I would argue that it is not in fact the best way to understand Jesus’ words here.  I present here the explanation I offered my friend.   Forgive whatever typos and misspellings I failed to correct before posting.  First, the question:

I was listening to Greg Laurie on the way to work. He said the reason he believes in an eternal Hell is because the same word is used to describe heaven. He didn’t reference any verses, but it got me thinking…would it be possible to use the same principles of interpretation to challenge the traditional view of heaven along with the traditional view of hell?

And my response:

I don’t think so. Here’s the difference: eternal on the heaven side is describing life – a state of existence, implying a conscious being to experience it. On the opposite end, we don’t have a single, explicit statement in Scripture that links Eternal + Torment. Anywhere. Eternal is used to describe a couple things: punishment (Matt. 25:46)and  fire (Matt. 18:8), but never to describe the experience of torment.

I think one of the best cases is made considering the “state of being” nouns: destrucTION vs. destroying, punishMENT vs. punishING, etc. The same can be said of the salvaTION, redempTION, justificaTION and judgMENT. If we are to understand eternal punishment as a continual, ongoing process, will we demand the same thing of an eternal salvation? Are we forever being saved or is that a state of being conditioned upon a past decision and accomplished by a past work of Christ?

Also, consider this argument I just ran across in a recent debate: Is God a just God? So is He going to make sure justice is accomplished? But in the traditional view, He never really GETS justice because He’s always just chasing after it by continuing the torment of the damned. A million years into the bliss of heaven, God will be no closer to exacting true justice than He was on the day of judgment. At least in our limited understanding of justice and using our limited system of justice as a comparison, justice is never served until the sentence given has been finally satisfied. That’s not possible in the eternal hell argument, but I admit this argument has limited merit since it draws on imprecise parallels.

Ask Mr. Laurie or anyone else to find one explicit statement where the doctrine of eternal conscious torment is taught and they will only ever give you a pile of “destruction” verses wherein they’ve completely redefined destruction to mean eternal life, but in a morbid, wretched sense. The best of the best have been asked; the best of the best have failed to deliver.

Listen to any of the last four Theopologetics podcasts and see for yourself how weak the answers are in either dialog (episodes 62 and 63) or debate (episodes 64 and 65). I think you’d be thoroughly unimpressed with the traditionalist answers.

We die, we’re buried, we wait, we’re resurrected, we’re judged. Some will experience everlasting life (which is explicit and clear) and others will go on to the second death in the lake of fire where they will be consumed. The fire is eternal because it issues forth from the only eternal source. It needs no fuel and requires no kindling. It certainly isn’t dependent (as traditionalists say) on bodies for fuel!

Sorry about that response. I know you only asked about the parallel limiting the duration of heaven based on the duration of hell, but I believe the answer lies in a proper understanding of the fate of each of those groups consigned to their respective destinations. Before we talk duration, what is the PURPOSE? In heaven it is to restore us to what we were intended to be – eternal and in fellowship with God, but forfeit in the garden. In hell God has reserved a spot to meet out justice on the finally impenitent…where their destruction will last forever and will never be reversed. (exit, stage left: any possibility of universalism being true). But there I go again getting started all over.

So now, I ask you the reader to consider the challenge AND the answer.  I promise to go where the Biblical evidence leads and to take at face value, words that the context does not demand we redefine.  I’d simply ask you to do the same.  And as always, I await and hope for your thoughtful remarks.  Blessings on you as you pursue the truth.

In my first post, I did not defend my position as an annihilationist, nor did I offer any texts that I believe teach the doctrine of hell the way I have come to view it.  Rather, I  just introduced a few options and stated which one I hold to.  That was all I intended to do, but now I will being to unpack my thinking on the subject and hopefully, if I do not convince you to become an annihilationist yourself, you will at least entertain the view as a coherent and (much more the effort) a Biblical one.

This post will again disappoint the reader who is looking for a succinct defense of the annihilationist view of hell.  Before I can convince you of this view, I have to begin to deconstruct the view you’ve been all but programmed to think is Biblical.  Those of you who read the first post will recall that I myself was a card-carrying member of the traditionalist fellowship until only recently – my first REAL study of the doctrine of hell at all.  In this post, I will begin attacking the literal conception of hell as a difficult, if not impossible thing to imagine.

