Chris Date, "Preterism and the Book of Revelation"

Date:

The nature of final punishment is a topic which falls under the theological category of eschatology, the study of last things. Also discussed as part of that category is the timing of the fulfillment of certain biblical prophecies, such as the coming of the Son of Man foretold by Jesus in his Olivet discourse, the nature and activity of the beast of Revelation, and so forth. Perhaps constituting the majority view of the church in America today, futurists believe that most of these prophecies will be fulfilled in our future; preterists like me, on the other hand, believe most of these prophecies—but not all of them¹—were fulfilled in our past, specifically in the first century surrounding the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in A.D. 70. 

As I mentioned in a previous article, there’s a strong argument to be made in favor of conditionalism from the apocalyptic imagery of death and Hades in Revelation chapter 20. This argument carries force regardless of one’s eschatological position concerning the timing of prophetic events, and I will make that argument in the future here at Rethinking Hell. In the meantime, however, because of my interest in this particular eschatological persuasion, I want to reach out to my fellow preterists and make a bold, provocative and controversial statement: You can’t be a consistent preterist unless you’re also a conditionalist. That’s right, I said it. 

If your understanding of the book of Revelation is preteristic but you believe that it supports the traditional view of hell as eternal conscious torment in immortal bodies and souls, you are being inconsistent. I was, too. I have been a preterist for years but I didn’t realize how inconsistent I had been until I was already nearly convinced of conditionalism roughly six months ago. If you are reading this and you are likewise a preterist, my hope is that the camaraderie I share with you will allow me to challenge you to think more deeply about this issue than you may have in the past. 

You likely point to Revelation 20:10 as evidence supporting the traditional view of final punishment, since a few verses later the risen wicked are seen thrown into this lake of fire in which the devil, beast and false prophet are tormented eternally. Chances are that you view the millennium depicted in this chapter as being the present church age, and that you believe the beast is a symbol representing imperial Rome generally, and perhaps Nero Caesar specifically. Yet despite the fact that this beast is seen thrown into the lake of fire at the onset of the millennium, corresponding to events which took place in the first century, I seriously doubt that you believe Nero (or anybody else associated with imperial Rome) is suffering torment right now in resurrected, immortal bodies. If you do not, then you are being inconsistent in your interpretation of the lake of fire imagery. If you do, then you are being inconsistent in other ways, but either way your doctrine is fraught with problems. 

For the rest, and it is worth reading, click HERE.

--Nick

Theopologetics, "One in Christ Part II

This is part 2 of the interview, dealing with complementarian objections to egalitarianism. Quite good.

Theopologetics

--Nick

Theopologetics, "One in Christ"

Chris Date, a friend of mine, just interviewed Dr. Philip Payne on the subject of women in ministry. This is the first half where Dr. Payne and Chris go over the positive case for Egalitarianism.

http://www.theopologetics.com/2012/05/17/episode-85-one-in-christ/

Enjoy.

--Nick

Thank God for Hell, a (hopefully) brief response

Often, the most difficult conversations one can have are within one's own camp. It's often incredibly easy to simply dismiss another person's perspective when we've been trained to see nothing but our own. Well, no more.

Just how deep do you believe?


I will be responding to a blogger who recently wrote a post entitled "Thank God for Hell." I read it several times after finding it through Chris Date, the creator of Theopologetics. I reread it while at work and selling alcohol to old people.

All in all, I think I read it over twelve times. And the more I read it, the less angry I became. Instead, I felt a profound sadness. It isn't often that I am reduced to anger during a theological discussion, but even more so a feeling of almost extreme depression. For the sake of time, I will only be responding to bits I found the most interesting.

Anyway. The blogger stated the following:

"If there is no Hell, Stalin and Moa won’t be punished for the murder of a 100 million people. They will die outside Heaven into nothingness and non-existence like my aunt who didn’t follow Jesus either. They get the same punishment as my wonderful aunt who only crime was not loving God. She never killed anyone, yet she would get the same light sentence as Lenin and Douhlmer."

I would say that the punishment *is* the death. The instinct of self-preservation can turn even the most saintly of churchgoers into raving madmen. I think the blogger is missing the point on top of having a warped view of sin itself. No one is denying that certain crimes would carry certain heavier punishment. However, I think the blogger is emotionally equivocating on the issue.

Emotion does not make a good substitute for exegesis.

"Death would mean RIP. You would sleep forever, not much of a punishment."

Ask an individual what they would do to bring back a loved one. Often, a response could include "I'd move heaven and earth." Losing a loved one is crippling for most of us, and I think death is one of the few things in life can inspire genuine worry. Death is the greatest punishment a human being can face, especially if it entails separation from God and loved ones.

Also, sleep implies consciousness. This is fallacious.

The two things in life that are certain are not "eternal conscious torment and taxes." Think about it. ;-)

"If there is no real punishment, just sleep forever, then there is no deterrent to sin and especially for the most vile types of iniquity. This would prove to promote a “live for today” attitude with ultra-selfish ambitions. This would produce a real chaos."

I fail to see what chaos the blogger is talking about. He is in fear of a slippery slope, and such a fear is irrational. I'm convinced of annihilationism and I have indeed not acted in ultra-selfish ways. I know several brothers who act nothing like the painter has decided to broad-brush his internet canvas.

Again, an emotional appeal that has yet been unsupported by Scripture.

If there is no Hell, I think the sacrifice of God’s only Son on the Cross is the most grotesque waste of beauty. He would have saved us to Heaven and saved us from dying forever. But eternal rest isn’t a bad alternative to Heaven. No more bills and bad marriages, no more tears or sorrows…doesn’t that sound eerily like Heaven? If there is no Hell there is no down side. Why spend His beautiful Son for this?

