![]() ![]() Brossett cites the late Edward Fudge’s popular-level book on hell, in which Fudge tries to stay extremely accessible. ![]() Had Brossett sufficiently consulted the other conditionalist he quotes, he would have discovered that the aforementioned interpretation of Stackhouse, even if accurate, does not represent the larger conditionalist movement. If this is indeed what he means, then yes, he must likewise think that, in the phrase “eternal punishment” (Matt 25:46), the noun (punishment) is to be identified with the carrying out of its verbal idea (punishing), an event he thinks will be finite in duration. For example, concerning the phrase “eternal judgment” (Heb 6:2), he writes, “The author of this epistle cannot possibly have had in view a judgment that goes on forever.” 9 Stackhouse thus appears to equate the noun (judgment) with the carrying out of its verbal idea (judging), an event that will be finite in duration. ![]() The problem is that Stackhouse seems, at least on the surface, to identify that event with the noun. The other conditionalist Brossett cites, however, explicitly teaches otherwise, siding with countless other conditionalists who wholeheartedly affirm that final punishment will be properly everlasting.īrossett says conditionalists “take issue with how ‘eternal’ has been traditionally understood,” quoting conditionalist John Stackhouse as saying that the Greek adjective αἰώνιος can describe an event’s implications as everlasting in duration, without necessarily describing the event itself that way. Instead, Brossett offers a questionable interpretation of just one prominent conditionalist as if it is the view of conditionalism more broadly. ![]() In what I propose is his most critical mistake, Brossett suggests that, according to us conditionalists, “There will be an end to punishment, followed by complete annihilation.” 7 Unfortunately, this does not accurately represent the conditionalist movement at large. And I will argue that Scripture speaks about hell with a much clearer and more consistent voice than Brossett thinks it does. While his treatment of conditionalism is a good one overall, it is mistaken in at least one critical way. Nevertheless, as just such a proponent of one of the controversial alternatives to the majority report-what I will call conditionalism, and what Brossett calls “Annihilationism/Conditional Immortality (ACI)” 6-I would like to gently challenge some of Brossett’s claims. Instead, ‘they differ on what hell is like.’” 3 This kind of honest representation of controversial views is refreshing 4 proponents of such views are accustomed to being terribly misrepresented. Brossett begins his second article equally commendably, rightly observing, “None of the positions I’ve examined in Part I deny existence. 1 Brossett proceeds to survey the three historic Christian views of hell-eternal torment, conditional immortality, and universalism 2-and commendably, he avoids offering readers simplistic, misleading caricatures of the two alternatives to the more historically dominant view (eternal torment). “What does God say about hell?” asks Kris Brossett, kicking off his two-article series on the topic. Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest Email LinkedIn ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |