Episode 54: Burn It Up
August 4th, 2011 at 5:23 pm (Eschatology, Edward Fudge, Annihilationism, Eternal Torment)
Dr. Edward Fudge joins me to discuss annihilation as an orthodox alternative to the traditional view of hell. This episode contains part 1 of the interview in which we focus on Dr. Fudge's book and the doctrine of annihilationism or conditional immortality. Listen to episode 55, "Eternal Fire," for part 2 in which I present Edward with common traditionalist challenges to his view.
Music
- Saliva, Burn It Up from the album, Under Your Skin, 2011
Promoted Resources
- Say Hello to my Little Friend, aka the Beretta Cast, with Glenn Peoples.
- Glenn also created my podcast's theme music, so visit his Theme Music New Zealand for all your theme music needs.
- Edward Fudge Ministries
- Other Books
- Two View of Hell: A Biblical & Theological Dialogue, with Edward Fudge and Robert A. Peterson
Listen Now:
Standard Podcasts [01:13:24m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (674)
Melvin said,
September 4, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Very good podcast with Edward Fudge. Thanks.
Hope you get to do the Trinity debate.
If you get time, please check out this 30min video from an ex-trinitarian (40 years). This is a very serious person with very strong arguments. Made me think!
Abandoning the Trinity http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6Fd3GHwDAw
Daniel Vickery said,
December 6, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Chris, I will say I normally enjoy your show quite a bit, and even most of the things with Mr. Fudge have been interesting and to some extent informative. But this said his comments against Creeds, which where derogatory at best, are frankly unfounded, particularly his use of the quote by the unnamed party, which states his agreement with the Reformed creeds and furtherance of them “as stated in the Bible”, which is the classical Reformed view as stated in the Westminster confession of faith. “1.10. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decress of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.” Thus even the confession itself is subject to Scripture by its own confession and those as well that hold it. So his comments against confessions are miss founded, as is his use of that quote. So if we are merely agreeing with the confessions as they seem to us to concur with Scripture, I fail to see the fault in that agreement. I feel at the end of all of his comments, underlining them are his own (creedal) commitments to the Church of Christ’s no creed but Christ thought. I also find his comment of Alister McGrath’s quote to be misleading at best being Alister is an Anglican Priest and being so must confess the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church as his creed. I also find the comment of the petrification of the doctrines, to be a pejorative comment about what most would find positive at best, for to not make such into Creeds is to lose them, or be lead stray to other doctrines not previously held. There is a fine comment which has historically been made, if it’s new it is probably not true. We are a historic faith, and novelty is not considered a good thing most of the time. I will leave place for exceptions, but as a rule I think Fudges comments about confessions are both unhelpful and simply untrue.
His comments as to those parting with a traditional view of hell, stating they are not doing so due to a more liberal view of Scripture, or wanting to make the Gospel more palatable, kinder, gentler etc. is over stated at best, and I don’t feel I need go further in that case then Rob Bell, thou I find using him to be a bit trite at this point. There are without question some people today as in the past that are doing so merely due to an aversion of the doctrine with or without its merits even being considered. With comments such as my God would never send people to hell, which is at best a fairly common statement these days. In the end my frustration is not with your guests views so much as your tacit agreement with all of these comments with out mention or hint even of disagreement. I do understand that you must treat guests with care and be cordial to them at all times, but I think these points should have found at least mention of disagreement, presuming I am correct that you would find these points valid. Thank you for all your hard work and care putting the show together, once again. Sincerely Daniel
theopologetics said,
December 7, 2011 at 1:24 am
Thanks for listening, Daniel, and for the time you’ve taken to provide your feedback. If you’d like my thoughts in response, I’d be happy to share them with you. Let me know