Edward Fudge has written a popularization of his seminal The Fire That Consumes
Hell: A Final Word is scheduled for release on June 12, 2012 — but available for pre-order on Amazon.
He’s right, I think. The traditional view just doesn’t hold up to close scrutiny, and is far better supported by Plato than the Scriptures. We’ve covered his teachings at length before.
The Fire That Consumes is a lengthy (420 pages!), scholarly work that covers the subject in incredible detail. It’s not for the faint of heart, but does cover every imaginable argument.
For those who prefer a more popular treatment, Hell: A Final Word presents an excellent summary of the evidence. For Fudge fans, the book also presents considerable autobiographical information about Fudge, which I found fascinating and encouraging.
Since I’ve covered the theology several times, I’ll not bore the readers with the details of Fudge’s arguments. I would just point out that I came to agree with Fudge by studying the question independently of Fudge’s work. I pulled all the verses on hell, Hades, Sheol, Tartarus, etc., and just read what the Bible says on the subject.
I was actually led to the study, not by Fudge, but N. T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church
However, if Wright is right that the Bible pictures the afterlife as a continuation of the earth — purged by fire and renewed by God — then where does hell fit? Heaven and earth are merged (see Revelation 21, for example), leaving hell where?
Well, hell must be the purifying fire that prepares the earth for heaven to descend and God to live there — suitably described as Gehenna, a garbage dump. But that’s a finite fire, not perpetual fire. And that reminded me of Fudge’s theory, and so I pulled out my Bible and concordance.
Indeed, one weakness of Fudge’s presentation is his failure to tie his understanding of hell to a proper understanding of heaven. Wright’s view of heaven and Fudge’s view of hell fit together hand in glove. You really need both to make the best sense of the word-pictures the Scriptures paint.
While I’m nitpicking (and these are indeed nits), Fudge presents his views on “available light” in Hell: A Final Word. Fudge believes that those who’ve never heard the gospel, and thus who’ve never rejected the gospel, will be judged based on available light. I’m not convinced.
Indeed, the fact that hell will be a just punishment, proportional to the sins committed, rather than perpetual agony, takes away much of the incentive to push for an available light theory.
(Act 4:12 ESV) 12 “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
But despite these nits, the book is an excellent exposition of a critically important theory. Indeed, many a non-believer struggles mightily with the traditional notion that a child who dies after attaining the age of accountability will be tortured forever, even if guilty of hardly any sins at all.
Fudge has done a great service to Christendom by showing us the path back to the understanding of damnation taught by the early church and by the authors of both the Old and New Testaments.
Buy the book.
“and instead insists that the damned are punished and then destroyed by God.”
Is destruction not punishment enough, does God have to “waterboard” them before killing them.?
I am not a big fan of Fudge or Wright, but I am not a fan of anyone who writes books describing their interpretation of “God’s Word” as if he had to have an interpreter, since the word originated with God, he knows how to use it.
“Indeed, the fact that hell will be a just punishment, proportional to the sins committed, rather than perpetual agony…”
>>>
And herein we enter our own judgment, declaring that perpetual agony is somehow “disproportionate” and thus, unjust, and thus will not happen. Here we blithely insert our own assessment of how God should weigh “the sins committed”, as if to provide God some sentencing guidelines. Again, this tricky business of binding God with our own value judgments, which is precisely the reasoning offered by many unbelievers who “could never worship a God who would do a thing like that.”
This POV also seems to contradict our concurrent view that for those outside of Christ, it is not the quantity and quality of their sins that condemns them. There is no one who is “just barely condemned”, having committed just enough sin to push him over the threshhold of eternal damnation. Either one is reconciled to God or he is not. We seem to be teaching something here which has its roots more in the ideals of the American justice system: sure and consistent judgment of guilt, followed by a sentencing in which mitigating factors are considered and relative culpability is a matter of comparing one defendant to another.
Charles,
Proportional punishment seems to be Jesus’ point here:
This conclusion of Jay (and Edward) seems, to me, to be taking the words of Jesus at face value.
We seem to be teaching something here which has its roots more in the ideals of the American justice system.
Good point-after all Fudge is an attorney
Under Available Light, the question is when is the age of accountability? Is it not an age certain like 12 but a knowledge awareness age whatever that happens to be?
What age does a mentally handicapped child?
At what age do Hindu or Muslim children become accountable?
With 3000 plus Christian denominations and 25 or more COC different sects, when do or did each of us become accountable?
You are going to have to purposely commit known sin to go to hell.
I thank God for that as all of us might be doing something against Gods will that might be discovered tomorrow and we were not aware of it. Most of mankind that ever lived did not have what we have and most could not of read it if they had.
