<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: A seminary student is not convinved
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Epitomizes Debate Well
Review: 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?
Rating: 
Summary: Unbalanced Presentation
Review: Both agree that Hell is real and horrible, but they disagree on how long it lasts. If you are searching for the best arguments this book is not for you. Both sides are lacking. But it is a good synopsis of the general stance of each side. I am glad I bought it and read it. I have noticed strengths and weaknesses in both men's arguments and through my in-depth study of this topic am still very cautious to jump on any band wagon. I will continue and show what I thought to be the pros and cons of each side within this book. Fudge's Conditionalist sections are very typical to others of his view. He gives a dynamic chronological walk though hundreds of scripture references and includes developments that occurred between testaments and post-apostolic development. Although the jury is still out in my opinion as far as this topic goes, the conditionalist/annihilationist position is far from anti-intellectual (as claimed by another reviewer). In fact, speaking as a professional historian and devoted student of the Bible, I can safely say that the view presented is quite formidable to that of the Traditionalists even if only a handful of respected Evangelicals have broken ranks to side with it. The bulk of scripture, theology and historical development appear to be on the side of Fudge, but make no fore drawn conclusions... In reading, I noticed Fudge use awkward sentences at times and often unexplainably gives the Greek word for various terms throughout his portion even though the Greek words have no apparent relevance to what he is saying. Fudge, as far as I remember, never quotes Peterson's works on Hell in his arguments but usually just gives arguments against common traditionalist beliefs in general. 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 heavily referenced 500 page book entitled The Fire the Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, he is more astute in pointing out such differences and making concrete references to the theologians through the centuries. Frankly, Fudge's arguments in favor of his position are not as good as they could be (and have been by him and other authors). Peterson quickly jumps on many of his weaker spots. But similarly, Petersons main portion in favor of his position spends more time claiming that Fudge is wrong than why Petersons own ideas are right. Peterson dismisses the bulk of Fudges arguments with one sentence and bases his argument on only 10 verses (over explaining each of them with laborious detail as if to fill up space). Both authors had their most convincing writing in their refutation of the other. Fudge, gives a very convincing response to Petersons Traditionalist section. For example, Peterson put up many seemingly strong arguments in his "Road to Traditionalism" section about the influence upon church Fathers NOT being Platonic (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 these beliefs. 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 an arrogant and somewhat condescending attitude toward Fudge in general. This certainly does not make his arguments wrong, but it does give either an unsubstantiated false security in favor of his position, or it makes his own "techniques" more suspect. What really annoyed me though was not that Peterson pointed out questionable techniques but that Peterson employed many of the same techniques himself! 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 he uses this very thing 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, but rather 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." There is another technique of argument 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., But 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"? This couldn't even be classified as an argument. I could go on, but I am out of space. If you wish to discuss this further, my email is willett79@yahoo.com
Rating:
Summary: Why not let "two" become "one"?
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Why not let "two" become "one"?
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Unbalanced Presentation
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: A Traditionalist Who Is Not Convinced
Review: 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.
<< 1 >>
| 
