Customer Reviews

Two Views of Hell: A Biblical & Theological Dialogue (Spectrum)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Both agree that Hell is real and horrible, but they disagree on how long it lasts. If you are searching for the very best arguments this book might not be it. But it is a good starting place to get the core rationale of each side. I am glad I bought it and read it.

I have noticed strengths and weaknesses in both man's arguments. For anyone interested, here is what I thought:

Let's start with a look at Fudge.

Fudge's Conditionalist sections are very typical to others of his view. He gives a pretty dynamic chronological walk through what seems to be a million scripture references and includes developments that occurred between testaments and post-apostolic development. Although I'm not entirely sure of where I stand on this issue, the conditionalist/annihilationist position is far from anti-intellectual (as claimed by another reviewer). The arguments presented here are quite formidable, even if only a handful of respected Evangelicals have broken ranks with tradition to side with it.

Fudge's strategy seems to be to overwhelm the reader with a ton of scripture. He uses awkward sentences at times and often inexplicably gives the Greek word for various terms throughout his portion even when the Greek words have no apparent relevance to the point he's making. Fudge, as far as I remember, never quotes Peterson's published works on Hell in his arguments but usually just gives arguments against common traditionalist beliefs in general--somewhat of a cheesy straw man tactic.

A more significant error is his use of scriptures that speak of destruction of sinners but not necessarily in the context of "Final Judgment." These references are important for understanding the Final Judgment, but Fudge makes little effort to point out the difference or explain them in their proper context. He simply throws them in the same pile as the more relevant scripture. However in his 500 page book entitled The Fire the Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, he is a little bit more astute in pointing out such differences and making concrete references to the theologians through the centuries. But in both books Fudge sometimes comes across as one who is analyzing scripture a mile wide and an inch deep.

Frankly, Fudge's arguments in favor of his position are not as good as I think they legitimately could be. Peterson quickly jumps on many of his weaker spots.

Lets turn our attention to the Traditionalist, Mr Peterson.

While Fudge is like a machine gunner in his use of scripture, Peterson is therefore like a sniper. He bases his entire argument on 10 verses (explaining each of them with laborious detail). Despite this more focused and meaningful strategy, the main portion in favor of his position spends more time claiming that Fudge is wrong than why his own ideas are right.

Peterson, on the Traditionalist side, left a strong first impression in his early comments against Fudge's beliefs. It is quite apparent that in this format, Peterson is a much more polished writer. He is easier to read and his thoughts are a little more organized and even "entertaining." But on the other hand I was less pleased with Petersons performance over all as far as actually proving and defending his position.

For starters, Peterson opened his remarks with several pages against Fudges "techniques" that Peterson disliked. Throughout the book I perceived Peterson as having a condescending attitude toward Fudge. This certainly does not make his arguments wrong, but it does makes his own "techniques" more suspect.

I just became distractingly annoyed by Peterson. If you're going to point out someone questionable techniques, you'd better first be sure that you're not using those techniques yourself! For example, Peterson writes on page 84 -85 against Fudge's use of "the argument from silence." He says, "This type of argument carries very little weight. It is an argument from silence, from what the Bible does not say rather than an argument based on what the Bible does say."

But in his own arguments Peterson uses the argument from silence all the time, such as when he says, "It is vital to see that Isaiah does not teach annihilation here. He does not say that that fire consumes what is put in it...He does not say that the worm symbolizes a total and final consumption..." (p.133). Just as Fudge said that certain verses do not say X, and therefore teach Y, Peterson does the same thing. Again, on p.136 Peterson writes, "Surely this is a mishandling of Daniel 12:2. The prophet says nothing of annihilation." So, Peterson your position is true then because of what Daniel doesn't say? Hmm? :)

There is another technique used by Peterson that is absolutely absurd. First he makes an assertion or quotes a verse in response to a belief he believes is wrong. Next, instead of giving actual reasons why it is wrong, he simply asks a meaningless rhetorical question and then re-asserts that Fudge is wrong. For example, on the same page he says: "Listen to Daniel's words again: `Multitudes...will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt' Does a resurrection `to everlasting contempt' mean annihilation? No Indeed. Instead it indicates...etc."