To begin, I must survey the lexical landscape of the Bible as it refers to this “place.”  My survey will use the KJV for a couple of reasons.  First of all, the King James Version has had a more profound impact on the English speaking world to date than any other translation of the Scriptures.  Second, and more to the point with this study, I believe its translators conflated some terms that ought to have remained distinct.  The word “hell” appears 54 times in the KJV.  Of those 54 occurrences, 31 are in the Old Testament translating the Hebrew word sheol and 23 are in the New Testament.  The New Testament of the KJV translates two different Greek words as hell, the first being hades (the Greek N.T. equivalent of the O.T. sheol) and the second being Gehenna.  So, in total, we have the English word “hell” in the Bible coming to us from three different ancient words – two of which (sheol/hades) are all but synonymous.

Sheol was simply an ancient reference to the place of the departed; it was used to refer to the realm of the dead…the grave.  This is not to say that the word only and ever meant “the grave,” but this definition certainly dominates its use in the Old Testament.  It ought to be obvious enough just from the brief explanation here that we should not confuse this concept with that of the final punishment of the wicked, but in case you were tempted to see this term as some sort of euphemism for the lake of fire, we see the righteous going there after death as well.  So, of the 65 times sheol occurs in the Hebew Old Testament and more specifically the 31 times the KJV renders it “hell,” we have little license to conjure up Dante’s medieval depiction of a place of fiery torment.  We turn now to the New Testament to aid us in our search for the “literal hell.”

I’ll start with hades since, as I said, it is the Greek New Testament equivalent of the Old Testament Hebrew sheol.  It appears ten times in the NT: Mattew 11:23; 16:18; Luke 10:15; 16:23; Acts 2:27,31; Revelation 1:18; 6:8; 20:13,14.  If hades is the equivalent of sheol, I suppose no further explanation is necessary to convince the reader that hades is no help in our quest for a literal picture of hell.  But I’m no scholar, so don’t take my word for it.  Here’s what Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Theology says:

“ [Hades] is virtually synonymous with the Hebrew Sheol, the placename of the abode of the dead. Thus the word has in itself no doctrine of reward or punishment…”

A possible exception is granted for its use in Luke 16, but we’ll save that for another post when I begin to look at individual “proof” texts for the doctrine of eternal, conscious torment.

Finally, we come to the Greek word Gehenna.  This word occurs twelve times in the New Testament: Matthew 5:22; 5:29; 5:30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15; 23:33; Mark 9:43; 9:45; 9:47; Luke 12:5; James 3:6.  Though this word is used to speak of final punishment, we have no less difficulty concerning its literalness.  You see, the word is actually a proper noun – that probably ought not be translated at all and in many modern translations is not.  The reason it ought not be translated is that it refers to a geographic location – the Valley of Hinnom.  This place was well known in first century Judaism as a valley southwest of Jerusalem where refuse was burned continually.  It is used euphemistically in the New Testament to describe the fate that awaits the wicked after final judgment.  LITERALLY speaking, if we are to insist on a literal understanding of hell, we must imagine that countless millions of souls will be deposited just outside Jerusalem after the final judgment.  But I suppose that isn’t what most people have in mind when they demand a “literal” view of hell.

The aim of this post was, again, not to defend my view of hell just yet.  It was to try to get the reader to think more critically about things they may have just taken for granted.  The next time you are tempted to chide the “liberal” Christian who might deny a literal view of the lake of fire, ask yourself if YOU believe in a literal lake of fire given our brief survey of the concept.  It may well be that the “liberal” you suppose is trying to undermine the Biblical teaching of hell has spent considerably more time with the Scriptures on this important doctrine than you have.  And surprise, surprise, I don’t necessarily DENY a literal hell, either, I’m just not sure it’s accurately represented by the image you conjure up when the word “hell” is uttered.