Annihilationists do not deny the existence of Hell. This entire question is based on a straw man. As the late and (somewhat) great Christopher Hitchens says, "that which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

Hell is a piece of the puzzle without which Christianity would make no sense. The day there is no Hell is the day I leave the faith. I’m an economist. If there is no tension for souls then there is no reason for sacrificial living. I am not an altruist. My pre-Christ nature is “everyman for himself.” Jesus changed me to a value system of love but not for loves sake but for my souls. I do not want to go to Hell.

It seems odd to me that hell is given more power here than the work of Jesus Christ. His emphasis on hell being what he perceives it to be clouds his perception of everything else. This is not Christ-centered theology, this is fear. Fear can be a great motivator, to be certain. But fear only gets one so far, and it does nothing to assuage our own misconceived perceptions.

The blogger then quotes Revelation 20:10-15. This is the only Scripture ever quoted in this post. And this settles the debate. In all my research on the topic of hell, Revelation 20 used to be the *only* verse that could *maybe* be interpreted to support ECT.

If one would like, I'd be open to further explaining. But since the blogger didn't see the need to, I shall wait to do so.

Given that Revelation is using vivid imagery to paint a picture, I would caution everyone to avoid taking Revelation literally. In Revelation you have abstract entities such as death and hades being thrown into the lake of fire, and sea monsters battling with angels.

Hmmmmm.

Do not get me wrong, one is certainly allowed to interpret things in such ways. But an inclination to interpret a passage based on emotion and logical fallacies is hardly a wise way to interpret Scripture.

Finally,

"Me and my Bible" is great for personal salvation. Scripture is clear enough to show the message of salvation in a simple way. However, in relation to abstract concepts such as death and the beast, to reduce Scripture to a "my way and the highway" is not only a slap in the face of Solo Scriptura, it also misappropriates Scripture to feed an emotional need.

God bless.

--Nick

For the entire post and comments, check out http://delugeop.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/thank-god-for-hell/

A Brief Case for Annihilationism (Updated)

I believe Scripture strongly teaches conditional immortality. I recently had to disagree with my university (it is unnecessary to name them) on their doctrinal statement where they included decisive language on the eternal conscious fate of the wicked. I did this just as an exercise, and knew that my perspective more than likely disqualified me. This is not to say that I disrespect or hold this against the university.

I had only a page to write out my disagreement, and I know much more could be said on this issue. So, here it is.

1) ETERNAL FIRE

A. I do believe that hell will be eternal in effect (Matthew 25:46) but I do not believe that the punishment is ongoing and conscious. Instead, I believe the payment of sin is death (Romans 6:23) and I do believe that, if suffering was all that was required of Christ, then his death is nonsensical.

B. Matthew 25:41 references "eternal fire," and in the Greek, it is used several different times throughout Scripture. One of them is in Jude verses 3-7, where it explicitly states that Soddom and Gomorrah serve as an example of ' the vengeance of "eternal fire.'" And Soddom and Gomorrah was, according to Genesis 19:24-29, utterly destroyed. The content is known as a "sample" of what will happen. 2 Peter 2:6 explicitly says that God condemned them to '"extinction", making them an example of what will happen to the ungodly.'

C. You also have a host of metaphors to describe the ultimate fate of the wicked. "Like chaff that the wind drives away...the wicked will perish" (Ps 1:4,6). They will be dashed "in pieces like a potter's vessel." (Ps. 2:9). These are merely samples of the imagery the Bible uses to describe utter and complete destruction.

2) INHERENT IMMORTALITY

A. This also is in conjunction with Romans 6:23 in that the only people who are explicitly given eternal life are Christians (John 3:15-16, 10:28, 17:2/ Rom 2:7, I Cor 15:42f, 50, 54/ Gal 6:8/ I John 5:11). I believe that those who reject God's gift will not in fact receive immortality. Any hope we may have had of being inherently immortal was lost in Adam's sin (Gen 3:23-24).  John 3:16 declares that "everyone who believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." James 1:15 states that "sin, when it is fully grown, gives birth to death."

I think the Biblical language of destruction describes Annihilationism, and the presupposition of inherent immortality is unfounded.

3) ALL IN ALL

A. The belief that Scripture teaches unending conscious torment is inconsistent with the host of Scriptural revelation elsewhere, especially in regards to God's total victory over sin and death. If hell, and by extension sin and sinners, exists after the cosmic redemption has taken place, then God is not victorious because sin and suffering still exist. If sin still exists after the complete reconciliation of all things (Col 1:20, Eph 1:10), then there is a contradiction.

B. Annihilationism is an excellent way, I think, to hold together the passages about judgment as well as the cosmic redemption exhibited in God's unfailing love and his desire to be "all in all" (I Cor 15:28).

4) CONCLUSION

I go where the evidence leads, and I believe Scripture quite possibly teaches that the wicked will simply be no more after the end of all things. This does not mean I am not open to new evidence or arguments. I do not believe that people who believe in ETC or Universalism lack intelligence or Biblical integrity, so I offer grace as a substitute for contention.

More to come. For additional resources see:

Glenn Peoples -- http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/an-open-letter-to-my-traditionalist-friends/

Theopologetics (Podcast/ Blog)

Interview -- Edward Fudge #54-55, Larry Dixon #62-63.
Debate -- Ronnie vs Turretinfan #64-65, Chris Date vs Hiram Diaz #70-71.
Post-Debate Reflections -- #72-74.

Joseph Dear -- http://3-ringbinder.blogspot.com/2010/09/explanation-of-my-controversial-though.html

Hope all is well.

--Nick