That's it? "No Indeed"? No explanation of why someone absolutely must be conscious and alive to be the object of contempt?

Both authors had their most convincing writing in their refutation of the other. Fudge, gives a very convincing response to Peterson's Traditionalist section. Peterson had some strong arguments in his "Road to Traditionalism" section about the influence upon church Fathers NOT being based on Greek (Platonic) philosophy (while citing individuals as examples). Fudge responded then by quoting the very church leaders whom Peterson had relied upon as support--men who, as we see, openly used Platonic reasoning (not Scripture) to supports their traditionalist beliefs.

I could go on, but I am out of space. Good luck!

As one would expect from a debate of this public nature, the two authors are not trying to persuade one another, they are trying to persuade the reader. I am biased, since I was already a conditionalist when I read the book. I will say, however, that I think Fudge's case is considerably better, even if not perfect.

Peterson at times quite outrageously misrepresents the conditionalist view. For example at one point he suggests - without evidence - that a conditionalist will deny an orthodox Christology by teaching that the natures of Christ separated at the cross, when no coniditionalist says any such thing. He entirely misses the point about hermeneutical method when it comes to his crucial text of Revelation 20:10. Peterson also dismisses the vast number of biblical texts that speak of the destruction of the lost by committing the fallacy of the "illegitimate totality transfer," that is, trying to import all the possible meanings of words for destruction in order to avoid the meaning suggested by context on multiple occasions, predominantly in the Gospels. In the case of 2 Thess 1:9 Peterson makes an argument that stands or falls entirely on his use of the NIV, even though Fudge had already pointed out to him that the greek literally said something quite different (I still can't believe that - insisting on an NIV only reading!). Peterson also has the audacity to start out by childishly telling the reader that Fudge's book gave his students toothaches, and when he exposed Fudge's sneaky tactics in class, their toothaches gave way to moral outrage! Examples could be multiplied, but Peterson's case will not wash.

Fudge's biggest weakness, in my view, was that he was too much of a gentleman. He simply did not take Peterson to task for the plethora of fallacies and mistakes found in his arguments. But when it comes to the biblical case presented, one thing stood out immediately and obviously. While Peterson had consumed page after page pointing out that his view was more popular and appealing to this big name and that big name, Fudge's position, from start to finish, was built on the exegesis of Scripture. THAT much, I think any reader must concede, and I found it telling. Truth be told, Peterson would have struggled to find any further biblical material to put in his essay, and his drawn out comments about history seem to be padding his work to obscure this fact. One gets the clear impression that Fudge could have written a much larger volume with the amount of biblical material in his favour. In fact, he has.

I have been a Traditionalist for a long time, and never gave much consideration to the Conditionalist view. But Fudge has opened me up to the possibility that he is correct.

In the first part of the book each author is given space to present his view. Fudge does a good job I think, while Peterson uses his space to beat up on Fudge. Peterson uses "classroom" humor to ridicule Fudge and his position. I find that unprofessional. I would of liked to see Peterson stick to a presentation of the Traditional view in his opening statement so I could better judge it on its own merit apart from other views.

I intend to read each author's dedicated volume on this subject: Fudge - "The Fire That Consumes," and Peterson - "Hell on Trial." I would like to see them rewrite the above book and stick strictly to the plan. That would be fairer to Peterson and Fudge both, and would serve to ther reader what he expected and paid for.

I will preface this by saying that I am a conditionalist like Edward Fudge.

Overall, neither one gives a great in-depth argument. Now, when you only have less than 100 pages each, you can only write so much. Just don't think that you can read this book and be ready to make up your mind.


