate in his final paragraph. I know many conservatives who are open and honest with their doubts, their fears and their love for Jesus. I count myself as one of them. Progressive politics and theology does not equal openness.

But, at the end of the day, I admire atheists who are honest, irenic and seek truth. If the evidence leads them to Jesus, then I'm glad Rob Bell wrote Love Wins. This does not mean Love Wins was a particularly good book. But it caused a great many of people to think in ways they have never done before, including Ronnie. I would only hope that they progress towards Jesus and his teachings, and not rest until they've found him. I think Ronnie's final words written sum up everything nicely.

"Furthermore, from a self-interested perspective, although not ‘a believer’, I feel more involved and included and, most importantly, open and curious towards faith and the message of Jesus."

To future dialogues and to truth alone. God bless.

--Nick

Selections & Affirmations

My current (mostly theology) to-read list:

Fiction


The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins.
The Goon by Eric Powell.


Non-Fiction


Her Gates Never Shut by Bradley Jersak.
Arminian Theolgy by Roger Olson.
Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies by Nancey Murphy.
Classic Christianity by Thomas Oden.
Paul in Fresh Perspective by N.T. Wright.
The Resurrection of Jesus by Mike Licona.
What have They done with Jesus? by Ben Witherington.
Against Calvinism by Roger Olson.
The Triumph of God over Evil by William Hasker.

My recommended reading list:

Non-Fiction


The Inescapable Love of God by Thomas Talbott.
The Fire that Consumes by Edward Fudge.
Sex God by Rob Bell.
God at War by Gregory Boyd.
Universal Salvation? The Current Debate by Robin Parry & Christopher Partidge.

The Openness of God by Gregory Boy.

The Coming of God by Jurgen Moltmann.

Conditional Futurism by James Goetz.

More to come.

--Nick