A transcript of this podcast is available. Click here to download the PDF file.

Episode 5: Erasing Hell with Preston Sprinkle

Dr. Preston Sprinkle, co-author of Erasing Hell with Francis Chan, joins RethinkingHell.com contributor Chris Date to discuss why, having leaned toward the traditional view of hell when the book was published, he now finds himself leaning toward conditionalism.

Promoted Resources

Related Posts

Interviews Podcast
Bookmark the permalink.
  • Dr. Preston Sprinkle makes mention of E Earle Ellis. Here is a link to Ellis’ book “Christ and the Future in NT History”, Chapter 14 is “New Testament Teaching on Hell”

  • Pingback: Erasing Hell Review by Jefferson Vann - Afterlife()

  • Pingback: Podcast from RethinkingHell.com - Afterlife()

  • Pingback: Excellent New Conditionalist Resources You Should Know About « Endless Hell Ended()

  • RobertH

    These episodes with Preston Sprinkle, Episodes 5 & 6 are by far the best podcasts an annihilationist should or could show to someone who is securely in the historic camp of eternal conscious punishment.

    • RobertH

      I just want to reiterate this point by making a second post. I am somewhat antagonistic and a lot unsympathetic towards this view and so sometimes the people (yes I know that is not a correct connection) but in these episodes I felt we had genuine dialogue and a real conversation. In my opinion these are your best podcasts by far, Chris.

      • Chris Date

        Thank you, Robert, I sincerely appreciate that!

  • Cindy Skillman

    I enjoyed the interview and intend to listen to the subsequent one. The conversation was courteous and the points well made. That said, I’ve gone through this and into the actual GOOD news ;) but maybe this will be a way point for you all as well. Loads and loads of respect for Dr. Sprinkles for his intellectual honesty. It’s important to keep our hearts open to the Holy Spirit and to the possibility that we MAY be wrong about some of the things we “know.”

  • Pingback: Why The Modern Version of the Eternal Torment Doctrine Falls Short | Rethinking Hell()

  • Pingback: Matthew 25:46 Does Not Prove Eternal Torment – Part 2 | Rethinking Hell()

  • Pingback: If Eternal Conscious Torment in Hell is Biblical then Prove It | Sheffield Chapel()

  • Dr. Robert Morey

    I wrote Death and the After Life, used in over 15 seminaries as the major textbook on the biblical and historical basis of eternal torment of the lost, and a refutation of annihilationism and universalism. The connection between annihilatinism and the Campbellite Church of Christ cult, Fudge and other leaders in the movement needs to be pointed out. Their connection to the SDA cult (Froom) is also interesting. I have offered to debate the leaders of both annihilationism and universalism, but not one of them has the guts to take me on in a public debate. Sprinkle is interesting because his college’s statement of faith denies annihilationism and universalism and affirms the historic Christian view. How he can teach there with a clear conscious is amazing.
    “We believe that after death, the souls of unbelievers remain in conscious misery
    until the Second Resurrection when they shall appear at the Great White Throne
    Judgment and shall be cast into the Lake of Fire, not to be annihilated, but to
    suffer everlasting, conscious punishment (Luke 16:19-26; Matthew 25:41-46; II
    Thessalonians 1:7-9; Jude vv.6-7; Mark 9:43-48; Revelation 20:11-15).”
    Statement of Faith for Eternity Bible College.

    • Peter Grice

      Hi Dr. Morey. I believe your book is called “Death and the Afterlife.” From what I’ve been told it was popular when it came out in 1984, but as far as I can tell it’s not still in print (Amazon.com only has used copies). Has it been revised to engage with the contemporary literature? I believe Fudge has responded to your criticisms in his third edition of “The Fire That Consumes,” which is endorsed by such leading Bible scholars as Richard Bauckham as you would know (himself an annihilationist, or according to your lights, a “heretic,” along with the likes of John Stott, I. Howard Marshall and a host of other celebrated leaders called “honored evangelicals” by J.I. Packer). In various internet forums you’re known to portray your work as the go-to “refutation” of the collective arguments of our movement, but with the greatest of respect, there have been more substantial criticisms published in the last 30+ years, such as the collaboration, “Hell Under Fire,” with which we are engaging. Many evangelicals have educated themselves in the debate these days, and are considering the best available literature. But the reason that the movement continues to grow within the global evangelical church isn’t because evangelicals haven’t read your book or ours. In the final analysis, they’re changing their minds because they’re reading God’s book, and seeing for themselves what it clearly teaches.

      As for engagement with you, personally, I’m only aware of the one occasion, which was accepted at our end in a public forum, where you chose not to follow up. We did receive your written offer by other means, but it had become clear that it wouldn’t be a Christ-honoring exchange, nor wise stewardship of financial resources, so we chose not to pursue it. We were able to determine this because you stated that you wanted to go to our conference so you could “rumble” with “ass-kissers and spineless theologians,” and because your debate proposal was belligerent and one-sided (eg., “If the heretic wants a radio debate, he must fly me to the city where station is located, pay for the motel, meals, and give me a honorarium.”). Portraying this as a serious “offer” requiring nothing more than the criterion of “guts” is an unfortunate approach, sorry to say. We do not see it displayed in the church today, so thankfully it seems part of a bygone era. At Rethinking Hell we remain wide open to engaging with our critics going forward, and have a good track record thus far of doing so.

    • Glenn Peoples

      I remember that book. The foreword begins with “If a man die, shall he live again?” The quote is then attributed to Ecclesiastes (it’s from Job). It was an interesting way for things to get started.

      Even proponents of the doctrine of eternal torment (e.g. Robert Peterson) list this book in a footnote when commenting on the sort of arguments one should not use (in that case it was the guilt by association fallacy involving Jehovah’s Witnesses). I can’t think of a single proponent of that doctrine today who commends the book Death and the Afterlife as a scholarly resource. With respect, the reason annihilationists would be disinclined to debate you, Dr Morey, is that they think your book is an indicator of where pro-eternal-torment evangelical writing was at in the early 80s but it serves little other purpose.

      Even your appeals to Scripture in this comment are good indicators of why the arguments in the book are not well regarded. As a proof text for “everlasting, conscious punishment” You cite Luke 16, the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, which even if it were an actual history, is not about an eternal state but Hades. You also cite 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9, which refers not to the torment of the lost but rather to their destruction. How superficial the claims to biblical faithfulness heard from proponents of eternal torment have turned out to be over the years!

Featured audio: Dr. Al Mohler & Chris Date debate
"Should Christians rethink Hell?" on Unbelievable?