Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
References:
69
. G.E.Ladd. Bible Characters and
Doctrines. Scripture Union. Vol. 16,
Hell Under Fire
Part 2—Warren Prestidge
CIANZ Annual Conference Address
(cont from Part 1 in Iss 46) for some people” (p171). In the first
Why is Universalism so commonly essay in the book, J. Albert Mohler Jr.
held today even among traces something of the growing
mainstream Christians? Or, if they moral disquiet about this5doctrine
don’t actually advocate during the 19th Century. He writes:
Universalism, why do so many “Of all the articles of accepted
Christians today, including so many Christian orthodoxy that troubled the
Christian pastors and teachers, consciences of Victorian churchmen,
pretty much avoid the whole none caused more anxiety than the
subject of final judgment all everlasting punishment of the
together, even though it’s wicked.”
standard, both in the Bible and in Well I would say: I should think so!
all Christian traditions? So it should! It should cause us
And the main reason, surely – or anxiety, or again there is something
at least one of the two or three seriously wrong with us. And this
main reasons – is that even anxiety should drive us back to the
Christians today are utterly Scriptures to discover whether in fact
embarrassed by, and in fact the Traditional view is substantiated –
ashamed of, the Traditionalist and there we will find it is not
view of hell! And James Packer substantiated at all. The great
himself agrees with this. He says: modern Evangelical Christian leader
“the deepest motivation in John Stott, who of course came to
*Universalists’+ minds has always believe in Conditional Immortality,
been revolt against mainstream said: “I find the concept *of eternal
belief in endless punishment in hell conscious torment] intolerable and
do not understand how people can
live with it without cauterizing their
feelings or cracking under the That makes sense. Interesting that
strain.”6 Even some of the it’s more or less what was affirmed,
Traditionalists in this book Hell in 1995, in a report by the Doctrine
Under Fire are clearly disquieted Commission of the Church of England
about eternal torment. For example, entitled The Mystery of Salvation,
in the essay “Jesus on Hell”, Robert quoted in fact in Hell Under Fire. The
W. Yarborough writes, “With Stott I report said: “Hell is not eternal
affirm that the doctrine of eternal torment, but it is the final and
conscious punishment strains our irrevocable choosing of that which is
sense of justice”, and concedes he opposed to God so completely and so
“cannot make sense” of it (p90). absolutely that the only end is total
Yet it seems to me that, in the non-being.”7 It makes sense, and it’s
biblical view, God’s justice ought to self-evidently just, that if you reject
make sense to us. In fact, the Bible God’s will for your life, you must die –
insists that God’s justice is
something we can all rejoice in! This
is what the Psalmist says: “Let the
sea roar, and all that fills it; the
world and those who dwell in it! Let
the floods clap their hands; let the
hills sing for joy together before the
Lord, for he comes to judge the
earth. He will judge the world with for you have no power or right to live
righteousness, and the peoples with without it.
equity” (Ps 98:7-9)! Really? How Yet Traditionalists say that even those
can you rejoice at a hell of eternal who reject God will live forever. One
suffering which doesn’t make sense of the essayists in Hell Under Fire,
or cauterizes your feelings? Sinclair B. Ferguson, quotes with
This is what makes sense to me. approval the remark by Thomas
God is the Lord of life. I have no Brooks of the 17th Century: “The
existence without God. If I reject damned shall live as long in Hell as
God, if I sin against God, I cannot God himself shall live in Heaven.” 8
expect to live and I am not fit to live. That’s merely putting bluntly what
the Traditionalist view does in fact Traditionalists! God doesn’t say:
imply. Well, not only is it an appalling “shall suffer forever”! He says: “shall
thought, it makes no sense and it is die.”
entirely unbiblical. The Bible says The Apostle Paul says the same thing.
eternal life is available only through In the most theologically systematic
the Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, that and precise of all his letters, Romans,
sinners shall “die”, shall “perish”, and in the middle of the most painstaking
that in the end God will be “all in exposition of God’s judgment in the
all” (I Cor 15:28). I believe that, whole New Testament, Paul says,
because that is the biblical Gospel, “*Sinners+ know God’s decree that
and I’m happy to say it makes sense those who deserve such things
as well. deserve to – die” (Rom 1:32). They
And in fact this is what the Bible “know” it, both in the sense that they
affirms: both that God’s justice does are aware of it and in the sense that
make sense and that what it their consciences acknowledge its
prescribes for sinners is death. In justice. And what is it that sinners
Ezekiel 18, for example, the prophet deserve, by God’s decree? Eternal
Ezekiel goes to great lengths to spell suffering? No. They “deserve to die”.
out how God’s justice works to Just as Paul repeats later, in Romans
people who are finding it obscure. 6:23: “The wages of sin is – death”.
