o-------k…I agree but us giving God the glory or not doesn’t negate God’s glory.
Oxy: I worry that you criticize that which you seem to profoundly miscomprehend.
There are myriad examples on this site where we celebrate not *man centered *glory, but that of God. Just one very recent example:
(And that of course was my complaint about Galli’s book “God Wins” – he demonstrates he doesn’t even grasp how Universal Reconcilists think.)
Bobx3
The point, of course, is that if the Father sends the Son to be the Savior of the world, but the Son does not save the world from sinning and from their sins, then a major purpose of God has been frustrated. I think the proper Calvinistic reading would be that the Son is not actively but only potentially (at most) the Savior of the world, or Savior of people all over the world; consequently there is no failure. God could have chosen to save the world from sin, and acted in a way sufficient to do so (maybe–different Calvs disagree about whether God went farther than His intention otherwise), but chose not to apply the salvation to His chosen non-elect.
Oxy has created a new thread to discuss the notion of salvation of sinners from sin being only a by-product of God’s grace and/or only a by-product of God giving God glory (so if salvation of sinners from sin doesn’t happen, no big deal). I recommend moving the discussion there and leaving this thread for discussing the Fudge interview.
Apokatallasso – to reconcile completely, to bring back a former state of harmony, to reunite, to change from one condition to another so as to remove all enmity and leave no impediment to unity and peace!
“To be restored into right relationship with God, to remove all enmity and leave no impediment to unity and peace” - sure sounds like Salvation to me, just another word for it!
Apokatallasso is a powerful concept for it affirms:
- the current state of enmity between God and some, if not most, of creation.
- the original state of unity and harmony that all was created in and
- the ultimate Goal of God being unity and harmony again with all that was created!
So I think my point and this passage is far from “mute” as you say. Jesus’ mission was to reconcile, to restore to unity and harmony, all of creation. To leave some, any of creation left in a state of disunity and disharmony with God (Hell) would be to fail to accomplish His stated mission.
“For from him and through him and to him are all things.”
I love this verse. What will return to God through Christ? Everything that came from God through Christ. Nothing good will be lost.
so much for the Fudge interview 
Well yes – very interesting for sure… Dude even gets really emotional near the end (twice!) – just like my grandfather used to do!!
Very cordial discussion between two gentlemen. I like both their attitudes for the most part.
I did think it was a bit weak of Fudge to dismiss certain points by saying things like “of course one can only make that interpretation if he’s already settled into ECT thinking…” — Well couldn’t the exact same be said of his point of view also? As it could for any of us here who argue for Universal Restoration?
Point is that one does move the direction he does based on the entirety of how he’s understood all scripture.
Funny thing for me however is that 5 or 6 years ago, I would have eaten this up in complete agreement! Confirmation for what I already believed! While for most who listen to it (I’m guessing) it is a new and radical departure away from ECT. I’m completely familiar with all the arguments he used. It’s was I was raised on.
Again though, disappointing that he so glibly signs off on the eternally lost (annihilated) because, well, wasn’t it so nice of God to actually give them a chance at salvation.
Bobx3
Sorry for my part in diverting it 
Also remembering that Fudge made a big point in his summation statement that he wanted two texts focused on (and this is one place he gets emotional and weepy…)
- John 3:16 – OK that’s a great text; but wish he’d emphasize v 17 as well…
and - Romans 6:23 for the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life…
He takes this to mean death is the final disposition of that person; I don’t see that as necessary to reading this text. Goodspeed translates this phrase as
For Fudge, death really does have the final say for a many! That’s hard to reconcile with the idea (more compelling I find) of God having the final say and that is the gift.
This interview is like a trip down memory lane for me; SDA’s really love that Rom 6;23 text too! But so do I now as a Universal Reconcilist! Yes, it’s true that sin has consequences; but so does the life and death and resurrection of Christ have consequences as well!
Bobx3
This is a reminder that I’ve been meaning to comment on EF’s interview here. 
Hopefully, now that I’m back from niece-sitting over the weekend, I can work on that this week.
Thanks, Jason! Dr. Glenn Peoples’ business, Theme Music New Zealand (thememusic.co.nz/), made it for me based on a song I asked him to model it after.
Thanks, TotalVictory. I very much appreciate that.
I didn’t know Glenn was in the theme music business!
I need to talk to him about music for marketing my novels…
Meanwhile, it looks at the moment like I’m going to be busy for the next several days arguing for the conceptual superiority of trinitarianism, especially in its connection to universal salvation, vs. unitarianism over here.
Chris may find that to be of some interest, too.
Hey how did you track me down?
