Carson: On Banishing The Lake Of Fire

[Alex_Smith]

Joe gave me a scan of D. A. Carson’s chapter on universalism from his book “The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism”, Zondervan Publishing Company (February 1996):Carson-OnBanishingTheLakeOfFire.pdf (1.02 MB)

[Bob_Wilson]

Thanks Alex and Joe! This is a book I wouldn’t purchase, but a chapter that I will enjoy reading.

[Alex_Smith]

I’m glad I could help you out Bob

The final judgment is a difficult subject both because of its complexity and because the subject is grisly. But for at least three reasons, we must say something about it in this book.

First, there is widespread perception that the expanding definition of evangelicalism and the fragmentation within the camp is nicely (or painfully) exemplified by the diversity of views on this subject, and in particular by the rising number of self-confessed evangelicals who now publicly espouse some form of annihilationism.

It’s good people are starting to publicly reject ECT, although it’s a shame they only go as far as, the slightly more merciful but just as hopeless, annihilationism. Hopefully these people will embrace EU when it has enough mainstream legitimacy…

Second, in the handling of some of these theologians (though certainly not all), some form of annihilationism or conditional immortality is linked to their views on the final state of those who have never heard of Christ, to the possibilities of post-death evangelism, and to a number of other matters that obviously tie in to the central concerns of this volume.

I’m glad the fate of all the millions (billions eventually, especially considering all the miscarriages & abortions) who have never even heard of Christ, but traditionally should be going straight to ECT, is seen as something to actually be concerned about.

Strictly speaking, of course, if one holds to universalism - the view that eventually all the offspring of Adam are saved, even if it takes a sojourn in hell to bring them to repentance - then there is no need to appeal to annihilationism, for hell will eventually be emptied of human beings anyway. Those who hold this position do not read the relevant biblical texts as saying that punishment is ended by annihilationism, but as saying that the emphasis in Scripture on the love of God surely forces us to conclude that God’s love will so triumph in the end that there will be no one left for the fires of hell to consume.

Well yes, God’s emphasis on love is a major reason

Third, in the minds of some evangelicals, recent developments in this doctrinal area signal a clear departure from Scripture, a lessening of biblical authority, perhaps a denial of inerrancy; … pluralism and relativism and postmodernism have softened up the evangelical firmness that once characterized evangelicalism;

Fortunately, I don’t think EU falls into this category.

in the minds of others, the issue is entirely hermeneutical, a matter of interpretation. … conservatives are ignoring how indebted they are to mere traditionalism, and are proving unwilling to be corrected by more careful exegesis, unwilling to recognize that fresh questions may call forth more light from God’s Holy Word. Thus, this doctrinal area becomes a test case for assessing the changing face of evangelicalism, construction of doctrine, and other similar important matters.

I’m not entirely sure what he is saying here about being “indebted” to “traditionalism” However, I do think the “fresh questions” of EU does “call forth more light” than ECT

[Alex_Smith]

Because this is only a brief discussion, certain elements of the topic will be skipped over lightly or entirely ignored.

(1) I do not intend to provide complex taxonomies of the various positions. For example, some hold that the unrepentant are instantly annihilated at death. In this way, punishment is unending, but never experienced as conscious suffering. More commonly among evangelicals, it is held that the unrepentant suffer consciously for a while, and are then annihilated. In this view, punishment is unending, but the conscious suffering is temporary. Some speculate that there will be new opportunities to repent during this period of suffering; others deny it. Those who hold to the possibility usually do so by inferences from the love of God. They then divide as to whether this further opportunity to repent will sooner or later be taken by all, thus emptying hell. The more conservative of those who espouse annihilation find such theories not only overly speculative, but impossible to sustain in the light of specific texts of Scripture.

Interestingly he is admitting here that both annihilationists and universalists can still be evangelicals! Like Packer, he sees the main (only?) argument is from the love of God. Whilst obviously I agree that’s a major argument, I also think it’s one of many. It’s interesting he then says only universalism “overly speculative” and “impossible to sustain in the light of specific texts of Scripture”

I’d say there are “specific texts” and entire Biblical themes, that are make ECT “impossible to sustain”

[roofus]

Because this is only a brief discussion, certain elements of the topic will be skipped over lightly or entirely ignored.

