Center for Biblical Theology and Eschatology
A Critical Review of "The Fire That Consumes"
by Edward William Fudge
|
A critical book review of “The Fire That Consumes”: A Biblical and historical study of the doctrine of final punishment by Edward William Fudge. (1982, 1985, Houston, TX: Providential) |
The doctrine of final punishment
This book proved to be a watershed among evangelical scholars and theologians. The Fire that Consumes is one of many recent studies by evangelical Christians on the doctrine of "last things"; it investigates the teaching of Scripture on the topic of final punishment including the immortality of the soul and the nature of Hell. Fudge's book has been selected for review because of the attention that it has attracted from both traditionalists, who hold to everlasting conscious torment in Hell, but also from conditionalists.[1] It seems then that The Fire that Consumes has been chosen as the battleground by both conditionalists and traditionalists, and this fact alone makes it an important work. Fudge himself invites evaluation and criticism of his work, a challenge that the traditionalist Peterson only too readily accepts. [2] The "Fire that Consumes" has even been praised by its opponents for its tone and its thoroughness [3] and seeks to base it conclusions on Biblical analysis rather than church tradition. It has then become a seminal work, along with that of Froom for conditionalism and annihilationism.[4] The Fire that consumes (among other contributions) has generated so much heat (pun intended) that the World's Evangelical Alliance had to intervene in order to achieve some sort of working consensus among evangelicals- they concluded that the evangelical traditionalist-conditionalist debate should continue with the parties maintaining "constructive dialogue and respectful relationships." (i.e., agree to disagree). [5] Fudges arguments can be largely divided into three categories; linguistic- exegetic, theological and historic.Linguistic-exegetic arguments
It is reassuring to find that Fudge commences his exegesis with a through analysis of Old Testament texts in order to establish the semantic usage of terms such as sheol before progressing onto the New Testament. Fudge also analyses Biblical phrases such as 'eternal judgment' (Heb.6: 2), 'eternal salvation' (Heb.5:9), 'eternal redemption' (Heb.9:12) 'eternal destruction' (2 Thess.1:9), 'eternal sin' (Mark 3:29) and 'eternal punishment' (Mtt.25:46) and distinguishes both a quantitative (that which pertains to the age to come) and qualitative meaning (temporally limitless). [6] The results are eternal not necessarily the process itself ? eternal judgment does not mean being judged each and every day into perpetuity, but rather, that the consequences are everlasting.Theological arguments
Fudge also critiques the Traditionalism?s problem with pain [7] and is not alone in perceiving this as a problem; theologically Annihilationist reason from divine love and justice to refute the notion of everlasting conscious torment- it is incompatible with God's love and appears to serve no useful purpose [Travis, Wenham] Would God who tells us to love our enemies be intending to wreak vengeance on his enemies for all eternity? [Pinnock, Green] Do finite sins merit infinite punishment? [Pinnock, Stott] Does the continuation of sin suffering and evil into eternity not promote a dualistic view? [Hughes]. [8]Historical arguments
Fudge surveys a wide range of data ranging from Patristic statements from the second century (Clement to Alexandria) and Origen's "apocatastasis" [9] to the Protestant movement, even including post-reformation dissenters. He concludes that the "apostolic fathers speak clearly on some points and less clearly on others. They agree with Scripture and with each other that the wicked will be raised to face God's judgement. They nowhere indicate that the wicked will be immortal, and they strongly suggest in a number of places that they will not."[p.321] His post- reformation dissenters include Milton, Locke and Richardson (17th century) Watts, Hall, Newton, Clarke and Whiston (18th cent) and the 19 century movements; Advent Christian Church, Church of God, Seventh-Day Adventist Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, British Controversy and Notable Conditionalists- and the Fundamentalist- Modernist Controversy of the 20th century.Immortality
The Fire that consumes contains a foreword from F.F. Bruce that is worth quoting from: "All immortality except God?s is derived. The Father who has life in Himself, has shared with the Son this privilege of having life in Himself. All others receive life in the Son. This is true in a measure even of natural life. 'In Him was life, and the life was the light of mankind.' But it is of spiritual and natural life that we are now thinking." [10] Fudge [11] Stephen Travis [12] Clark H. Pinnock [13] John Stott [14] Philip Hughes [15] and E. Michael B. Green [16] suggest that the immortality of the soul is a Platonic doctrine and therefore unbiblical. Only believers receive the gift of immortality ?unbelievers are extinguished. Wenham also concurs and points out that God alone has immortality (1 Tim.6: 16) and it is only conferred on the believer by virtue of his union with Christ. [17]Evaluation of the Evidence