When I was 13 going on 14, I was baptized having grown up in the church and knowing everything I needed to for quite a while. The final impetus as I remember it was that I knew that if I didn’t then I would go to hell. Now that my oldest son is almost 13 we are starting to talk to him about this commitment and never once will I mention anything about hell. I don’t want him to be fearful as I was. I want his decision to be based on a commitment to follow Jesus for his life, not fear of what will happen if he doesn’t. I want him to learn to be motivated by passion rather than fear in this and other areas of his life. I am too bound by my fears and tired of living that way. I am trying to live by the Spirit full of grace rather than rule keeping. I am a natural rule keeper. But too long that has been my motivation and focus. I’m not afraid of going to hell because of the grace of God. I am afraid of being afraid.
I wonder if Fudge is putting out a popular version of The Fire That Consumes to correspond with the release of his bio-pic: http://hellandmrfudge.org
It won’t get better when it is popularized – only worse. I disagree with Fudge stronlgy, and that his views should receive even greater popularity, worries me – for him (Jas 3:1).
Alexander
Jerry, I can take the idea of proportionality in punishment if we stop insisting that we know what would be disproportionate for God to do. Again, we are channeling the American justice system, this time by declaring the ultimate penalty to be somehow unconstitutional. We are the Nine Supremes, letting the Great Commander-in-Chief know where His limits are.
I’m still not comfortable with this. It sounds more like Dante than Jesus, IMO.
Charles,
The idea of proportional punishment is deeply Biblical. For example, the Mosaic injunction — An eye for an eye — was interpreted by the rabbis to require proportional punishment and was never applied literally. There was no eye gouging but the Israelite judges did levy a fine based on the value of what was lost. Thus, the American legal concept of letting the punishment fit the crime is borrowed from Moses. Indeed, efforts at criminal law reform, to repeal grossly unfair penalties, have been led by Christians in times past.
Just so, Jesus said,
47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
(Luk 12:47-48 NIV)
Jesus plainly teaches degrees of punishment — a very difficult concept if punishment is perpetual and his infinite.
I would not be so presumptious as to claim to know just how much punishment a lost person will suffer, but finite sin would seem to justify only finite punishment.
Laymond,
The scriptures are clear that hell will be punishment.
12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Mat 8:12 NIV)
51 He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Mat 24:51 NIV)
9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment. (2Pe 2:9 NIV)
29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
(Heb 10:29-31 NIV)
Most of us don’t believe those who die in early childhood will suffer punishment from
God for their bad behavior. Why? Because we think God is just, and punishing chidren for their bad behavior would be unjust. As far as I know the Bible does not specifically address a child’s standing before God at judgement. We have come up with this doctrine of childhood innocence because we think we understand what is just and what is not. Is endless torture for an adult’s lifetime of bad behavior just? Fudge would say “no” and has more from the Bible to back up his answer than we have for our ideas concerning the fate of those who die in chilhood.
Jesus said:
Suffer little children to come unto me for such is the kingdom of heaven.
This Saturday, in Trussville, Alabama will be the 5th Caseys Cause run 1, 5, 10K to raise money for children of ITP that my 7 year old granddaughter Casey Marie Grant died of 9 days after they found it. What a Bible student but had never been baptized. One day, she’ll be waiting to greet me when I cross that river just outside the gates of heaven and we’ll go in hand in hand. We had that agreement but never thought it would be her greeting me.
Fudge writings are far more like the God I now worship and Love.
Had enough of the God that my family feared and spoke love about but couldn’t really love because of how we taught He was going to judge us. Yes, I regretfully taught it too. You better watch out or Gods going to get you was the theme!!! Funny why we never feared the devil. He was only the one God would throw us too.
Seen too much of fear of death due to the uncertainty from the teaching and preaching we did about that fearful God. Also saw the calm assurance those not of our faith had at deaths door. I want the latter!
Ultimately, do you want to spend eternity with the God like that?
I don’t and would rather just die and disappear. Considering what we preach, hell doesn’t look too bad. Eternity in constant fear? That is what God created us for? I will never believe that AGAIN!
Jay, when we get into the idea of what is “finite sin” and “finite punishment” outside the realm of time and space, I’m not sure we have good enough definitions, and may not BE able to get to them. I would comment that perhaps God’s action is not simply a punishment for cussin’ and spittin’, but is his response to those who have chosen to be his enemies. This concept does not really address the idea of eternal torment vs. annihilation, but I think it is worthy of consideration. The Amelekites were the enemies of God, and there was no relative culpability among them, nor any “proportion” in their destruction. I would note that the “fire” scripture describes was intially created “for the devil and his angels”, who brought this upon themselves by their rebellion.