He doesn’t say, Like it or lump it! He Just as God told the first man and
says to his contemporaries: “You say, woman in Eden: If you sin, you will
‘What the Lord does isn’t right.’ Well, die. And just in case you don’t get
listen to me and I’ll explain it” (Ezek what death is, God said – just in case,
18:25), and launches into the most
painstaking exposition of God’s
judgment in the whole Old
Testament. And this is what he says –
or rather, what God says through
him: “’As I live,’ says the Lord God,
‘...all souls are mine; the soul of the
father as well as the soul of the son is
mine: the soul that sins shall
die’” (Ezek 18:4). Sorry,
like many Traditionalists, you think most Bible scholars and competent
the word “death” may not mean Christian thinkers today agree that,
what it seems to mean – I’ll tell you: biblically, we have no immortal soul
Genesis 3:19: “You are dust and to at all. So Morgan writes: “...the
dust you shall return”. You will cease wicked will be punished consciously
to exist. Conditional Immortality. forever in hell, not because they exist
This also is what makes sense to me: as immortal souls but because God
that ultimately God will put an end to will sustain them” (p205). So God
evil and to unrepentant evildoers. could put them out of their misery if
Isn’t that what the Bible means, He wished, but He won’t!
among other things, when it affirms So Traditionalists have this huge
that ultimately God will be “all in problem: they have to somehow
all” (I Cor 15:28), or that ultimately explain how it is just, even thinkable,
God will “unite all things in let alone merciful, for God – our God,
Christ” (Eph 1:10), or that “Babylon” Jesus and His Father – to deliberately
“shall be found no more” (Rev cause people, millions of them, to
18:21)? And yet this is not what Hell keep on suffering forever and ever.
Under Fire says. Hell Under Fire says The usual explanation is, that
that evildoers will both continue because God is infinite, and infinitely
forever, that in fact God will worthy, sin against God demands an
deliberately keep them that way and, infinite penalty. And sure enough,
furthermore, that they will continue Morgan argues this (pp210-1). Here
to be unrepentantly evil forever! he goes: “If people lied to us or
I refer, for example, to one of the two disobeyed us, would they deserve
essays by the co-editor Christopher death? Of course not. If they do
W. Morgan.9 Morgan knows that God these things against God, do they
could put an end to the unsaved, if deserve capital punishment? The
He wanted to. Even Christians who Bible’s consistent answer is yes....”
believe in the immortality of the Well, okay. But did you notice
human soul usually concede these something strange? Morgan has just
days that such immortality cannot be argued for “death”, for “capital
absolute, as is God’s, but can only punishment” – not for eternal
continue by God’s will. And actually suffering. It seems that the
Traditional view of hell is so “All things reconciled to God” (Col
unthinkable that, even while he’s 1:20)? Not according to the
arguing for it, Morgan can’t think it! Traditionalists. “Every tongue in
But wait: there’s more! Morgan heaven, in earth and under the earth
realises that, in order to justify confessing that Jesus Christ is
eternal torment, he must go further Lord” (Phil 2:9-11)? Not at all. “New
than the infinite God argument. For heavens and a new earth in which
he goes on to add: “It also seems righteousness dwell” (II Pet 3:13)?
likely that those in hell remain in Don’t count on it, says Hell Under
their sinful state...continuing in sin Fire! Rather, evil without end, by
and therefore stockpiling more and evildoers whom God Himself actively
more guilt and its consequent sustains. And to what purpose? This
punishment.” (p212). What an sounds like no final judgment at all,
appalling notion! Yet Morgan is not to me. In fact it sounds like a most
alone in this. He is able to cite A. H. appalling nightmare. Frankly, it
Strong and D. A. Carson to the same sounds like blasphemy. And yet
effect. Clearly, this is considered to Traditionalists are the ones who
be an important plank of regularly accuse Conditionalists of
Traditionalist teaching. And, in fact, I heresy! No. Conditionalism doesn’t
can’t see any alternative to it, if threaten any fundamental Christian
indeed the wicked continue forever doctrine whatever: it enhances them
deprived of the saving grace of God – all. But this Traditionalist teaching of
for how else do we escape from the evil without end – well, that’s
habit of sin at all, except by God’s another matter.