(1) I do not intend to provide complex taxonomies of the various positions. For example, some hold that the unrepentant are instantly annihilated at death. In this way, punishment is unending, but never experienced as conscious suffering. More commonly among evangelicals, it is held that the unrepentant suffer consciously for a while, and are then annihilated. In this view, punishment is unending, but the conscious suffering is temporary. Some speculate that there will be new opportunities to repent during this period of suffering; others deny it. Those who hold to the possibility usually do so by inferences from the love of God. They then divide as to whether this further opportunity to repent will sooner or later be taken by all, thus emptying hell. The more conservative of those who espouse annihilation find such theories not only overly speculative, but impossible to sustain in the light of specific texts of Scripture.

Interestingly he is admitting here that both annihilationists and universalists can still be evangelicals! Like Packer, he sees the main (only?) argument is from the love of God. Whilst obviously I agree that’s a major argument, I also think it’s one of many. It’s interesting he then says only universalism “overly speculative” and “impossible to sustain in the light of specific texts of Scripture”

I’d say there are “specific texts” and entire Biblical themes, that are make ECT “impossible to sustain”

I read it as him saying the these are annihilationist categories. When he speaks of “this period of suffering” he is referring to those that hold to the view that: “the unrepentant suffer consciously for a while, and are then annihilated”.
I don’t see any reference to universalists here.

[Alex_Smith]

I don’t see any reference to universalists here.

this further opportunity to **repent **will sooner or later be taken by all, thus emptying hell.

If everyone has repented and hell is empty, doesn’t that mean everyone has been saved and universal reconciliation has been achieved?

[roofus]

I don’t see any reference to universalists here.

this further opportunity to **repent **

will sooner or later be taken by all, thus emptying hell. If everyone has repented and hell is empty, doesn’t that mean everyone has been saved and universal reconciliation has been achieved?

Yea, I see what you mean, but it’s a different spin- these folks in this scenario are under threat of annihilation, not ECT.

[Alex_Smith]

a different spin- these folks in this scenario are under threat of annihilation, not ECT.

I agree, his main focus here is annihilationists and universalists just get a quick whack.

[Alex_Smith]

treatments [of early discussions of hell] which for different purposes chart the decline in the serious mention of hell in sermons and books today

I think it’s good that the Bible translations have improved in this area, as it means less biasing of readers and makes it easier to see ECT doesn’t fit Scripture.

I shall not here embark on the larger question of the fate of those who have never heard the gospel. That subject I addressed in part 2, especially chapter 7.

That’s a shame, as it’s very much related, and another argument why EU is true and ECT false. i.e. by most people’s sense of justice, sending billions (including abortions, miscarriages, babies, people with mental disabilities, people before Christ, people in areas not yet reached by gospel) to Hell for not believing something they never heard, isn’t Just (I know the issue is complicated by original sin, but the shear number of people involved… I guess that’s why pre-Calvin(?), they had the concept of mitigation or post-death salvation)

I shall not address at any length a number of important synthetic questions about how the Bible’s teaching on hell, however understood, relates to God’s sovereignty, foreknowledge, and omnipotence, and to human responsibility. This is not because the questions are unimportant, but because they take us farther away from the first-order questions I am primarily addressing in this chapter. Moreover, some of the relevant issues have already been briefly discussed earlier in this book (chaps. 5 and 6) and, from some-what different perspectives, by Simon Chan and Paul Helm.

I agree they are important questions.

[Alex_Smith]

Recent writers who have defended conditional immortality do not invariably do so for the same reasons, or with the same degree of certainty. But their principal arguments may be fairly summarized as follows:

Whilst I don’t hold “conditional immortality”, some of the points discussed are relevant to EU.

(1) A number of biblical passages speak of the destruction of the wicked (e.g., Phil. 3:19; 1 Thess. 1:9; 2 Peter 3:7). Fair exegesis of the words involved suggests total destruction, i.e., cessation of existence.

Funny, that came up today over on my Should we form universalist congregations? thread too At least ECTers and EUs can both oppose this together.

(2) Even the imagery of fire suggests that which devours and utterly destroys. In other words, the focus of fire is not the pain that it causes, but the destruction it exacts: the Judge burns up the chaff with unquenchable fire (Matt. 3:12).

It depends on which approach is taken: either the fire devours and utterly destroys the evilness in a person (e.g. purification) or the fire is just a metaphor for the pain, as Carson suggests. Anyway, I don’t think it’s annihilationism.

