Episode 72: Drag Me to Hell
January 30th, 2012 at 6:54 am (Eschatology, Hell, Annihilationism, Ronnie, Joey Dear, Eternal Torment)
Fellow annihilationists/conditionalists Ronnie and Joey Dear join me for more than 3 hours to discuss Ronnie's debate with TurretinFan, my debate with Hiram Diaz, and arguments made against our view following the debate. This episode contains part one of three; listen to episodes 73 and 74 for parts two and three, respectively.
Music
- Theory of a Deadman, Drag Me to Hell from the album, The Truth Is..., 2011
Promoted Resources
- What Color is the Sky in Their World? Podcast, with Phil Naessens.
- Also check out the blog of the same name.
- Ronnie's Consuming Fire blog
- Joey Dear's online presence
- Joey's "tome" defending annihilationism, The Bible Teaches Annihilationism.
- Ronnie's debate with TurretinFan (part 1 and part 2)
- My debate with Hiram Diaz (part 1 and part 2)
- My friend Michael Burgos' ministry, Grassroots Apologetics
- Michael Burgos' article, "Three Arguments Against Annihilationism"
- Hiram Diaz' article, "Do Matthew 3:11-12 and Malachi 4:1-6 Support Annihilationism?"
- Hiram Diaz' article, "Is Matthew 5:21-26 Merely Earthly Legal Advice?"
- Hiram Diaz' article, "Utter Destruction and Consumption: Allowing Context to Define the Key Terms (Pt. 1)"
- TurretinFan's exegesis of Jude's "twice dead" trees
Listen Now:
Standard Podcasts [01:11:20m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (549)
Daniel Vickery said,
February 16, 2012 at 5:17 pm
For the upside, being I didn’t think it worth dividing the two sets of comments, I thought your debate from your end went well, thou at least a bit condescending which fit well with your later review of it as well. The one point above all else in the debate that I felt was condescending was your opening comment that the Bible contains no texts that support traditionalism, and while I will in no way impugn your character by saying you hold otherwise, this is purely a view of your idea of scripture which is subjective, as it is with everyone. This said by making such a comment you are in fact saying to say contrary to your new found view, is not only wrong but is in fact a shot at the character of anyone who says it is there.
I fully understand we all hold our positions to be the case as a matter of fact, and by sheer force any other position is wrong. That said this and the other two podcasts that went with it, should have been called three annihilationalist taking shots at two poorly presented cases for traditionalism in past debates, lacking any balance at all. Neither of the debaters supporting the traditionalist views did very well and both seem to have stated so, as does nearly everyone else. Thus I find it in very poor taste to go back over them both with only people supporting your view to take shots at the debates. For some semblance of balance you might have even had one of the debaters for the traditionalist side back in for the post mortem, that would have at least given some balance to the show, but sadly that did not happen.
I find it even more so that you asked the listeners to be patient with the end of the discussion, and not to simply skip past the three episodes it was going to take to finish it. Frankly I think you should have admitted that if you were not happy with this topic as of yet it may be best to simply skip past them, admitting that they were simply a diatribe on the subject they had had enough of already. I can truly appreciate the subject, and even your point of view, but I find the way it has been presented distaste full to say the least. I like your show Chris I really do, but your lack of balance on subjects, which is sadly most subjects is the Achilles heel of it, if you will and it drives me up the wall. Just my two cent, for whatever that is worth. I think you have some interesting arguments for annihiliationism, but with such a presentation as these three podcasts gave, they are simply drown out by the diatribing. Sincerely Daniel
Joey said,
February 20, 2012 at 11:15 pm
So then, what should have done differently?
Joey said,
February 21, 2012 at 12:47 am
I mean, what should have BEEN done differently?
Nathan said,
February 23, 2012 at 8:03 am
@Daniel: first up, it’s Chris’s show. He’s under no obligation to anyone to do anything that pleases anyone. I have been waiting for some time for the promised review of the debates. Thank you Chris for doing this and getting them up for all to listen to.
Second, I listen to this show because I like Chris’s take on (most) things. He’s thoughtful, and thought provoking. No one is forcing me to listen. I don’t know if you mean to come across this way, but your comment seems quite ungrateful for Chris’s effort.
Thirdly, and most importantly, the need to be ‘balanced’ pales in comparison to the need to be truthful and faithful to the Scriptures.
Striving for that is not an Achilles Heel.
Daniel Vickery said,
March 14, 2012 at 11:39 am
Joey, I think having one of the debaters or even another traditionalist back in for the post mortem would have given some semblance of balance to the discussion. As it was it lacked anything even remotely like balance, which I find to be even more unfortunate being they were also poor debates from the traditionalist side as well.