I. FUDGE
I think overall, Fudge makes a better argument, though I will admit, it is not so strong that if I were still a traditionalist when I read it, it would change my mind. Basically, to get a full picture of Fudge's argument, you need to bite the bullet and read The Fire That Consumes. Most of the arguments in The Fire That Consumes (TFTC) are in this book, which I think was actually a mistake. As many have pointed out, you feel bombarded when reading this book. More importantly, a lot of Fudge's arguments in TFTC are qualified. He never argues that the OT explicitly teaches eternal annihilation, only that the picture of punishment is always death, destruction, etc, so when seeing the same figures and images in the NT, we shouldn't assume eternal torment is what is being talked about. That isn't so clear here, which gives opponents an opportunity (one that Peterson uses) to say that Fudge misapplies scripture from the OT that don't directly speak of eternity. Fudge isn't able to go as in-depth as in TFTC, which leaves the reader with the idea that Fudge's arguments are at times superficial, but they really aren't.

Lastly, each author has a chance to respond to the other, and Fudge could have done a much better job of explaining how Peterson at times simply missed the point of what Fudge was saying. Someone familiar with Fudge's work could see this, if this was your first exposure to the debate, this might paint the picture of Fudge as being unable to defend his claims against Peterson's more convincing writing style.


II. Peterson
I'm not gonna lie; I found Peterson's half to be pretty bad. That's not to say it is incoherent or absurd. On their own, the verses he uses can legitimately be seen to speak of eternal torment, especially Revelation 20:10. However, he does not often do very well to defend a lot of them against closer scrutiny.

For example, Fudge says a lot about Revelation 14:10. His strongest argument is that almost identical language is used to describe the physical destruction of Edom in Isaiah 34:9. It is said that the smoke "rises forever" and that "there is no rest day or night" etc, yet it speaks of literal destruction. Peterson ignores this completely...

His attempt at explaining 2 Peter 2:6 basically amounts to "it sounds like annihilation, but the rest of the bible says eternal torment, so it must not annihilation."

He fails to see the point of Fudges rebuttal of Revelation 20:10 and the significance of the Beast being a corporate entity. You can't torment a corporate entity. The whole point is, if in a highly symbolic book like Revelation, a creature that represents a non-creature is tormented, it can't represent something being tormented in real life. Its real fate must be something that a corporate, non-human entity can suffer, the most likely thing being destruction. Anything that explicitly suffers the same fate in the vision (the devil and false prophet) would also suffer the same real fate. That's Fudges point. Peterson also misses the significance of death being thrown into the lake of fire. To be fair, Fudge probably could have elaborated on it more, so I will do that. The bible says explicitly that death will be done away with completely (Isaiah 25:9, 1 Corinthians 15:26). Remember, the lake of fire is the second death (vs. 14), and death is thrown into the lake of fire, meaning death itself suffers the second death. If both men and death suffer the "second death," and death, which suffers the second death, is destroyed, what does that say about the meaning of the second death...? (It means to suffer the second death is almost definitely to suffer destruction, and it absolutely cannot represent eternal torment since death suffers it but does not suffer eternal torment).

He looks to 2 Thessalonians 1:9, and insists the eternal "destruction" can't be annihilation because, in addition to suffering destruction, men are "shut out" from the Lord's presence. Being shut out of the Lord's presence must entail that they still exist. The problem is, this is an assumption that they must still exist. If they suffer everlasting destruction away from the Lord's presence, who is to say that them being cutt off from their creator destroys them, leaving them in a state of destruction that lasts for eternity (in other words, "everlasting destruction"? It should be noted that the NIV is the only mainstream translation that adds the words "and shut out," which are not found in the Greek at all. KJV, which says they are punished with everlasting destruction "from the presence of the Lord..." is a much better translation, as are pretty much any more literal translations (NASB, ESV, RSV, ASV, etc).

