Rethinking Hell contributors William Tanksley and Darren Clark join Chris Date to critique Greg Koukl and Tim Barnett’s article series at Stand to Reason called “Hell Interrupted.” This episode contains part 4 of their discussion; the next episode will contain the final installment of the series.
Rethinking Hell contributors William Tanksley and Darren Clark join Chris Date to critique Greg Koukl and Tim Barnett’s article series at Stand to Reason called “Hell Interrupted.” This episode contains part 3 of their discussion; the next one or two episodes will contain the remainder of the series.
Rethinking Hell contributors William Tanksley and Darren Clark join Chris Date to critique Greg Koukl and Tim Barnett’s article series at Stand to Reason called “Hell Interrupted.” This episode contains part 2 of their discussion; the next two or three episodes will contain the remainder of the series.
Rethinking Hell contributors William Tanksley and Darren Clark join Chris Date to critique Greg Koukl and Tim Barnett’s article series at Stand to Reason called “Hell Interrupted.” This episode contains part 1 of their discussion; the next two, three, or four episodes will contain the remainder of the series.
Does annihilationism mean that people cease to exist? The fact is, there are often two different meanings of existence and the ceasing thereof at play when this question arises. For that reason, it is important that we define our terms and not equivocate. The First Definition The first idea involves a sort of brute, cosmic obliteration that destroys even the atoms a person was made of. Annihilationism does not necessarily deny this sort of ceasing to exist per se, but at the very least, this sense of complete annihilation is not necessary for evangelical conditionalism or annihilationism to be true.
In my article Perish the Thought: How John 6 and 11 Challenge the Traditionalist Reading of John 3:16, I demonstrate that John 3:16’s phraseology of “eternal life” and “perish” teaches that only believers will live forever, while all others will die. I examine John 6 and 11 to strengthen my exegesis of John 3:16 because those are two sections in the narrative where Jesus explains further what he meant to convey in that famous verse. In those chapters Jesus speaks about the kind of life believers will be given, and simply employs the same language he uses in surrounding contexts to refer to ordinary life and death (John 6:49-51, 58; 11:25-26). For John 3 and John 6 I show that Jesus drew from historical and tangible examples from the Israelite experience of being protected from death (John 3:14-16 cf. Num 21:4-9; John 6:22-59 cf. Exod 16:16-21). I also explain how Jesus’ terms “eternal life” and “perish” relate to the death and resurrection of Lazarus in John 11. The purpose of this current article is to provide a supplementary argument to fortify my previous argument about what Jesus meant in John 6:49-51 and 11:25-26, where he taught that believers will not die. In particular, I have in mind the use of the verb ἀποθνήσκω (“to die”) as it is used in John 6:50 and 11:26. I will then demonstrate how this impacts our reading of two similar statements made by Jesus, in similar contexts in John’s narrative.
At Rethinking Hell we’re not exactly Pentecostal. Then again, we’re not exactly not Pentecostal! Evangelical is exactly what we are, and that covers both bases. But among Pentecostals in particular, the name Charles Fox Parham commands a degree of respect. He is known as “The father of modern Pentecostalism,” having been the main initiator of the movement and its first real influencer. It was his student, William Seymour, who established the famous Azusa Street Mission. Parham would soon become critical of what he saw as emotional excesses at Azusa Street, which led to a growing rift between the two. Seymour’s influence kept rising, while Parham’s dwindled.
Recent Comments