Theopologetics said,
March 14, 2012 at 11:45 am
Daniel, when I moderated the debate betwen my friend Michael Burgos and Oneness Pentecostal James Anderson, I had Mike–and no Oneness advocate–on the show later to review the debate. Dr. James White and William Lane Craig often discusses their respective debates on their shows, and others, without advocates of both sides of the argument. What in the world gives you the impression that I attempt to have balance in every single one of my episodes? Sure, I try and ask some tough questions of guests, even when I agree with them; but I don’t always do it. So I’m not really sure what you were expecting.
I’d be MORE than happy to participate in a debate with someone more competent; I’ve tried and tried to arrange just that kind of thing. Would you like to help me find someone?
Daniel Vickery said,
March 14, 2012 at 11:48 am
Nathan, I agree with most of your comments. It is Chris’s show and he is free to do as he pleases with it, including not allowing comments about it. But it seems he wishes to receive said comments about these shows, good, bad or otherwise, and so I am obliging him in that way at least. I didn’t say he wasn’t either thoughtful nor thought provoking, I would generally agree with that as well, so no issue there. I do not mean to come across as ungrateful at all, but I feel my comments reflect my view of this one and being it was one of three (after a long line on the same subject), therefore it also reflects on the other two as well. I think my comments come or at least I hope they do as constructive criticism, which I think all of us can use. It may not always be welcomed but it is made in the hopes of improvement, whether it helps or not is up to the recipient.
Truthfulness and faithfulness in this case is a matter of your position, the annihilationalist view is a fringe view with in Christianity being held by very few, thou I do not doubt sincere believers. So for them they see this as being faithful and true to that position. The other side being most of Christianity both in the past and today do not find this case to be either truthful nor persuasive, and so it is neither truthful nor faithful too them nor their position.
Balance is only an issue if you are striving for it, and as far as I can tell Chris is and has been trying to do so. Thus he invites people, from more then one position to be on. So if your goal is to be balanced and the listeners, or at least this listener, does not feel that has been accomplished, then yes that is an achilles heel, of what I have stated previously is an otherwise well done show. If you disagree with this you are free and welcome to do so.
Theopologetics said,
March 14, 2012 at 11:55 am
Daniel, despite our disagreement, I do encourage you to send comments my way, good or bad. As for the claim that annihilationism is a fringe view, I don’t think that’s accurate; a “minority” view, perhaps. And while that may have been the case for 1,800 years or so, the tide is most certainly turning, and it wasn’t the case in the first couple of centuries, as I think I can demonstrate. As for balance, I achieve balance across multiple episodes, not typically in just one episode. I’ve had two prominent authors, each from the opposite side of this debate, on the show–and I invited numerous other traditionalist authors on the show, all of whom declined. And I’ve had two traditionalists on the show to defend their view, too. Again, if you want to help me try and find a better traditionalist proponent, please, I’d welcome the help.
Daniel Vickery said,
March 14, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Chris, I am not sure your comparison is a fair one with the Oneness advocate and the trinitarian, being I am presuming you hold one side to be heretical and the other Orthodox in that case. Unless you are making the same claim about one side or the other of the conditionalist debate, which from what I have heard you say, I would presume not.
If I am mistaken and you are not wishing to have balance in cases that you hold neither side to be heretical, then I apologize and will refrain from such remarks in the future. I may only suppose that for Dr. White and Craig (being I do not listen to anything of theirs other than what appears on other podcasts that I listen to), balance is not a point of contention for them, and again I am willing to retract said comments if that is your case as well. But neither to my knowledge do they have guests on that do not share their views, as you have and I presume will continue to do, am I mistaken?
I don’t have anyone to put forward for a debate, nor do I have any connections that would provide such, hence I listen to podcasts like yours that do. If you feel/think my comments are unhelpful or unwanted I will simply refrain from posting any more. Sincerely Daniel
Theopologetics said,
March 14, 2012 at 12:34 pm
Daniel, the comparison is not one of doctrines, but one of practice. The point being, I and other podcasters–like White and Craig and others–periodically review past debates and debates of others without balance, whether those debates are between two orthodox believers or not. I care about balance, but I repeat, I care about balance across multiple episodes, not necessarily internally within a single episode. Far more of my episodes have involved no balance at all; where is the Arminian perspective in my two episodes on Calvinism? I don’t believe Arminianism is heretical. Where is the futurist perspective in some of my preterism episodes? I don’t believe futurism is heretical. I’m being consistent in my approach, and I’d love to either participate in, or moderate, debates on the topic in the future, and I’d love to have interview a traditionalist, too.