Now that the bulk of the chatter over Rob Bell’s book has begun to die down, I think it’s time to address not Rob Bell or his universalism, but the response that mainline Christianity has given.  I’ve seen all kinds of videos posted in response and blog articles written – many of which shed no more light on the subject of hell than Rob Bell did with his endless question-asking.

Let me start by saying that I think Rob Bell asked a lot of good questions.  I think his responses left much to be desired, but it showed at least on his part an honesty with the difficulties he has over the traditional view of hell.  He asked tough, candid questions that most of us prefer to ignore.  But ignoring them doesn’t make them go away!  And are we any better Christians for not asking them ourselves and trying to wrestle with the Biblical data?  Or is the traditional view of hell something we just hold as one of the tenets of the Christian faith so there’s nothing more to say?

I began reading the Bible a few years back as if I had never read it before.  I tried (as best I could) to lay aside presuppositions and traditional baggage.  NOT (and please hear me on this) because I thought those traditions were inherently wrong OR because I simply wanted to rock the boat, BUT because I EARNESTLY WANTED TO PURSUE THE TRUTH FOR MYSELF.  I hope that is how you read your Bible.  Often those who most loudly proclaim the Bible as their authority are the most guilty of simply taking something for granted that has been assigned the label of “Orthodoxy: Do not Tamper.”  The traditional view of hell is one of those that I think, largely because it is such a horrible thing to think about, has been left un-tampered with.  Allow me to do a little tampering.

If you’re unfamiliar with the discussion at large, the traditional view of hell is also known as “eternal, conscious torment.”  It pretty much posits an eternal punishing in a “lake of fire” in contrast to the eternal bliss experienced by believers.  From ancient times, this place of punishment has been somewhat literally depicted by church fathers and commentators as a physical reality of pain that never subsides.  I’ll spare you the quotes on an article that is going to be long enough already without adding endless quotations to the mix.  Simply look up early church views on hell and you will be provided with endless ghastly depictions and attempts to describe what hell will be like.

So, you may be wondering, isn’t the traditional view the only view allowed by the Biblical data?  You may be surprised to hear that many scholars declare quite emphatically, “NO!”  So what are the options?  Well, in contrast to the traditional view there are those, like Rob Bell, who adhere to a form of universalism.  A strict universalism would claim that “all roads lead to God.”  Just pick your path, and it will get you there, because Jesus is reconciling all things to himself.  Rob Bell seems to hold to a slightly modified view where not everyone will end up in bliss because not everyone will ever (even at the threat of hell’s flames or the for the fear of God) choose to be redeemed.  In this case, the hinge-pin is really choice.  In this view some will actually be lost, but not because they never heard the Gospel or responded to it, but because in the end, they still refused to be reconciled to God.  Universalism is generally regarded as heretical, but does at least make use of some texts of Scripture to make their case.  Rob Bell softens the heresy and for that, we’ll give him a small “h” rather than calling him a full-blown (big “H”) Heretic and tying him to the proverbial stake.

These are not the only alternatives to a literal, traditional view of hell, however.  The reader might be surprised to hear that solid, Evangelical scholars differ on some particulars about how to read the Bible’s teaching on this doctrine.  In fact, this doctrine was treated in one of Zondervan’s “Viewpoint” books entitled Four Views on Hell.  It was edited by William Crocket who is, incidentally, one of the authors of the four views in question.  In order of appearance in the book, the four views are (1) The Traditional (and quite literal) view of hell, espoused by John Walvoord; (2) The Metaphorical view of hell espoused by William Crocket;  (3) The Purgatorial view of hell defended by Zachary Hayes;  and (3) The Conditional view of hell embraced by Clark Pinnock.  For the sake of brevity, I will refrain from diving too deeply into any of these views, but my main point here is that the views are many and more diverse than most Christians realize.

Before I get into what view I hold to (which I hold tentatively), I want to take a moment to let you know that I grew up embracing the Traditional view of hell.  I certainly didn’t like it, but I believed the Bible taught it and so, to be faithful to Scripture, I held it and defended it if the topic came up.  The fact is, I was unaware until only recent years, that there were other views of hell on the table.  I suppose this is because hell does not make for a pleasant discussion and admittedly, the Biblical data is less than we would like to have, but certain verses seem to juxtapose the eternal existence of a believer’s soul in bliss with the likewise eternal existence of the unbeliever’s soul in torment (stay tuned for treatment of each of those passages in upcoming articles).  So, I held unswervingly to the traditional view until only a recent time.