Daniel 12:2 never mentions the damned having conscious existence. Contrary to what Peterson claims, neither Fudge nor anyone else argue that the "everlasting shame and comtempt" are not everlasting. Our whole point is that shame and contempt do not require a person to be alive. Do not people still feel contempt for Adolf Hitler? Is he not shamed to this day? Even an atheist, who believes he is gone forever, would say yes.

Other reviews have pointed out other flaws. There's a lot of little things too.

He does have some good points. After reading his take on Isaiah 66:24, it's not as clear cut as I thought, and therefore Jesus' quoting it in Mark 9:48 could conceivably refer to eternal torment (though i still think trying to say Isaiah 66:24 refers to eternal torment is a stretch given the context of the passage alone and in conjunction with the rest of scripture). I agree that he is the more clear and coherent author of the two. He's rhetorically strong enough to make the annihilationist have to really defend their position. Of course, Fudge does...


III.
In short, this book is pretty lacking. Peterson falls far short. I am not too familiar with Peterson's other works, but this definitely doesn't give me a good impression. I'm told it is pretty much more of the same. Furthermore, I have never seen his work receive the praise of or get cited nearly as often as Robert Morey's Death and the Afterlife, and if that is the best in-depth defense of traditionalism (it's the best I've ever read)...oh boy.

Although Fudge's contribution is superior to many (such as Clark Pinnock in Four Views On Hell), I could definitely see how one not familiar with the cut and thrust of conditionalist scholarship might not be convinced by this book.

If you are really interested in conditionalism, read The Fire That Consumes. The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment

As a conditionalist, I looked forward to reading this book. An open dialogue would force traditionalists to finally respond to the case for conditionalism. As I read the evasive maneuvers of Robert Peterson, I thought conditionalism was strongly advanced. Instead, I am shaking my head wondering why people say he defended his case well.

He only appeals to 10 Scripture references that he thinks prove his case. These needles in the haystack are probably the best references traditionalists have. Some could be interpreted in favor of everlasting torment, and some sound more like utter extinction.

None of his references are conclusive, regardless of what he says. They all depend on the nature of the unfaithful. Matthew 25:46 does not prove everlasting torment without proof that the soul is immortal, and Peterson's proof of an immortal soul is Matthew 25:46 (p.88-89). I am hard pressed to find a more obvious example of circular reasoning.

Let me state an obvious fact: Peterson's 10 passages are not the only verses in the Bible. I sometimes doubt Peterson and other traditionalists realize this. No matter what the rest of the Bible says, Peterson goes back to these Scriptures and to uninspired writings. The way he dances around 2 Peter 2:6 (p. 156, 200) is amazing.

Edward Fudge shows that conditionalism is a recurring theme throughout the Bible. Passages that support utter extinction are abundant in Scripture. He also openly discusses the strongest arguments for everlasting torment and shows these Scriptures are inconclusive, and very rare. Unfortunately, he allows Peterson a red herring because he says nothing about the intermediate state.

Peterson's response to conditionalism is typical. Like his predecessors, Peterson ignores the main arguments for conditionalism. Instead, he responds to Fudge's response to his Scriptures. He says almost nothing about the case for conditionalism and just reiterates his favorite texts. How long will Bible-believing Christians allow this avoidance to continue?