Jason Pratt contacted me, and we’re trying to organize a debate I’d moderate on my show, so I did a search here to see if anybody was talking about it.
I’ve been working on some other large projects recently (including the proposed debate Chris was talking about–more on that soon!)
But in my spare time I’m finally getting around to taking some notes from the interview with Dr. Fudge.
I promise I’ll pay special attention to the 1 Cor 15 comments (from the first half of the interview I presume) when I get there, Roofus.
Comments on Edward Fudge’s interview at Chris Date’s Theopologetics site
This is a topic map of the interview with Edward Fudge. Typically, my own comments are in simple single parentheses (like this); the other text is summary/description of what’s happening at the time cues.
The 1 Cor portion Roofus wanted my comments on, are found late in Part 2 (44:48). Dr. F also talks very briefly about universalism late in part 1 (54:40). He has nothing specifically to say against universalism in either place, although he does briefly mention universalism in both places; but of course his case would exclude universalism anyway. (Dr. F is focusing on discussing anni vs. ECT, so a lack of direct discussion about universalism shouldn’t be held against him.)
Part 1
The first 10 minutes are not about the interview, or only involve introducing Dr. Fudge (hereafter abbreviated as “F”).
10:34 F begins the topic of how he came to write “The Fire That Consumes”.
13:20 F summarizes traditional view of hell.
15:36 F explains title of book comes from “Our God is a consuming fire” as a big point, from Heb 12 and Deut 4. (But the context of Heb 12 is about how the punishment of God, although annoying (to say the least), is for the purpose of saving those He loves from sin; as is, in fact, the context of Deut 4: the immediately preceding verses, 4:21-23, supply the context of the warning, by comparing their fate if they are rebellious to Moses’ own fate. But no one, including Moses, thinks God will annihilate Moses out of existence, much moreso that Moses will live after death in eternal conscious torment, before or after the general resurrection! Moreover, after God prophecies through Moses that He will utterly destroy rebellious Israel (v.26), God says that after this they will seek Him with all their heart and repent and He will restore them “For YHWH your God is a compassionate God; He will not fail you nor destroy you nor forget the covenant with your fathers which He swore to them.” i.e. God will not fail the ones who have failed Him (and who He is therefore punishing); and He will not destroy those whom He will utterly destroy; and He will not forget the covenant they broke but will keep the promises He made to their fathers.
But F doesn’t mention any of this.)
15:47 F explains that although “annihilationism” is accurate enough for what he believes, it’s a little broader since the term could theoretically mean that God annihilates sinners immediately after death while he holds that the annihilation will occur after the general resurrection.
18:18 F attempts to explain why “conditional immortality” is more accurate to his view compared to other versions of annihilationism. (But he doesn’t ever mention why exactly this is supposed to be more accurate when all annihilationists (as well as practically all non-annis!) in fact believe in conditional immortality (only God is inherently immortal, and any continuing life happens by God’s action which, if withdrawn, would result in annihilation.))
20:30 F asserts that his view allows for varying degrees of punishment in the consuming fire. “Absolutely, certainly it does.” (But he doesn’t know how that’s going to work out, and doesn’t give any examples. He appeals to God’s infinite justice as well as infinite mercy in affirming varying degrees of punishment, but at the end of the day all lost sinners share the same maximal fate: hopelessly annihilated.)
22:41 F describes some reactions to the book over the year.
26:49 F thinks most Christian people, unless they’re the “crusading” type (or being pushed by those) would consider annihilationism to be an orthodox option. Especially “Godly people with the Holy Spirit in their heart.”
29:36 What’s new in the 3rd edition? Mainly new reference to vastly much more Dead Sea Scroll material available now in critical English/Greek editions; and interaction with 17 publications from traditionalists against earlier editions of his book. Not a reply to Rob Bell, as F’s work had been in revision for republishing already for months.
34:30 Goes over some material about “the Story” from chapter 1 in conjunction with criticism from another author. F says rethinking of hell isn’t understood by hardline traditionalists and is ascribed inaccurately to various reasons that aren’t true. (I tend to agree.)
37:07 Second chapter: Protestant principle, creativity is followed by petrification and scholasticism. We should always be ‘reforming’.