So, what view do I hold?  Not just yet.  I need to address one more thing before I continue.  It is because of my commitment to pursue truth and influence others to do the same that I urge you once again, to allow the Bible to speak for itself.  Read God’s Word as if you have never read it before and do your best to derive your beliefs solely from what it says.  Notice I’m not telling you that you need to go read this guy or that guy or watch this video or that to be convinced.  That is because I really do believe in Sola Scritpura while I believe some others simply like the force that the claim might give to their argument. Unfortunately, while I know that my pursuit in this is TRUTH, it is often alleged that those who hold to my position do so because the “Biblical” view of hell is too hard to accept.  It is said that people like me go to the Bible looking for something else to believe about hell because the grim reality is just too much to bear.  Now, I will readily admit that I do think the picture of hell as viewed through traditional lenses is a very terrible thing – but so is sin against a holy God.  God is God and I am not.  He can do with us as He sees fit and He can do with the finally impenitent what He sees fit.  My question is, “What does God tell us He will do with the finally impenitent?”

Well, I believe that a strong Biblical case can be made (though I still hold it tentatively) for the view Clark Pinnock defends in the aforementioned viewpoints book called the “Conditional View.”  It is also been called the “Conditional Immortality View” and perhaps is best known as the “Annihilationist” view.  This view would posit that the ultimate end of those finally unrepentant souls is utter extinction.  It emphasizes the thematic view throughout the Bible on the final end of the wicked which is “death” or “destruction.”  This end is often held in contrast to the fate awaiting believers – eternal life – and would be the more natural opposite of eternal life.  It is the curse of Genesis 3 on mankind for having rebelled against God.  It was God’s intention that He fellowship with His creation in perfect harmony, but that program was interrupted by mankind’s first sin.  The result – the ideal, eternal existence of communion and fellowship with God was set aside and death entered our world.  No sense of immortality for the sake of eternal torment was expressed in the Old Testament, and none will be found if sought.  It would not be until the New Testament was written that Biblical support for eternal, conscious torment would seem to surface.  And addressing those texts will have to await further posts on the subject.

For now, I am interested in your thoughts.  Many, I believe, would be convinced annihilationists if not for the sheer weight and force of tradition.  It is not something I overturn lightly and something that only the Biblical data can force me to do.  In this case, I have no other choice, because my conscience does not allow me to continue to believe or teach something I do not believe the Bible to teach.

Before you rush to the defense of “orthodoxy” to save me from heresy, I want you to consider that perhaps you have not given quite enough time to this important doctrine to draw such bold conclusions.  Further, consider the fact that many of your favorite Bible teachers may also be open to views other than the traditional view (ever heard of F.F. Bruce, John Wenham, D.A. Carson?  They don’t all share my view, but they all hold to something other than the traditional view).  Like I said, I hold this position tentatively.  Should a better case be brought to my attention for another view that does the Scriptures more justice, I would gladly change my position.  Before you send me links to books or articles that I should read, however, I will provide a partial list of publications and resources that have informed my thinking on this subject.  Perhaps that article you thought would change my mind is already in the list.  Here it is:

Articles:

(1984) Edward Fudge* “The Final End of the Wicked”

(1990) Clark Pinnock* “The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent”

(1991) James Brandyberry* “Important Forgotten History: The Roots of Opposition to Conditionalism”

(1991) Alan Gomes: “Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell, Part One; Part Two

(1994) Alan Linfield:  “Sheep and Goats: Current Evangelical Thought of the Nature of Hell and the Scope of Salvation”

(1994) Robert Peterson – “A Traditionalist Response to John Stott’s Arguments for Annihilationism”

(1997) Robert Peterson – “Basil Atkinson: A Key Figure for Twentieth-Century Evangelical Annihilationism”

(1997) J.I. Packer: “Evangelical Annihilationism in Review”

(1998) Jeff Spencer: “The Destruction of Hell: Annihilationism Examined”

(1998) Samuele Bacchiocchi* “A Biblical View of Human Nature”

(1999) Samuele Bacchiocchi  “Survival of the Soul: A Historical Glimpse of the Belief in the Survival of the Soul”

(1999) Samuele Bacchiocchi  “Hell: Eternal Torment or Annihilation?”