(3) The Greek word commonly rendered “forever” (aionios and cognates) properly mean “age”. Even if in some contexts this “age” may be endless, why must we assume that this is the case in passages describing hell? Why take the harshest view?

“Age” is better than rendering it “eternity”, although I’d go even further and say it’s best rendered “beyond sight”. I certainly agree with the questions posed.

[Alex_Smith]

(4) Even in passages where the same word is used to describe both “eternal life” and “eternal punishment” in parallel (e.g., Matt. 25:46), demanding therefore that the one last as long as the other, the eternality of the punishment need not be construed as consisting in self-conscious punishment. If the wicked suffer conscious pain for a period of time, and then are annihilated without hope of reprieve or restoration, their punishment can still rightly be said to be “eternal.”

I agree the life and the punishment don’t have to be the same duration as I believe aionios (the word mistranslated as “eternal”) is an undefined period of time beyond sight, rather an infinity. I’d also be disappointed if God permanently lost even one of His children, and I imagine He would be too, as He has a much bigger heart than me.

(5) Surely an eternal hell full of conscious torment is irreconcilable with what the Bible says about the love of God, even about the justice of God. Assuming that we take what the Bible says seriously, surely any exegesis that avoids such blatant and eternal cruelty is to be preferred to the traditional view.

I totally agree, however, I find annihilationism only a slightly better fit, as God still looses many people I love, and billions more that He loves even more than the ones I love most dearly.

[Luke]

aonios (the word mistranslated as “eternal”)

That’s a bold and somewhat suspect claim.

[Alex_Smith]

aonios (the word mistranslated as “eternal”)

That’s a bold and somewhat suspect claim.

[Alex_Smith]

This particular point [5] is held with various degrees of passion. At one end is Pinnock:

Let me say at the outset that I consider the concept of hell as endless torment in body and mind an outrageous doctrine, a theological and moral enormity, a bad doctrine of the tradition which needs to be changed. How can Christians possibly project a deity of such cruelty and vindictiveness whose ways include inflicting everlasting torture upon his creatures, however sinful they may have been. Surely a God who would do such a thing is more nearly like Satan than like God, at least by any ordinary moral standards, and by the gospel itself… Does the one who told us to love our enemies intend to wreak vengeance on his own enemies for all eternity? As H. Kung appropriately ask, “What would we think of a human being who satisfied his thirst for revenge so implacably and insatiably?”… [E]verlasting torment is intolerable from a moral point of view because it makes God into a bloodthirsty monster who maintains an everlasting Auschwitz for victims whom he does not even allow to die.

Exactly!

[SLJ]

Well said, Pinnock!

Sonia

[Alex_Smith]

By contrast, John Stott, who like Pinnock defends conditional immortality, does so with much more caution:

I find the concept[of eternal conscious punishment in hell] intolerable and do not understand how people can live with it without either cauterising their feelings or cracking under the strain. But our emotions are a fluctuating, unreliable guide to truth and must not be exalted to the place of supreme authority in determining it. As a committed Evangelical, my question must be - and is - not what does my heart tell me, but what does God’s word say?

We ought to try to worship God with heart, mind and spirit, which is always hard. If one aspect, in this case the heart, is missing, it is much harder, some say impossible, to authentically do that. i.e. ideally the Bible, conscience & reason should align.

[Alex_Smith]

(6) Along the same lines, one must surely question whether the notion of an eternal hell of conscious torment is fair. No matter how grievous the offense, no matter how wretched the sinner - a Hitler, perhaps - is eternal hell appropriate? Searing pain that goes on and on, for billions of years, and then more billions of years, and never stops, because all of those billions of years are as a drop in the ocean?

No

[revdrew61]

Just noticed this thread and wondered if Don Carson has changed his views since 1996. I know he laid into McLaren, Chalke and others fairly fiercely in his 2005 book “Becoming conversant with the emerging church”, but I wonder if he has published any response to Talbott’s “The Inescapable Love of God” or MacDonald (Parry)'s “The Evangelical Universalist”.

[Alex_Smith]

That’s an excellent question! I shall attempt to find out, maybe Joe will know

[Alex_Smith]

Unfortunately Joe doesn’t know of anything more recent. Funny thing is if you Google “Don Carson universalism” you get Luke’s blog and the video he posted of Carson for me (evangelicaluniversalist.com comes 2nd & 3rd)

I’ve asked Luke the above question too, and am still looking myself.