43:32 F attempts to explain why he thinks ECT doctrine emerged from (rather than led to) a doctrine of inherent immortality of the soul. (Honestly, I have never once been taught by anyone anywhere that my soul could not be destroyed, including in any defenses of ECT I have ever read or believed when I was a non-universalist. No doubt some such examples may exist, but I have trouble believing they are quite so influential as F makes out. It is far more likely that theologians turned to Greek philosophy on this topic, as is demonstrably true on others, to find independent rationales for something they already believed to be true from their religious background. F acknowledges in passing that few people today would believe in inherent soul immortality, but thinks they only believe in ECT because someone a long time ago appealed to inherent soul immortality, not to defend ECT, but to arrive at ECT. This runs rather against not only current evidence, but ancient evidence so far as I can tell–the habit was the other way around, to defend received doctrines by appeal to contemporary best understanding.)
48:00 F explains that it’s possible for to believe in soul monism or soul dualism and still be anni. (This is coherent.)
50:10 Patristic followers and teaching of annihilation. All sides used same terminology differently. (Also a point in kath apologetics about relative spread of universalism among the Patristics, by the way.)
54:40 F on universalism “Albatross wrapped around ECT’s neck, [as] traditionalism provides environment, incentive, theological foundation all conducive to universalism.” (I’m not sure how much I agree with that, although he has some interesting things to say about persistence of sinning in hell and problems related to locking that in for ECT vs. universalism.)
1:01:50 F summarizes case for anni. Analogies for destruction are given (e.g. wicked are like the dew that vanishes), but no context. Flood and S&G are mentioned as types of divine judgment, but no discussion of prophetic commentary afterward, e.g. restitution of Sodom in the eschatological day of the Lord to come along with slain rebel Israel, nor how rebel souls from Flood are still going to be around for judgment (which F certainly agrees on) and how that would fit with his typology. (Actually mentions Peter and Jude for the comparison “as destroyed by Flood so destroyed by fire”–but those destroyed by Flood are still alive spiritually to be resurrected–so why chop the comparison short!?)
(Keeping in mind he’s very briefly summarizing his case from material in 3rd edition where this may be discussed.)
Isaiah 11: wicked to be slain by the sword of the mouth (but does not account for rebel nations and rebel Israel, being spoken to by Isaiah, repenting in that day–long after current rebel Israel has died!!–and accepting God as savior, also related in the same prophecy; much less typologies of marauding evildoers living in peace with God’s chosen on His holy mountain, same prophecy–repeated later in Isaiah 65 including the bronze serpent of Genesis 3!!)
Isaiah 66:24 classic annihilation verse, (doesn’t talk about context of verse as result of final battle before the general resurrection of good and evil. He might say it was a typology of what would happen after the resurrection of the evil, too, though.)
1:13:00 transition to part 2, and reintroduction of F and topic
Timing cues restarting for part 2
2:47 objection 1: why bother to bodily resurrect someone only to destroy them utterly afterward? F replies (somewhat vaguely) that we often take good care of prisoners who are sentenced to death, even when we see no stay of execution coming. We don’t let them die early. (Chris has no answer for this counter-question, but the obvious answer is that we delay to give the murderer time to repent and/or to give other evidence a time to exonerate him and/or to just allow him or her some time in this world before facing the trial of death. At which we routinely send the murderer off with a “God have mercy on your soul!” This is all quite opposite to F’s case, where the soul is tormented in hades, resurrected for hopeless judgment, and then hopelessly punished with annihilation entirely out of existence.)
4:19 objection 2: Matt Slick (asked by Chris to comment during previous radio show) claims annihilation is a form of works righteousness, where a person earns deliverance from the wrath of God. F replies that annihilation is certainly not deliverance from punishment and that no one earns it. (I quite agree with F that this was a bizarre objection!)
5:58 objection 3: trying to follow up on Matt’s point, how can annihilation be considered punishment at all since it results in a state no worse than the condition of the person before the person began to exist? (Or words to that effect. {wry g}) F thinks (me, too) this is a strange objection, since the person is certainly worse off by being punished compared to when the person first existed to be in any condition at all. (I would add that since a person (according to the objection itself) did not exist before he came into existence, he could not be better or worse off or the same as a progression from his non-existent condition, as though he already existed before existing to be in a condition that could improve or degrade, even if he lived forever afterward. F briefly mentions this non sequitur, too. F, perhaps to his credit, does not try to claim in this interview that the damned profit or are better off in any way after being annihilated, by the way.)
Relatedly, F (quoting another author) observes that we regularly consider execution as being a punishment in itself, even though it only takes a minute (or a few minutes); it doesn’t have to keep on continuing forever to be a real punishment that a person would be better off avoiding and worse off receiving.
10:14 objection 4 (also from prior phone call with Matt): the punishment stops so how can it be eternal as the Bible seems to say? F answers that the result of the punishment is definitely eternal, since the person is annihilated permanently out of existence.