grace? And sure enough, in the last As a matter of fact, I doubt that
essay in the book, Sinclair B. Traditionalists really mean what they
Ferguson says the same thing: “In say! In Hell Under Fire, R. Albert
Scripture,” says Ferguson, “...the Mohler Jr. makes the following
sinfulness of the wicked is viewed as quotation with approval: “’Hell
continuing....There is no repentance. expresses the intent of a holy God to
Hatred of God has no time limitation destroy sin completely and
on it” (p235)! forever...’”. 10Amen. But that’s not
God “all in all”? Doesn’t sound like it! Traditionalism! That’s Conditional
,Immortality. But I don’t want to “up favour. For one thing, they often
the anti” any further! I just thank argue that Conditionalists are not
God that the Bible teaches, not really listening to the Bible: that we
eternal torment, but Conditional are allowing ourselves to be led
Immortality. astray by emotional or sentimental
considerations. Actually they claim
But does it? Isn’t it Traditionalism
even more. As I’ve just observed,
that is biblical ? This is the central
they repeatedly seek to link the
question, after all, as I’ve already doctrine of Conditional Immortality
said. For if Traditionalism is biblical, either with age-old sectarianism or
we need to go with it and try to make with modernist liberal tendencies to
sense of it, however hard that may deny the full authority of Scripture,
be. Well, on the basis of the to pick and choose which parts of the
arguments put forward in this book, I Bible will be taken seriously and to
would say: No, Traditionalism is not undermine key features of orthodox
biblical at all. This book cannot Christian faith. 11 A pair of
marshal a serious case based on the Traditionalists have even stated that
consistent witness of Scripture, not “The doctrine of eternal punishment
even on credible interpretation of a is the watershed between evangelical
significant basket of texts. and non-evangelical thought”!12
Maybe contributors to Hell Under Fire Well, that’s just ridiculous. Can
sense that their own arguments are Traditionalists really claim that such
proponents of Conditional
Immortality as Michael Green, John
Wenham, Philip E. Hughes and John
Stott are less committed to the
authority of Scripture, or less
competent Bible teachers, than they?
They do have the grace to admit, at
least, that Edward Fudge’s book The
Fire That Consumes is thoroughly
biblical. As for myself, all I can say is,
that I am at least as committed to the
weak, for they do actually employ Bible as these Traditionalists, and just
several strategies to skew the debate as concerned as they are about
unfairly and unreasonably in their
modernist trends to undermine the Before entering
biblical Gospels, or about emergent theological
church tendencies to shelve orthodox
college Warren
teaching regarding the atonement. In
my own book, I deliberately avoid any taught English
appeal to emotionalism and seek to at tertiary and
found everything I say squarely on secondary levels.
what the Bible consistently teaches He spent 14
(Part 3 of Hell Under Fire will be
years at a
published in FDTL Issue 48)
church on Auckland's North Shore,
References:
5
“Modern Theology: the which began as Forrest Hill Church of
Disappearance of Hell”. Christ and became Sunnynook
6 Baptist Church! After 2 years as
Cited by Robert W. Yarborough on
p88 Director of Oro Bible College in the
7
Cited in Hell Under Fire, p33. Philippines, he has been Pastor of
8
“Pastoral Theology: The Preacher Remuera Baptist Church, Auckland,
and Hell”, p227. since 1997. He has also lectured at
9
“Annihilationism: Will the Unsaved Laidlaw College (formerly Bible
be Punished Forever?”
10 College of NZ) in various theological
P17; quoting Thomas Oden, who is
attempting to summarizing the and pastoral subjects, and is
patristic consensus, in his Systematic currently a board member of CIANZ.
Theology; Vol 3 (1992). Jackie has taught Maths for many
11
E.g. R. Albert Mohler Jr, in Hell years. Jackie and Warren have three
Under Fire, pp34ff. grown sons, all overseas at present.
12
John Ankerburg and John Weldon,
cited by R. Albert Mohler Jr. In Hell
Under Fire, p32.