(1999) Samuele Bacchiocchi  “The State of the Dead”

(1999) Robert Peterson  “Does the Bible Teach Annihilationism?”

(1999) Norman Geisler  “Annihilationism” (excerpt from Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics)

(2001) William E. Arp – “Tormented or Terminated?”

(2007) Glenn Peoples* “Fallacies in the Annihiationism Debate: A Critique of Robert Peterson and other Traditionalist Scholarship”

(2007) Robert Peterson  “Fallacies in the Annihilationism Debate? A Response to Glenn Peoples”

(?) J.P. Holding: “An Examination of Annihilationism”

Books:

Crockett, William V. Four Views on Hell. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996. Print.

Edwards, David L., and John R. W. Stott. Evangelical Essentials: a Liberal-evangelical Dialogue. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1989. Print.

Fudge, Edward, and Robert A. Peterson. Two Views of Hell: a Biblical & Theological Dialogue. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. Print.

Fudge, Edward. The Fire That Consumes: a Biblical and Historical Study of Final Punishment. Houston, TX: Providential, 1982. Print.

Morgan, Christopher W., and Robert A. Peterson. Hell under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004. Print.

Peterson, Robert A. Hell on Trial: the Case for Eternal Punishment. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 1995. Print.

Wenham, John William. The Goodness of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1974. Print.

Audio:

Steve Gregg: Three Views of Hell Part One; Part Two

Glenn Peoples: Postive Case for Annihilationism

Hell, Part Two: Tradition Strikes Back

Hell, Part Three

Video:

Edward Fudge Origin of Traditional Hell

The Fire That Consumes

Greg Boyd Thoughts on Eternal Punishment

I now eagerly await your responses.  God bless you in your pursuit of truth,

Note: If you are having difficulty reading this article, we have a PDF copy available.

For reasons I don’t entirely understand, the recent passing of Pastor David Wilkerson of Times Square Church in New York has consumed my thoughts.  I’ve already posted several items on my Facebook page in regard to his passing and am now reading his autobiography (of sorts – it’s more about those he ministered to) The Cross and the Switchblade.  It’s sort of odd – up until now I would have said that I have been much more impacted by the man who succeeded him as Senior Pastor at Times Square Church, Pastor Carter Conlon. I really didn’t know that much about Pastor Wilkerson at all.  What a deficit to have known so little about this man of God!  He is now making a massive impact on my life even after he has gone to be with the Lord.
For many of you, David Wilkerson may not be your theological “cup of tea.”  I myself am not Pentecostal (but not entirely convinced by cessationist arguments, either) and might differ on some (possibly many) of the theological positions he took in life.  You and I may prefer exegesis to experience and I am convinced that the former is much more reliable than the latter.  But does that preclude the relevance of experience in the life of the Christian?  Do we take seriously the role of the Holy Spirit in our own walk?

Allow me to recommend that you get more acquainted with the life and ministry of a man that did take (very) seriously the role of the Holy Spirit in his life.  David Wilkerson believed in the power of God to answer prayer.  He took seriously the idea that we have not because we ask not.  He worked on a practical level, but expected God to be faithful on the spiritual level and provide for his every need.  On nearly every page of his book, I have been amazed by the specific petitions made to God and the expectation of specific answers.  From the meager funding of his first trips to New York to the purchasing of a building in Brooklyn for troubled youth, this man of God didn’t have the proverbial two cents to accompany the lint in his pocket, but possessed the faith to move mountains.  He wasn’t always sure of where he was going, but he was sure he wouldn’t be alone on the journey.
I believe God is using my recent encounter with Pastor Wilkerson and his ministry to temper my own walk and ministry.  Theology and Bible teaching can become (if we allow it) such a heady pursuit that we lose the heart that initially motivated the head to get equipped in the first place!  I don’t want that for myself or for you.  I want to find the proper balance between head knowledge and heart knowledge and to allow both of those to be directed by Holy Spirit sensitivity.
Would you know…in his final blog post, Pastor Wilkerson touched on the inevitability of death and offered comforting words to those facing hard times:

Death seems inevitable. Hope is gone. The miracle prayed for is not happening…To those going through the valley and shadow of death, hear this word: Weeping will last through some dark, awful nights—and in that darkness you will soon hear the Father whisper, “I am with you. I cannot tell you why right now, but one day it will all make sense. You will see it was all part of my plan. It was no accident. It was no failure on your part. Hold fast. Let me embrace you in your hour of pain.”

Beloved, God has never failed to act but in goodness and love. When all means fail—his love prevails. Hold fast to your faith. Stand fast in his Word. There is no other hope in this world.

Even in his final words, the Holy Spirit was offering comfort for those who would be mourning his death….a race well run, even through the final lap.  Thank God for his example.  Now, let us go and do likewise.

Note:  If you’re having trouble reading this article, please download our PDF version

Every couple years I hear a song that seems to speak directly and specifically to an issue in my spiritual life.  When I was confused about my calling to ministry and what that might eventually look like (and the confusion still lingers), Sanctus Real’s “Whatever You’re Doing” seemed to strike a chord and describe the way I was feeling.  The same band came out with a song in March of last year on their “Pieces of a Real Heart” album entitled “Lead Me.” This particular song spoke to my tendency to get so wrapped up in my calling and preparation for it that I forgot about how important it was to not leave my family “in the dust.”

More recently, I heard a song (as yet unreleased) by one of my favorite bands, Downhere, entitled “Let Me Rediscover You.”  When this single is released for purchase (I believe next month) it will no doubt have the same impact on others as it has had on me.  The title suggests the main tenor of the song (no musical pun intended).  Just as in our human relationships, familiarity can breed (if not contempt) a sort of dull, dispassionate regard.  The same is true of our relationship with God.  I refer especially to those, like me, who are involved in some sort of ministry, particularly a teaching ministry that requires many hours of study.  Over the course of those necessary hours, we can become cold, often treating the Bible like a text book rather than the life-giving Word of God.

I know the feeling of a blazing fire in your soul for the things of God and, unfortunately, I know the feeling of a cold, lifeless, going-through-the-motions kind of Christianity.  Lately I have been hovering somewhere between the two and have made a focus of my prayer life a rekindling of the fire I once knew.  This song has given musical expression to that prayer and has become my prayer – as I’m listening to it or even as the lyrics linger throughout the day.

Let me urge you – especially if you are in ministry, to make this your prayer.  Those of us who spend hours a week considering issues of a theological or apologetic nature are more likely to grow cold and dispassionate.  When I start recognizing that trend in my life, I make a point of putting the books down, locking myself in my office and spending more time in worship.  This song has helped me to do just that.  Consider the lyrics and read along as you listen to the video on YouTube.

Your spirit hovers over my waters

Your love burns longer than the sun

The skies of thunder echo you wonder

Your praises can’t be over – sung

The whole Universe is witness

To only a part of what you’ve done

So let me rediscover you

And breathe in me your life anew

Tell me of the God I never knew

Oh, let me rediscover you

You see my weakness, my pride, my blindness

You wield your power through them all

Of all the mysteries, still, the greatest to me

Is that you’re faithful when I fall

How can I say I know you

When what I know is still so small?

Let me rediscover you and breathe in me your life anew

Tell me of the God I never knew

Oh, let me rediscover you

Let me cry “holy, holy, holy”

Let me awaken to your majesty

And see a glimmer of your glory

Let me abide in you

let me rediscover you

and by your grace I’ll follow through

reveal to me the God I thought I knew

let me rediscover you

And breathe in me your life anew

Tell me of the God I never knew

And let me rediscover you

Oh, let me rediscover you

Tell me of the God I never knew

Jesus, let me rediscover you.