13:30 objection 5 (also from prior Matt phone call): if the punishment does not go on “forever and ever” but is described several times as going on “forever and ever” as well as God going on “forever and ever”, if the same terminology is used for God as for the punishment, why wouldn’t that automatically indicate the punishment continues forever and ever just like God continues forever and ever? F answers that the smoke goes up forever and ever, not the torment. (Grammatically I would have to say this seems dubious, as in Greek it is the smoke of their tormenting: the event of their tormenting continues.)
The Genesis Sodom account is referenced via the Psalm. (But this doesn’t address the extra terminology in the RevJohn account, as F himself acknowledges inadvertently while making his point: there is no more torment in Sodom after its nuking. But the verbiage is in RevJohn!)
Isaiah 34 is referenced by F, where smoke and brimstone and pitch and fire that shall not be quenched shall consume Edom and the smoke shall go up forever and ever; but a bunch of animals which could not possibly live in such conditions will come to inherit the land! (But it lacks the verbal emphasis, the smoke of their tormenting thus their tormenting.)
F acknowledges that Rev 20:10 is a tough passage for him as it uses the same term (torment) to describe beast and the false prophet being tormented day and night forever and ever. But he considers it a vision and prophetic language, so not necessarily to be taken literally. Besides, it’s bad exegesis to take one or two passages from RevJohn and read everything else in light of them. Also, in his reckoning the beast and false prophet don’t mean human beings but systems. Lake of fire (in his reckoning) always means annihilation everywhere else. Hades and death are no more with the resurrection, being thrown into the lake of fire, so people are also no more. (Although to me that would mean total death! But he probably means death afterward would be no more once all sinners have been put to final death.)
Greek terminology for eons of the eons etc. not discussed. Greek terminology for torment (a word for refining metal in order to remove impurities and bring out good ore) not discussed. Overall contexts of final chapters of RevJohn not discussed.
21:00 objection 6: the objection of temporary punishment for crime against infinite God. F replies that this isn’t scriptural reasoning but is an attempt much later to justify the doctrine of ECT, citing Anselm. God rejects this type of reasoning, based on human notions of injured pride of greatness, when giving the Law to the Jews. Also, F repeats that annihilation is an infinite punishment proper to humans, for only God could be infinitely punished and still continue existing.
27:03 Chris thinks F mentioned in his book that Calvs in particular object to this doctrine on the ground of “infinite punishment needs infinite punishment”, and asks F why that would happen? F doesn’t think he tried to explain why, he only made an empirical observation based on his experience.
29:15 objection 7 (picked up from a website gotquestions.org): doesn’t the resurrection to everlasting life and “everlasting contempt” in Daniel mean that the resurrected wicked will experience everlasting contempt? F cites the similar verse at the end of Isaiah to mean the remains of the wicked will be abhorred forever by the saved righteous. But not in a way that is actually torment for the righteous!–only in the sense that the unrighteous will always be remembered with contempt. (Context of this saying in Isaiah not discussed.)
32:48 objection 8 (from Grudem’s Systematic Theology), Mark 9:43-48. F refers back to Isaiah again. Also says that contextually it means the fire cannot be put out in resistance. Compares with chaff in Matt 3:12. (Verses 9:49-50, and 3:11 not discussed or even mentioned. F inadvertently acknowledges that the contempt at the end of Isaiah is revulsion at the sight felt by the righteous, not the memory of the unrighteous being held in disgrace!)
35:40 what about the maggot not dying? What forever provides food for maggot? F answers that this is making too much of language; discusses end of Isaiah in a little more detail (though not as much as I would.) Chris notes that maggot is eating dead and unconscious, so aren’t conscious of being eaten.
38:19 objection 9 (Chris acknowledges this is a bad objection), parable of the Rich Man. F says even some traditionalists agree this isn’t on the topic of final state of sinners: it’s a scene from hades, not from resurrection judgment (much less post-judgment). Also, a parable, so of limited doctrinal application. Also, no one believes this is an entirely literal description anyway.
44:48 objection 10 (also acknowledged by Chris to be a bad objection), 1 Cor 15. Doesn’t this teach the bodies of the wicked will be raised imperishable? F notes that 1 Cor 15 doesn’t say anything about the state of the body of the raised wicked, but only describes the bodies of the redeemed. (I agree.) Points out that this would be an argument for universalism not for ECT! (I agree, but I don’t make a universalistic argument here on that ground.)
F says he agrees that “as in Adam all die, so in Christ all are made alive”. (But doesn’t explain from the text why the all made alive in Christ are not the same all who die in Adam, although by his attempt at appealing to RevJohn he has to mean a distinction of this kind in his ‘agreement’ about the text meaning what it says. Actual details in 1 Cor 15 are not discussed much; context of RevJohn references not discussed.)