Is hell a judicial penalty or a royal fiat? Or something else? I think we have a hard time digesting the exercise of power without some sort of legal limitations. It’s so… unAmerican.
Fudge rejects perpetual conscious torment, as not found in Scripture, and instead insists that the damned are punished and then destroyed by God.
I don’t believe that Fudge would characterize his view this way. The punishment is the destruction. Of course, the destructive process may involve varying levels of suffering, but we ought not portray conditionalism as the view that people suffer the real punishment of torment and then are destroyed. This plays right into the hands of the traditionalist who affirms that final punishment is suffering of some sort (as opposed to death), and that conditionalists are therefore in error because they deny the Scriptural teaching of everlasting punishment.
Ronnie,
Fudge sees the lake of fire into which the human damned are cast as allowing for punishment proportional to their sins prior to their final extinction. He contends for a resurrection of the ungodly, but denies that they are immortal. Immortality, in Fudge’s view (and I think he is right), belongs to God and those to whom God grants eternal life. Fudge denies that the wicked are granted the gift of immortality; hence, they will, after appropriate punishment, cease to exist.
I base this on my reading of The Fire That Consumes, other writings of Fudge that are on line, and a seminar that I attended, which Fudge conducted. In that seminar, I had the opportunity to discuss these matters with him, and I believe that I am representing his views fairly.
He does, however, in The Fire That Consumes, make the point that death is the ultimate punishment even in human terms. (Death is a greater punishment than life in prison without parole.) He notes that “eternal punishment” is not the same as “eternal punishing. That is, the punishment is final and everlasting, but the duration of the punishing is finite.
Eternity is beyond our comprehension.
What God will do with souls of His making is beyond us in understanding. God has, does and will continue to do what He wants with our souls and how He punishes and rewards forever.
God has changed His mind before and I’m sure He will again. he is God after all and His thought are beyond our simple minds understanding.
Who knows, he may use our eternal souls to do works and the inhabiting of planets we have never known existed before. What ever it is, I’m positive of one thing, We will be amazed and awed by whatever it is!
Why question?
Jerry, I am well acquainted with Fudge’s views, including his view on human immortality, which I share. I don’t believe that you understood my comment to Charles, with all due respect.
they will, after appropriate punishment, cease to exist.
Again, you’re making sound as if punishment is primarily suffering of some sort. But if this is the case, then punishment comes to an end when the person dies. No, on Fudge’s view, the punishment is the death, which lasts forever.
Regarding whether there is punishment in the afterlife other than the second death, I quote from the recently released 3d edition of The Fire That Consumes, page 161, regarding Luke 12:47-48 —
I don’t see how there can be degrees of punishment if the only punishment is death, unless the process of taking life is itself painful — and there can be degrees of pain.
Nor would I see God as truly being just — by his own standards — if Hitler suffers the same fate as a child older than the age of accountability.
In Luke 12:47-48, “blows” can be interpreted “beatings,” “stripes,” or “floggings.” The punishment Jesus describes is more than “execution.”
Jay, in my very first comment I said, “Of course, the destructive process may involve varying levels of suffering.” Fudge has stated numerous times, in as many places, that levels of guilt and accountability are accounted for in the destructive process. That said, the primary and essential punishment—the eternal punishment—is death itself. This is both the view of Fudge as well as conditionalism in general. Fudge expresses this view explicitly on page 374 of the new edition of TFTC.
My beef with your (and Jerry’s) characterization is that final punishment is seen primarily in terms of pain or suffering. In fact, both of your comments (“punished and then destroyed” and “after appropriate punishment, cease to exist”) make it sound as if the final death isn’t even part of the punishment.
Of course, you’re both free to hold that view. I’m just saying that it isn’t Fudge’s view, and it will open you up to forceful counterarguments from traditionalists. As for the parable in Luke 12, I’m actually not convinced that Jesus is speaking of final punishment there. If Fudge does, then it’s up to him to explain how it fits with his view as stated on page 374. He would probably just say that there is no need to press the details of the parable so literally.
Ronnie,
Thanks for your comment. It’s helpful. The section of The Fire that Consumes you refer to says,
I find nothing there to disagree with.
Thanks Jay, I’m glad we could reach some kind of rapprochement.
Much of what I hear here sounds like “purgatory for the damned”. A variety of beatings followed by the same bullet. This is not intended to mock that view, just trying to arrange it into a more contemporary metaphor.
