“I think all our listeners will like what we have to say,” was Joe Thorn’s estimation in a recent episode of Doctrine and Devotion, a Reformed Baptist podcast, in which the hosts answered a listener’s question regarding annihilationism.
Let me begin by expressing genuine appreciation for Doctrine and Devotion. I resonate with so much of what these brothers say. I have been a regular listener (if a little behind in recent months) and have no plans to unsubscribe but when I was alerted in the Rethinking Hell Facebook group to the recent episode, I immediately had a sinking feeling that it would be disappointing. I was right.
The hosts stated up front that they would not be offering a “detailed, comprehensive dive” into the question but only giving their “basic thoughts.” Their basic thoughts left me frustrated on at least five fronts.
First—and unsurprisingly—their definition of annihilationism left much be desired. While they could have quoted from any number of annihilationist resources, they opted instead to quote a Baker resource: “Annihilationism is the doctrine that the souls of the wicked will be snuffed out of existence rather than being sent to an everlasting, conscious hell. The existence of the unrepentant will be extinguished while the righteous will enter into everlasting bliss.”
It is unfortunate that they would favor this particular definition, which uses language that evangelical proponents of conditional immortality themselves don’t use. Language of “souls” being “snuffed out” and “extinguished” implies a quick, painless end, which is not envisaged by evangelical annihilationists. The Bible frequently uses imagery of unbelievers being consumed by fire, which is hardly a picture of a tranquil, painless end.
Second, they recommended very positively, and quoted equally positively, from an article against annihilationism for which the author has since apologized. Thorn and Fowler pointed their listener to a 2015 article by Gavin Ortlund titled “J. I. Packer on Why Annihilationism is Wrong.” They praised this piece as a wonderful resource for their questioner to consult. Unfortunately, they made no reference to Ortlund’s December 2018 tweet in which he admitted that he was “unfair to annihilationists” and “did poorly” in that article. It is unclear whether they were unaware of Ortlund’s apology or simply ignored it. Regardless, it was frustrating that they would recommend so highly a resource that the author himself admitted was not great.
Third, their limited attempt to answer the question from the text of Scripture was disappointing, if somewhat understandable, given the platform. Thorn stated at the outset that the discussion must start with the Bible, but they did relatively little in that vein themselves.
Thorn suggested that “probably the key text” is Matthew 25:46, where Jesus set “eternal life” against “eternal punishment.” There is nothing new about his argument, or (sadly) about his misrepresentation of evangelical annihilationism. Since both life and punishment are eternal, he argued, they are both conscious experiences. As is the case with many traditionalists, he failed to acknowledge that, while both are said to be eternal, the Lord’s point is actually to contrast the two. There is nothing in the word “punishment” that demands consciousness. When we speak of the death penalty as capital punishment, we do not assume that the punishment is the process leading to the death. The punishment is death itself. The most natural contrast to “life” is death. If the punishment for sin is death, and if death is permanent and irreversible, it can quite rightly be called an eternal punishment. One cannot assume that “punishment” demands ongoing life; one must argue for it, which the hosts failed to do.
Fowler supported Thorn’s assumption by referencing, without commentary “Isaiah 66” and then quoting Daniel 12:2. He made no mention of the fact that Isaiah 66 specifically references the “dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me” rather than living persons (v. 24). With reference to Daniel 12:2, he assumed, without supporting his assumption, that the “shame and everlasting contempt” to which some are raised refers to their experience of shame, which is a mistake. The two texts (Isaiah 66:24 and Daniel 12:2), in fact, use the same Hebrew language to describe “abhorrence” (Isaiah 66:24) and “contempt” (Daniel 12:2). Since the “abhorrence” of Isaiah 66:24 references the contempt with which the righteous view the unrighteous (rather than the conscious experience of the unrighteous), it can be credibly argued that the same is in view in Daniel 12:2.
Later in the episode, Thorn argued that the biblical language of “destruction” “doesn’t mean gone but no longer functioning” or “torn apart.” It is difficult to imagine how a person would be “torn apart” but remain living. Regardless, his sole attempt to prove his assertion was to quote 2 Thessalonians 1:9 (ESV), which speaks of the wicked experiencing “eternal destruction away from the presence of the Lord.” The language of “away from,” he suggested, demands consciousness. Of course, this is not true. A person can easily be killed “away from” a certain place or another person. Further, the ESV supplies a footnote to suggest “destruction that comes from” the Lord’s presence as an alternate reading, which is supported in translations like the NKJV and the CSB.
Thorn stated frankly that annihilationism is “not something I see in Scripture” but that “all of the passages that describe hell describe a place of consciousness, of punishment.” He failed to quote any of the relevant passages to prove his point, instead assuming the point he was arguing. He added that the Old Testament says very little about the final state, but again assumed this because the Old Testament says nothing about a conscious final state for the wicked. The Old Testament is, however, replete with references to the destruction of the wicked.
The hosts also favorably quoted Ortlund’s argument that “death” in the Bible refers to “another mode of existence.” Again, they assumed but did not seek to prove their argument. It is little wonder that Ortlund admitted being unfair to annihilationists.
Fourth, it was frustrating that they placed such a heavy emphasis on the emotional appeal of annihilationism. They assumed that annihilationists hold their convictions because conditionalism is “more palatable” than traditionalism. They considered annihilation to be a reward rather than a punishment, or at least a temporary punishment, like going to jail but being released after serving your time. This is, once again, an unfair caricature of conditional immortality.
Evangelical conditionalism affirms the eternality of punishment. The duration of the punishment is not in question; the nature of the punishment is. The death with which the wicked will be judged will be everlasting in duration. Contrary to what the hosts suggest, conditionalism does not teach that the punishment is like an extended jail sentence with release at the end. That is more akin to universalism, which is an entirely distinct theology.
The hosts seem to think that conditionalists balk at traditionalism because they consider it to be unfair or unjust. To be sure, most conditionalists probably do consider eternal, conscious torment to be an unjust punishment, but that is not the reason they reject it. They reject it because they believe the Bible teaches otherwise and believe that ECT is unjust because the Bible teaches destruction rather than ongoing torment. Since God always judges justly, the punishment he exacts is just and punishments he avoids are unjust. The hosts suggest that God’s holiness demands eternal, conscious torment but, once again, it is an argument they assume rather than prove.
Fifth, the hosts also sent a conflicting message concerning the seriousness of what they perceive to be the annihilationist error. Fowler referred to conditionalism as a “first ballot, hall of fame heresy” while Thorn said, moments later, “I don’t think it makes someone a heretic if they believe in annihilationism.” Fowler didn’t push back, so perhaps he realized that he spoke too soon, but it was a frustrating contradiction.
One bright spot in their critique was their recognition that annihilationism is not a new doctrine. Unlike some, who have pretended that annihilationism is a new teaching, the hosts admitted that it has “been around a long time” and increased and decreased in popularity at different periods of church history. They were clear in their estimation that it has usually been a minority opinion and has generally been regarded as heterodox and “a deviation from normal standards,” but they at least admitted that it has a long pedigree.
Gavin Ortlund had the credibility to admit that he had been unfair to annihilationists and that he should have done better. I would love to see the hosts of Doctrine and Devotion come to the same estimation, even if they don’t ultimately change their mind on their theology.
Recent Comments