After reading this book (and some of the reviews found here) I am convinced that conditionalists and traditionalists are not arguing to each other, they are arguing at each other. While admittedly I am pretty solidly on the traditionalist side, I would like to think that I came to this debate with as open a mind as was possible. That said, I have a few pointsthat I would like to make.
First off, Peterson makes a strong case that falls on deaf ears because of certain style differences that many readers (especially from the conditionalist camp) don't seem to understand. Peterson tries to be thorough in his exposition of the passages used, which by necessity limits him in the number of passages he can use. This opens him up to the "attack" that he is picking and choosing the only verses that allow for his view of Hell. This attack is unfair, since he openly admits that in order to be thorough he must limit himself. And to be honest, he is right in saying that he would need a lot more room to be thorough on every passage that applies, so yes, he did choose the best 10 passages, but from hundreds that agree with him.
Fudge does just the opposite. He uses as many passages as he can find, sometimes erroneously, while never delving into any one of them to any degree of depth. He seems to think that lack of substance can be made up for by quantity. And in all fairness, there are several passages he uses that, when taken out of context and with certain pre-suppositions, could leave room to interpret as being conditionalist.
However, when you cut through all the chaff, Fudge's argument boils down to 2 main points:
1. Immortality of the soul is a Greek idea in origin, and since the Bible is better than philosophy, must be rejected
2. Death and destruction language in the OT refers to removal from this earth, and so any time death and destruction is mentioned (in the NT), it must be the same concept.
Everything else is an emotional plea (made often with inflammatory language) to reject God as the "eternal torturer."
With his first point, Fudge seems to confuse agreement with Greek philosophy and dependence on said philosophy. And with the second point, he makes no concession to lexical range for words, and uses totally unrelated passages to "prove" his point.
All in all, I would say (out of my bias) Peterson makes a stronger argument, and does make a good point that it is up to the Conditionalist to assume the burden of proof that he or she has been avoiding throughout this debate.

I have been a Traditionalist for a long time, and never gave much consideration to the Conditionalist view. But Fudge has opened me up to the possibility that he is correct.

In the first part of the book each author is given space to present his view. Fudge does a good job I think, while Peterson uses his space to beat up on Fudge. Peterson uses "classroom" humor to ridicule Fudge and his position. I find that unprofessional. I would of liked to see Peterson stick to a presentation of the Traditional view in his opening statement so I could better judge it on its own merit apart from other views.

I intend to read each author's dedicated volume on this subject: Fudge - "The Fire That Consumes," and Peterson - "Hell on Trial." I would like to see them rewrite the above book and stick strictly to the plan. That would be fairer to Peterson and Fudge both, and would serve to ther reader what he expected and paid for.

I was passing thru Ed Fudges' website when I saw that thistitle had went to print, so I...picked it up. Quite interesting!

Fudge and Peterson start off playing nice, but both get a little 'edgy' in their presentations. Fudge, like most conditionalists/annihilationists, plays up on the readers' emotions (although Fudge a lot less than folks like, say, Clark Pinnock) to 'poison the well' with regard to discussing his opponents' view. His exegesis is a bit unsound in my opinion- he spiritualizes everything and takes many OT references to the TEMPORAL (earthly) destruction of the wicked and tries to make them point toward final the final extinction of the wicked. I picked up on this most of the way through his presentation and found it funny that Peterson (in his refutation of Fudges' presentation) pointed out the exact same thing.

A lot of Fudge's presentation is cut-and-paste from his previous work on the subject, The Fire That Consumes. I find the conditionalist's position that the wicked may first endure some penal torture THEN face permanent extinction inconsistent with the Biblical record. The conditionalist and the annihilationist has to re-define key terms in scripture which denote eternal punishment and actual pain (i.e.- weeping and gnashing of teeth, smoke of their torment rising forever) and ignore (in many cases) the plain meaning of the text (Rev. 20:10-15 for example) for some convoluted meaning in order to force it to agree with conditionalism.

In addition, Fudge's attempted refutation of Peterson's arguments were disturbing at some points. He never adequately answered Peterson's charge of violating Chalcedonian Christology and his attitude toward creeds at this point goes disturbingly against the grain of 2000 years of Christian history. It may be well that Bro. Fudge should re-evaluate his beliefs and position for believing that Christ's human nature was 'annihilated' after His death instead of existing in an intermediate state. My friend William Kilgore (also a conditionalist- http://www.flash.net/~thinkman) made a very wise statement on my apologetics list once- while Christian history is not infallible, if something hasn't been beleived by the early church, there's a good chance that holding it as a belief now may be in error.

I must thank Fudge, however, for his presentation. It was done (for the most part) sensibly and using his best argumentation. As a traditionalist and a solid apologist, I believe in using an opponents' best arguments as the standard for evaluating their view (and for formulating a response).

