Thomas Fretwell, in an article published on Creation Ministries International’s website entitled ‘Is Christianity Unbelievable? Review of a Book by Influential UK Christian Radio Show Host’ (9 Apr. 2019), under the subheading ‘Eternal punishment?’, writes:
One other area where the author [Justin Brierley] says his views have been revised is his understanding of hell. Departing from the traditional view of hell as an eternal reality after death[,] Brierley explains that his present understanding “is one that theologians call ‘annihilationism’” (p. 184)—a view that basically says hell is the end of existence for the unsaved. Although he states that “there are a growing number of significant Christian leaders” who hold this view, it is a frank denial of the plain teaching of the New Testament, not least the Lord Jesus Himself ([…]). Consequently, it is still considered to be an unorthodox view in today’s Church, held only by a minority of professing evangelical leaders.[1, 2]There are several problems with Fretwell’s assertions and characterisations of the doctrine of annihilationism. Firstly, evangelicals who hold to the teaching of the final annihilation of the unrighteous no more deny the ‘eternal reality’ of eschatological punishment than do advocates of the conventional view of everlasting, conscious torture. Adherents of both positions maintain the everlasting, permanent, and irreversible nature of the divine verdict to be passed upon the wicked on Judgement Day.
Secondly, it is true that evangelical proponents of annihilationism believe that the future punishment of those who are not saved will reach its climax in the termination of their existence. That is not to say, however, that the unrighteous will not suffer mentally and/or physically (in their resurrected bodies) for a period of time prior to being finally exterminated. They will certainly be conscious on the day of judgement when they are held to account for their lives and are banished from the presence of the Lord Jesus, the holy angels, and his people, into age-lasting punishment (see Matt. 7.21–23; 25.41, 46).
Thirdly, regarding the charge that annihilationism is a ‘frank denial of the plain teaching of the New Testament, not least the Lord Jesus Himself’, I beg to differ. I would invite Fretwell (and others of his opinion), if he has not already, to carefully read Edward Fudge’s monumental work, The Fire That Consumes (2011).[3] A strong biblical case for the final extinction of the wicked has already been made. It is therefore incumbent upon advocates of the conventional view of interminable torment to counter annihilationists’ actual scriptural and theological arguments.
Fourthly, I must confess that I fail to appreciate the significance of the observation that, at present, annihilationism is a minority position within the realm of evangelicalism. This is a form of the argumentum ad populum (argument to the people) to which Fretwell is appealing. Ironically, it is precisely this form of argumentation that young-earth creationist organisations such as Creation Ministries International (rightly) frown upon when employed by opposing voices to dismiss their cosmological stance. Protestants/evangelicals who maintain a sola or prima scriptura hermeneutical view need not baulk at adopting, or considering the adoption of, the doctrine of annihilationism because of the paucity of its proponents. As always, with regard to faith and practice, scripture must be the final authority.
2. The book under review by Fretwell is Justin Brierley’s Unbelievable? Why, after Ten Years of Talking with Atheists, I'm Still a Christian (London, UK: SPCK, 2017).
3. Edward William Fudge, The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, 3rd edn (Cambridge, UK: Lutterworth Press, 2012 / Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011).
Fourthly, I must confess that I fail to appreciate the significance of the observation that, at present, annihilationism is a minority position within the realm of evangelicalism. This is a form of the argumentum ad populum (argument to the people) to which Fretwell is appealing. Ironically, it is precisely this form of argumentation that young-earth creationist organisations such as Creation Ministries International (rightly) frown upon when employed by opposing voices to dismiss their cosmological stance. Protestants/evangelicals who maintain a sola or prima scriptura hermeneutical view need not baulk at adopting, or considering the adoption of, the doctrine of annihilationism because of the paucity of its proponents. As always, with regard to faith and practice, scripture must be the final authority.
Notes
1. Fretwell’s article may be read in its entirety at <https://creation.com/unbelievable>.2. The book under review by Fretwell is Justin Brierley’s Unbelievable? Why, after Ten Years of Talking with Atheists, I'm Still a Christian (London, UK: SPCK, 2017).
3. Edward William Fudge, The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, 3rd edn (Cambridge, UK: Lutterworth Press, 2012 / Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011).
Original content copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2019, 2021, 2022. All rights reserved.
Latest revisions: corrected a misplaced apostrophe in par. 5 (22 Sept. 2019); emended ‘heading’ to ‘subheading’ in par. 1 (21 Oct. 2021); emended scriptural abbreviation (10 Nov. 2021); altered ‘scarcity’ to ‘paucity’ in last paragraph (11 Oct. 2022).
Latest revisions: corrected a misplaced apostrophe in par. 5 (22 Sept. 2019); emended ‘heading’ to ‘subheading’ in par. 1 (21 Oct. 2021); emended scriptural abbreviation (10 Nov. 2021); altered ‘scarcity’ to ‘paucity’ in last paragraph (11 Oct. 2022).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments and constructive criticism are welcome, preferably from persons of a thoughtful, non-hostile disposition. All comments are moderated by the author/host of The Neo-Remonstrance blog.
Guidelines for commenters are as follows: (1) remain relevant to the subject matter of the article/blog post under which you are commenting; (2) attempt to be reasonably concise in your response (although several paragraphs may be acceptable); (3) refrain from leaving comments that are vitriolic or puerile in nature; (4) avoid ad hominem argumentation and caricatures. Comments that deviate from these standards will likely not see publication on this website, along with messages that constitute ‘spam’.
For all other comments, corrections, enquiries, suggestions, or remonstrations, please scroll to the bottom of the page and fill out the contact form below.