I disagree with Jay where he rather blithely attributes a single standard of justice to God which demands differential punishment as the final judgment. God was entirely just when he ordered the killing of Amelekite children right along with their parents, entirely just when babes in arms drowned in the flood. He was just not because of how he handled this situation, but because justice is part of his character. If God decided to kill off everyone whose name starts with “C”, this action would be just– because it is HIS. In this, he is no less just than he is when he exacts differential punishment upon people whose sins appear to be of greater or lesser degree. We seem to be able to drop one side of this reality to reinforce the other. Is it paradoxical? Seems so to me. If so, we find wisdom not in choosing one of two competing views, but in better knowing the God who makes such decisions.
Luke 19 paints a picture of Jesus as returning King. While we find differential reward among the king’s servants, we find punishment to be somewhat less straight-line. And we find the death penalty for those whose only attributed sin was to oppose the coronation of the King.
Now, I am not against the gathering of knowledge for its own sake, but I remain curious as to the motivation for coming out against the idea of eternal torment, even if it is wrong. IF our intent is to present to the world a more palatable God, one whose will is more congruent with Western values, with our sense of fairness and morality and justice, I find such a motivation entirely inappropriate. It speaks not of Sinai, but Aaron’s actions at the base of the mountain.
The podcast Theopologetics on ITunes did a series of interviews with Fudge about this view and about the Church of Christ in general last summer. It’s worth checking out if you are a podcast junkie.
Charles,
Please refrain from ad hominem arguments, and questioning motives is as hominem.
I apologize for the personalization, Jay, but it was not intended as an ad hominem argument, but as an honest observation. This particular topic is somewhat singular, IMO, in that it addresses a reality which is completely disconnected from our life decisions, and one which seems mainly about the nature of the character of God. More directly, whether one burns forever or is destroyed in an instant, or something in-between, is not a matter which changes the requirement on the unbeliever to believe upon Jesus Christ for his salvation, nor does it impact the believer’s destiny a bit. In my experience, many discussions on the character of God reveal roots in ourselves and our own values. This is not an accusation, but an admission that some of our questions (and some of our doctrines) are NOT merely objective studies, but a search for some answer which will satisfy our own conflicts of perception. We are uncomfortable with paradox. God is love, but he destroys all who are outside of Christ. God is omnipotent and omniscient, but “time and chance” happen to us all. The common tendency is to tip those scales in the direction most amenable to our existing views.
In the case of discussing the nature of God’s character as it is reflected in his final punishment of those outside Christ, the preconceptions we bring to the study are indeed of some moment. I have served on numerous juries, and as I recall, the attorneys in voir dire asked not that prospective jurors bring no opinions into the courtroom, but sought to determine whether we could recognize them as such, separate them from evidence, and consider the evidence alone in rendering a verdict.
If we cannot even discuss what such preconceptions might be, or how we may find them incomplete and unsatisfactory –or, conversely, so compelling as to be conclusive in our minds– I’m not sure how we are to separate them from the evidence presented. If we cannot make such a differentiation, we are left with either the claim that we are entirely objective men, or that our subjectivity is of no consequence. The former is hard to imagine and harder to prove, and the latter leaves us with “my opinion is just as valid as yours”.
My intent in surfacing this tacit part of the discussion is not to say that my form of subjectivity is superior to anyone else’s or to argue that bringing our preconceptions and values to the table makes us unfit to construct a valid viewpoint. I do suggest that when our preconceptions are non-negotiable, and are treated as fact by silence, that THIS may bear on our ability to draw reasonable conclusions. If some part of the evidence strikes a blow at some deeply-held feeling or belief or personal value, it is only human for us to defend that which we hold dear, most commonly by trying to discredit that which appears to attack something which is such a part of us. How often do we see this reality in other discussions? This is not to accuse anyone of malice or intentional deceit, but it may ask the question, “Just how much contrary evidence would it take for us to question our own views? And why is it that evidence on one hand is easier for me to accept than evidence on the other hand?”
What is better? To endure punishment and suffering for wrongs committed or to be put down like a wounded suffering animal? If we are in suffering mode with no hope of getting better, then being put down or just finally dieing is seen as a “blessing.” We say it all the time at viewings for loved ones (and do it for our pets) who have suffered due to some long term dibilitating illness. ‘They are better off now”, or “they aren’t in pain any longer.”And we say that to both believers and to unbelievers, which I find odd(even though I have said it myself). But to a serial muderer some say lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment. Inhumane! Some however,would say, death is too kind, they should suffer and not get to get out of doing so by dieing. Ah, we are a litle confused.
Which is better, life, even though punished, or death if it brings relief from punishment? To many a criminal, death is seen as the worst possibile punishment. However, some criminals take their own lives rather than face ridicule and punishment for horrible offenses. To them, death is a blessing, or a way out. But is it?