After our brief review of The Fire that Consumes it is perhaps best to turn to traditional opponents of the Annihilationist case in order to help us evaluate the strength of the argument. Chris Morgan [18] and Robert A. Peterson put forward the strongest case contra. Morgan develops his argument contra on the basis of Jonathan Edwards? theology.Evaluation of the Linguistic evidence
Peterson [19] refers to Augustine's treatment of 'Eternal' in Matt 25:41 and Rev 20:10 'Eternal' in the first passage is expressed in the second by 'for ever and ever', and those words have only one meaning in scriptural usage: the exclusion of any temporal end." [20] After discussing Annihilationist understanding of the linguistic terms referring to destruction and quoting Stott on the traditional view being an "inconclusive process of perishing" Morgan responds with D.A. Carson?s observation that the argument is tautologous: "of course those who suffer destruction are destroyed. But it does not follow that those who suffer destruction cease to exist." [21] Peterson accuses Fudge of committing a linguistic fallacy in his treatment of the Pauline pair of words "trouble" (thlipsis) and "distress" (stenochoria) in Rom 2:9, and drawing an unwarranted conclusion, "This last translation is suggestive for our present verse [Rom 2:9]. Judgment day will find the wicked 'hard pressed' - to the point of being 'crushed'." [22]Evaluation of the Theological evidence
Chris Morgan appeals to the theology of Edwards to counter arguments about God's love and justice; "Edwards shows, however, that Annihilationist tend to infer that God relates to people only in terms of love...sin is inherently against God, who is infinite in all his perfections, and thus sin merits endless punishment for the sinner -- the just punishment for an infinitely faulty crime must be infinite.[23] However, the most serious theological argument contra is powerfully brought by Peterson and is based on the immortality of the soul. He comments on Fudge (following the lead of Atkinson, Froom and Dunn) that Jesus was annihilated in his death and criticises Fudge?s agreement with Oscar Cullmann who wrote that:[Jesus] can conquer death only by actually dying, by betaking Himself to the sphere of death, the destroyer of life, to the sphere of nothingness... Whoever wants to conquer death must die; he must really cease to live - not simply live on as an immortal soul; but die in body and soul, lose life itself... Furthermore, if life is to issue out of so genuine a death as this, a new divine act of creation is necessary. And this act of creation calls back to life not just a part of man, but the whole man - all that God had created and death had annihilated. [24]Peterson is correct in his assessment of the implications when he states that, "The systematic implications of holding that Jesus was annihilated when he died are enormous. Nothing less than orthodox Christology is at stake." He quotes Cooper [25] who is in agreement with his statement: "Now if the extinction- re- creation account of Jesus' resurrection is true, then the teaching of Chalcedon is false" (Trinitarian teaching). [26]
Conclusion
In his defence of the traditional position Peterson makes some astute observations about the implications of Annihilationism for systematic Christology, his criticism of Fudge's hermeneutic is also correct -- it is on occasion rather weak. [27] Nevertheless, the general case for Annihilationism remains linguistically and theologically strong, even though certain difficult passages are still waiting for a more thorough hermeneutic. As Fudge himself remarks; "Few people want to study the subject [Hell] anymore. The liberals do not believe in such things, and the conservatives are satisfied that they already have the answers." [28] Perhaps the next generation of scholars will be able to further the important work already achieved and bring it to its logical conclusion? In our complementary article we will attempt to supplement Fudges work and answer some of Peterson?s criticisms.Notes
[1] The basis of the doctrine of conditional immortality is that God created man mortal but with a capacity for immortality. This is based on the belief that the Bible does not teach that the soul is naturally immortal. Strange as it may seem if the wicked are tormented forever (traditionalist view) then it must mean that the wicked are also "immortal."http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar21.htm
[3] In Cameron, ed., Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell, 195-96.[4] The term Annihilationism is derived from the Latin nihil (nothing) and teaches the eternal extinction of the unbeliever as opposed to the orthodox doctrine of eternal conscious punishment. The Annihilationist doctrine is found in three different forms:
- Materialism or 'pure mortality' - complete extinction at
death.
[This position is naturalistic and is not held by any contemporary evangelical scholars] - Conditional immortality- immortality granted only to
believers
[John Wenham, Michael Green and Philip Hughes] - Annihilationism Proper ? immortal humanity gradually
deteriorates because of sin
[Held by Clark H. Pinnock and John Stott among others; it is subdivided into those who believe in graduated extinction due to the corrosive effects of sin or alternatively in actual punishment followed by extinction. In this view everybody survives death and will even be resurrected, but the impenitent are finally destroyed.]