48:47 objection 11 (Chris says many people consider this the most challenging text). Matt 25, punishment must last as long as the life. F answers that the punishment, which is death, is indeed as final and as long-lasting as the life. (Context of sheep and goats, not discussed.) Terminology partially discussed, in that eonian may have a ‘qualitative’ meaning not a ‘quantitative’–although here F strongly affirms both quality and quantity as the death is never-endingly final. Qualitative meaning here means pertaining to the age to come.
54:10 Chris asks if “eonian fire” as in Matt 5 and Jude 5 is quant and/or qualitative? F answers both. (But doesn’t really describe how the fire is supposed to be quantitative. The Sodom example is certainly not good for this, as while the result of the fire may be quantitative (annihilation forever–except that he himself doesn’t think the souls were annihilated at that time!), the fire itself is what is being described as eonian. But it definitely went out (or it would still be there today.))
55:09 F goes back to talk about difference between eternal punishing and eternal punishment. Judgment, punishment, salvation–F claims that in the NT when these are described as “eternal” they do not feature a word form of continuing in Greek; the salvation is completed and ends, the judging is completed and ends, the punishment is completed and ends. (Not so sure that’s the grammatic situation myself, but worth looking into. Also his example from English usage doesn’t hold up very well since plenty of people can talk about ongoing punishment without meaning that the punishment isn’t ongoing! God doesn’t have to be spoken of as a gerund continuing noun in Greek to be considered ever-ongoing; the same is true of eternal life, which is never rendered eternal living but still is considered to keep on going.)
57:53 final remarks from F. Remember John 3:16, and Romans 6:23. F cries (understandably) while insisting on life or death. Cites end of RevJohn, lake of fire, holy city. (Doesn’t mention context of holy city in relation to sinners in the lake of fire. 
) Blames Greek doctrine of immortality of the soul for corrupting Christian doctrine. Mentions some other books than his 3rd edition as resources.
1:00:48 final remarks from Chris. Thinks F did a great job, enough so that Chris isn’t sure how he himself would continue holding to the traditional view except for it being tradition; surprised at how weak normal objections to anni are.
I will add, that my critical comments above are only based on the interview where Dr. Fudge is, by necessity of the format, giving only very very partial answers. My comments are not to be construed as critiques of his book in any edition (including the recently updated 3rd edition), nor of articles he has written, where he may easily go into more detail.
Thanks for your commentary Jason. Annihilationism is of particular interest to me presently, so I appreciate your efforts.
I thought maybe I should comment specifically on this, since you requested it.
Um… well, he critiques an argument that I have never used (nor heard anyone else ever use before), which I agree with him (and Chris) is a bad argument; and very barely mentions anything I use (along with other people) as part of arriving at universal salvation from 1 Cor 15; and doesn’t discuss any other contexts; nor discusses the one verse he does mention in any detail; and argues against both "all"s both meaning “all” in that verse (even though he says he agrees they both mean all–in some way he doesn’t bother to mention) by throwing a completely different scripture at it which isn’t directly connected by context to that verse (though somewhat topically connected of course). Which isn’t necessarily bad procedure in itself, I guess, but he might as well have quoted one of those minor prophets who don’t speak about salvation of sinners from sin at all, as though that counts against “all” meaning “all” here.
Besides which, the scripture he does throw at it (from RevJohn) is also applied without sufficient regard to its narrative, thematic and referential contexts, or so I would very extensively argue. (And have extensively argued elsewhere, although Lord knows I need to polish it up and present it better someday. )
So… it’s interesting in kind of a trivial way, but I wouldn’t say worth noticing beyond that. There isn’t even much there to critique, much less for me to be worried about.
(I’m only talking about his brief reply to an obscure argument concerning 1 Cor 15 that I have never even heard of before and don’t accept either for much the same primary reason he doesn’t. The rest of his interview is much more than trivially interesting and worth considering. Although I can see some serious problems with it here and there. Also, readers should not construe from this that he has nothing more, and more pertinently interesting, to say about salvation and condemnation in 1 Cor 15, including against universalism.)
Excellent commentary Jason:
I agree with the bulk of what is said above but I would imagine there are many arminianists who believe in the immortality of the soul. I held that opinion as a distinct possibility. It is not surprising that you ‘have never once been taught’ but that does not exclude it as a popular belief.
PS. I still await your reply on your ‘Fourth Soteriology’ thread. I’m trying to be patient.
My apologies; I’ve been extremely busy (including at ‘work’ work).