My concern is not with you posting comments; I welcome even the most negative of a listener’s comments. My concern is the seeming inconsistency in your application of this issue, since there are numerous episodes on which you could have similarly commented on. I suspect–and forgive me if I’m wrong–this has more to do with your personal belief in the traditional view of hell, than it does your desire to see balance.
In any case, hopefully I can find a better proponent of traditionalism to have on the show. Personally, I don’t think even the best of them can hold a candle to the biblical reality of annihilationism.
Daniel Vickery said,
March 14, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Chris, I think it is as much as anything that you changed from one side to another, and I think any time we do this, the side we were previously on gets a very raw deal more often then not from us. This is often noted to be the case with New Calvinist, and I think the same applies here. You are only seeing one side, being it is all new and glories to you at the moment. You as I recall stated up front your positions on futurism, Calvinism and the like, and so if people knew who you were, then they should have known what to expect from those. This was my point when you asked us as listeners to continue to listen to the final part of the debate breakdown, but failed to say that it would merely be the annhiliationalist position being stated. If that had been done then I think my comments would be lessened at least.
My position on this issue is indeed more a matter of balance then anything, particularly on this issue, because I find at least some of it persuasive, but I refuse to accept a weakened case as the whole. So I do in fact simply wish to to see the strengths and weaknesses of both sides presented honestly, which I don’t feel I have seen, nor heard, in any way that seems fair to both.
The reason this particular post has received comments from me was my frustration in listening to them wanting a fair case displayed but feeling like annihiliationalism was the man beating his wife. It lacked all that you seemed to say you liked and wanted from future discussions on this topic from the Unbelievable show.
theopologetics said,
March 14, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Daniel, I definitely acknowledge the possibility that I’m giving my former position a raw deal. I am human, and thus imperfect. I do hope, however, you’ll reciprocally acknowledge the possibility that your objection has more to do with the position you side with in this debate. I don’t, incidentally, think it was reasonable to expect, without me saying so, that in the post-debate comments I would have a traditionalist on. You know what they say about when we assume…
As for your feeling that one side has not been presented honestly or fairly, I can empathize. Honestly. But I don’t think I’ve failed to do the best I can to do that. I sent approaching a dozen emails to famous traditionalists asking them to come on my show; I couldn’t help that only Larry Dixon accepted. I also invited several traditionalists to do the debate against Ronnie, and only TFan accepted, which I couldn’t help. And I had no idea Hiram Diaz would prove to be a poor defender of traditionalism, either. And then when the post-debate commentary came around, I didn’t in any way veer from commonplace post-debate practices, and I’m sure Joey, Ronnie and I feel that we did present traditionalism honestly and fairly, even if you disagree. The point of all that being simply that I’m trying my best to be fair and balanced–across episodes, if not within one episode (or one recorded discussion across episodes).
Again, I encourage you to continue to leave me your comments, negative as they may be. But given the previous paragraph, like I said, I suspect your criticism in this case has more to do with the side you lean toward. Whether I’m wrong about that is, I suppose, between you and God. All I can say is, as I’ve said before, I’d LOVE to have better proponents of traditionalism on the show, since my aim is to provide balance across multiple episodes. But if they aren’t willing to appear, I can’t help that…
Daniel Vickery said,
March 14, 2012 at 1:30 pm
Chris, for a few acknowledgments, I did not expect without you saying so that you would have a traditionalist on, I merely stated I think it would have been better, had you done so. I acknowledge that my position on the topic may lead some of my objections, thou I still hold that my position is open to change, but will not be won with the way it has been presented, feeling it lacked in balance on both sides. This said I also acknowledge it is entirely not in your control who responds or agrees to come on for such, and so I am not holding you personally responsible, so to speak. But this said it still leaves it lacking, even if not your fault, and so I wish it to be taken as a general comment rather then to say you are personally to blame.
theopologetics said,
March 14, 2012 at 1:36 pm
Daniel, you wrote that I “failed to say that it would merely be the annhiliationalist position being stated.” I guess because of your use of “failed” I thought you meant that somehow I had misled people, which is why I made the statement I did about expectations/assumptions.
I appreciate your last couple of sentences, and can empathize. I don’t fault you for not being convinced, even if I hope the two interviews, two debates and three-part post-debate commentary have motivated you to be more open than you may have in the past (not saying I have any idea how open you might have been in the past).
Would you please do me a favor? Would you please send me an email, explaining (a) what or whom you’d like to hear on my show that may cause you to consider my newfound view a little more, and (b) what reasons you have for still leaning toward a traditional view? You can say in the email whether or not you want me to respond to you; I don’t assume one way or the other whether or not you want to get into an email debate with me or anything. But having your answers to those two questions would help me determine how best to proceed with this topic later in the future.
Thanks!
Daniel Vickery said,
March 14, 2012 at 5:14 pm
I will oblige.