Anyway, my intention is not to review the book.   Joe will likely be tackling that soon enough so I’ll move out of the way and let him take care of that.  For now I thought it might be good to link to several good reviews of the book that are already out there as well as some audio/video resources that are also freely available to you.  Let me close this short post with this caution – If you like Rob Bell’s views on heaven and hell and think he’s on to something…fine.  Read his book, look up the passages he cites and consider his interpretation of those texts.  BUT, in addition to doing that, consider the vast numbers of those (actual scholars) who take issue with his interpretation and give them an ear as well.  Truth is not ours to mold or shape to our liking, but to pursue as objectively as humanly possible.

Written Reviews

Tim Challies

Kevin DeYoung (long) PDF Copy

Roger E. Olson

Timothy C. Tennent (President of Asbury Theological Series) four-part review

Audio/Video

Dr. Michael Brown Responds

James White Responds on Youtube

First, a little bit about the author:  David Berlinski was born in 1942 (in the U.S.)  to German-born refugees.  He received his PhD. in philosophy from Princeton University and has since held teaching positions at Columbia, Rutgers and Stanford.  He is currently a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute – the leading think-tank of the Intelligent Design movement.  And this is where things get interesting – most fellows at the Discovery Institute are committed theists.  Berlinski is not.  He was raised in a Jewish home and trained in that system of belief.  He no longer holds to that faith and now describes himself as a “Secular Jew.”

A known ciritic of Darwinian Evolution, David Berlinski has been criticized by many of his academic peers for not toeing the line, so to speak.  Having no intellectual residence with the atheist wing of the science department, and yet not embracing the main tenet of his fellows at Discovery (namely, a particulary Detiy), Berlinski is, to my mind, quintessentially objective, so much as anyone can be objective, in this field.  To sum it all up, he seems to have no irons in the fire and no axe to grind.

So what of his new(ish) book, The Devil’s Delusion???  Well, the book is not specifically an attack on Darwinism, or even a direct assault on atheism (keep in mind he himself is an agnostic).  The main contention of his book seems rather what the subtitle suggests – that scientific inquiry while posited as in some way underlying a conclusion of atheism, is not warranted.  Really this book is a response to a movement, rather than a system of thought.  It’s almost religious in nature…and that’s the irony.  Those with whom Berlinski is contending (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennet) would no doubt claim to be the most irreligious men on the planet.  But their passion for religious denial is simply none other than…well…religious.

Writing in a constant stream of quotable quotes, I’ve quipped to others that this book is one of those which, if you were prone to underlining or highlighting, you’d be better off finding a vat of highlighter ink and dipping the whole book in – it’s really THAT good.  At times the language gets pretty technical, and, to be honest, I would have had to take much longer to read it if I were to understand everything in it.  But the basic concepts were understandable and that is what systems of thinking are built on – basic foundations that give rise to eventual conclusions.  What I most liked about Berlinski’s style was that he was clearly a logical thinker.  But often a logical thinker is not always a very articulate person and hence, while they may be thinking and speaking the truth, are unable to be very convincing when relaying that truth to someone else.  Berlinski has achieved both ends.  He thinks with air-tight logic that just seems to flow effortlessly into articulate prose.  On page after page, he dismantles the scientific pretensions that are supposed to under-gird the new atheist movement and show the men that espouse those pretensions for what they are – grumpy men with a bone to pick.

If for no other reason than objectivity, I would recommend this book to anyone and everyone – Christians, non-Christians, Atheists, Agnostics.  If our fundamental pursuit is truth (and really is truth, not just evidence-picking to promote our presuppositions) then what better type of author than one who stands firmly in the middle ground – unconvinced by either side of the debate?  I’ve told people before that I believe David Berlinski is the man the new atheist movement wishes did not exist.  It’s easy to pick on a devout Jew or Christian and say “you’re spiritual goggles don’t allow you to see clearly.”  But when the man is wearing no goggles at all, that mode of attack is not left open to them.  So, I say again, if for no other reason than to gain a mediating view of these issues, please read the book.  I’m sure you’ll be stretched, challenged, impressed and enriched from having done so.

Download a PDF copy of this article