Peterson does a good job of presenting the traditional view of eternal punishment including his refutation of Fudges' chapter, although I did find a few of his arguments a bit stretched. His section was laid out and organized very well, although I'd have put the listing of theologians over time AFTER the Biblical presentation. What I'm finding is that many traditionalists (Walvoord, for example) are not taking the threat of conditionalism as an 'alternative' seriously. I think this may have influenced Peterson's usage of only 10 primary passages of scripture as evidence, whereas Fudge uses tons of scripture reference (albeit incorrectly in many places or out of context).

Overall, the book is still very well put together. I primarily picked it up to get Fudge's arguments. It's worth picking up by any believer who wishes to examine the issue for him/herself.

Hell has once again become a popular topic and I suspect that many will turn to books such as this one to find answers for the questions about hell. In this book, the reader is allowed to view both sides of the conditional view of hell (that unbelievers will be annihilated) and the traditional view (that unbelievers will experience eternal punishment). Edward Fudge writes for the conditional view and he does a good job of presenting his views. In fact, since Fudge goes first in the book, the reader may walk away from Fudge's viewpoint thinking that the case is pretty clear that unbelievers will be destroyed (2 Thessalonians 1:9) and that this destruction will be total (Luke 12:5) and eternal (Matthew 25:46).

However, up next is Robert Peterson writing for the traditional view. Peterson first critiques Fudge's viewpoint (and Fudge does so after Peterson's position is stated) and Proverbs 18:17 comes alive before your very eyes. Peterson shoots down Fudge's arguments for the conditional view one by one and he does so with grace.

Peterson then builds his case for the traditional view. He builds his case from many of the very same passages that Fudge argued from yet he shows the strength of the word "eternal punishment" and what that entails. He also does a good job of building a case against "soul sleep" and that humans are immortal in spirit. Fudge then critiques Peterson.

Overall this is a good read. It allows both sides to fairly state their cases and gives them ample amount of time to build, defend, and then critique the other position. Both Fudge and Peterson are good writes and know their stuff. I will allow the reader to decide who wins the debate. But I do want to make one point, both writers reject universalism so be mindful of this. The question is not whether all will be saved as both Fudge and Peterson reject universalism and both accept that only those who are committed disciples of Jesus will receive eternal life (Romans 6:23; cf. John 3:16).

Both present thorough and powerful biblical and non-biblical cases for their positions. This is the best book on Hell I've seen out there, although I find Crockett's view in Zondervan's "Four Views" book to be also quite powerful.

Both sides, I believe, prove their views to be biblically founded. However, I don't understand why the two have to be "contradictory." The Annihilationists cling to their belief that there is obvious destruction of the wicked, and insist to take these passages of destruction literally...but they are forced to blur passages (though they may be few) that obviously refer to the eternality of the punishment. Traditionalists take the eternality of the punishment literally, but choose to skew the most obvious interpretation of destruction metaphor. If you look at the scriptures (as these gentlemen have pointed out) there is convincing evidence for both... so is there not a possibility for a third option, a kind of synthesis of the views? I have found, most definately, YES!

There are two authors that I know of that come close to my own interpretation of Hell: C.S. Lewis and Greg Boyd. Lewis, in The Problem of Pain, identifies Hell as being described in the bible to be (1) destruction, (2) privation, and (3) eternal in duration. He suggests that what remains in Hell for eternity is not a human, but the remains of a destroyed human ("conscious ashes", if you will). Boyd sticks to these same general ideas of Lewis but goes further to exegetically display why their needs to be a kind of synthesis of Annihilationism and Traditionalism, and then philosophically he proves how a "third way" could be feasible.

I am currently doing some more research on Hell, but have come to agree more with Lewis and Boyd. In fact, there is a whole realm of exegetical and philosophical evidence for the "third way" that neither Boyd nor Lewis touches on. Let me know if you are interested in my research.