We seem pretty mixed up about death. It’s our enemy, no wait, it’s our best friend. Death is horrible, no, death is a blessing. If there is torture after death for the lost then death brings them no comfort but only a hastened justice. If there is reward for the saved who die(and there is), then death, even though an enemy(the dying process), God works through death to our good. Sort of like Paul with his thorn in the flesh, the thorn was brought by an enemy and was painful but through it God used it to bring a blessing to Paul (humility).
Jesus said that a man should fear not the one who can destroy the body, but fear the one who can destoy “both” body and soul in hell. If the 2nd death is just death part II, (die,wakeup,die again)then why the greater fear for destroying the body “and soul?” If death part II is just “nonexistence” then why the “greater” fear?
No, Jesus makes the argument that death I(destroying the body) is nothing by way of comparison to the destruction of “both” body and soul in hell (death II). It would seem to me that whatever the 2nd death and hell are, it is to be greatly feared and avoided at all cost. Hell, (individual punishment)however long it last in terms of duration, is not freedom from punishment(annilhilation)but is punishment afflicted and weighed out justly.
Jesus taught more on the subject of hell than anyone. He wanted us to avoid that terrible place by receiving His grace and mercy. Jesus taught the alwfulness of hell. As one preacher used to say “we couldn’t possibly make heaven out to be as good as it is in our imaginations, and by the same token, hell is far worse than anything we have the ability to understand.” If there is anything that I have learned in reading my Bible, it is the simple understatement of the narrative.
Hell is scarey stuff, no doubt. I suppose, by the comments of some, the way it was taught, it was used as a way of control and manipulation. That is sad. But to treat it as just another death (like the 1st one) is to lose the meaning of it entirely.
Monty,
If you think that Edward Fudge does not believe there is a hell, you need to read his book. When I first heard something of his “peculiar view,” that is the impression I had – and thought he had “lost it.”
Then I read his book in which he examines what the entire Bible says about the destiny of the wicked – as well as Jewish thinking in the inter-testament period and the writings of the Early Church Fathers. He actually traces the development of man’s thinking about Hell up to the present time.
His research is impressive. He has a high view of Scripture. His conclusions are well-documented. And some highly respected college Bible professors have refused to read his book because “those who read it change their minds about Hell.”
I challenge you to read it, as I get the impression from what you wrote above that those who argue for annihilation of the wicked argue for that ceasing to exist is all the punishment there is for them. Nothing is further from the truth.
Monty,
Jesus said that a man should fear not the one who can destroy the body, but fear the one who can destoy “both” body and soul in hell. If the 2nd death is just death part II, (die,wakeup,die again)then why the greater fear for destroying the body “and soul?” If death part II is just “nonexistence” then why the “greater” fear?
Even though your question was rhetorical, here are two easy answers:
1. Because the first death is only temporary; the second death is permanent.
2. Because the second death is inflicted by God himself. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Final punishment is often likened to being burned to death. I’m not sure why you’re so nonchalant about it.
Ronnie,
No way do I mean to diminish a death by fire. I think about those poor souls who had to make a decision to end there life by jumping off the World Trade Centers on 9-11 rather than suffer the agony of being burned alive and it unnerves me. My main point was that alot of our alternating views of death affect our interpretation of scripture and the punishment of the wicked. Jesus (IMO) presented all of his hearers with a frightening truth, that if you think dying a physical death is bad(causing the fear of him who can instrument it) then by way of comparison fear God. Why? Because he has the power and authority to destroy, not only physical life, but physical and spiritual life,with heavy emphasis perhaps on the spiritual aspect “in hell.” To me this suggest a destination and not just an experience, both adding to the fear factor x 10..
Jerry,
Thanks, I plan on reading it. I admit I don’t know all the views and was not particularly addressing anyone’s view, other than to me, I don’t think the second death is just to be resurrected to be euthanized. Punishment is paying the penalty for wrongs committed. We all know when the punishment doesn’t fit the crime, even though we are bad by way of comparison to God. I don’t believe punishment in hell is one size fits all. All have sinned and fallen short but Jesus said it would be more bearable for some on the day of judgment. Interesting article.
Monty,
Neither does Fudge.
Pingback: Around the Web July | Afterlife
To very many on this earth, hell is real everyday.
Who knows, we may be there now and getting our reward since the difference in our human lives suffering and happiness vary so here.
Will those in hell know they are there or just in a hell like existence?
Will those in heaven know they are there?
Will they know who’s missing since there will be no tears in heaven and there certainly would be if we had loved ones not there.
The thing is we don’t know and I like the old hymn “We’ll all understand it by and by”.