Episode 55: Eternal Fire
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 2 of the interview in which I present Edward with common traditionalist challenges to his view. Listen to episode 54, "Burn It Up," in which we focus on Dr. Fudge's book and the doctrine of annihilationism or conditional immortality.
Music
- N.W.J., Eternal Fire from the album, Takin' it Back, 2009
Promoted Resources
- Edward Fudge Ministries
- Other Books
- Two View of Hell: A Biblical & Theological Dialogue, with Edward Fudge and Robert A. Peterson
Listen Now:
Standard Podcasts [01:02:07m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (781)
Travis Finley said,
August 5, 2011 at 7:35 am
I have always thought “aiwnios” was better taken qualitatively and that we ought to mindfully adjust our translations (in more than this area, too). Hey! Maybe that can be one of our episodes, discussing my maxim: “all translation is interpretation.”
Jason Pratt said,
August 9, 2011 at 9:52 am
Good interview!
Considering the popularity (and popular backlash) of Rob Bell’s new book, would you be interested in interviewing a trinitarian Christian universalist? I’m one of the admins and guest authors at the Evangelical Universalist forum; and if I can’t set you up with one of our other authors (Thomas Talbott, Robin Parry aka Gregory MacDonald) I’d be happy to volunteer!
I’ve been working as an ecumenical apologist at the Christian Cadre Journal for several years, posting up a couple thousand pages of trinitarian and historical apologetics, although recently more of my time has been spent working at the EU forum. (Where I also post trinitarian apologetics, btw.) While working on my 800+ page systematic metaphysical argument to trinitarian theism back in late 1999, I came to believe that orthodox trinitarian theism (including the filioque) points toward at least minimal universal salvation as a logical corollary (i.e. God persists in acting to save all sinners from sin, whether or not all sinners ever actually repent.) Having found (what I believe to be) uniquely strong logical connections between ortho-trin and universalism, I was prepared to take various scriptural statements appearing to point that way more seriously; and in any case resolved that whatever soteriology I affirmed I should not inadvertently deny a precept of ortho-trin (e.g. I shouldn’t deny God’s omnipresence, or schism between the intentions of the Son and the Father.)
After five more years of scriptural study (during which I also completed a Gospel harmonization project of several hundred pages), I decided that the scriptures taken as a whole point ultimately to God’s eventual victory in saving all sinners from sin, even though often in order to make a more focused point the final result isn’t always mentioned. After defending this in comments at various sites (not in main posts at the Cadre) for a while, I was asked by the site creators of the EU forum to join as an admin and guest author in 2008.
While I am not a professor or related professional, nor a published author, unlike Robin and Thomas, I am very experienced and would be glad to contribute if they aren’t currently available. Also, having come to universalism from respecting arguments and concerns of Calvinistic and Arminianistic theologians both, I’m pretty friendly toward them. {g}
If you email me, I’ll be glad to post links to some of my apologetic work at the Cadre, and at the EU forum. (I would post them here but I don’t know if the comment section would allow the code or even what kind of code it uses.)
Jason Pratt