Refuting the (Astrophysicist) Critics, Part 2: When Astrophysicists Psychologize

 
Like many apologists for eternal torment, traditionalist Jason Lisle insists that conditionalists reject eternal torment for psychological reasons. “The idea of an eternity in hell is so offensive to many people,” he writes, “that they refuse to believe it. Instead, they choose to believe” in annihilationism.¹Jason Lisle, “The Good News About Hell,” Biblical Science Institute [blog], February 14, 2020, https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/theology/the-good-news-about-hell/; emphasis added. We “desperately want to deny the reality of an eternal hell,” he suggests, “because it is so unpleasant.”²Ibid.; emphasis added. Lisle attributes belief in conditionalism to “a tendency to minimize how heinous our sin really is.”³Jason Lisle, “Denying Eternity,” Biblical Science Institute [blog], January 2, 2023, https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/theology/denying-eternity/. He is absolutely adamant: rejecting eternal torment “is always due to emotional preferences, not biblical exegesis.”⁴Ibid.; italics in original. It’s difficult to imagine a clearer example of what C. S. Lewis called “Bulverism,” which is “the substitution of psychological explanation for logic.” See, Lisle simply “assumes without discussion that the opponent is wrong, then busily explains how [the annihilationist] became so silly.”⁵Richard B. Cunningham, C. S. Lewis: Defender of the Faith (Wipf and Stock, 2008), 184. I’d encourage Lisle to stick to astrophysics and leave psychologizing to those with the proper training, because he’s dead wrong about this.

As Rethinking Hell’s Statement on Evangelical Conditionalism explains, annihilationists “are not seeking to construct a more tolerable version of hell, as though primarily motivated by an emotional aversion to the idea of eternal torment.” Rather, “We have been convinced primarily by direct statements of Scripture that the penalty God has outlined for those who reject his offer of life is clearly the eternal punishment of the ‘second death,’ rather than endless torment.”⁶Rethinking Hell, Statement on Evangelical Conditionalism, http://www.rethinkinghell.com/Rethinking-Hell_Statement-on-Evangelical-Conditionalism.pdf. Like most normal, healthy human beings, we think the prospect of dying and ceasing to be is dreadful;⁷Traditionalist Clay Jones documents humanity’s fear of death as annihilation in Immortal: How the Fear of Death Drives Us and What We Can Do About It (Harvest House, 2020). See also Christopher M. Date, “Dismissive of Hell, Fearful of Death: Conditional Immortality and the Apologetic Challenge of Hell,” Hope’s Reason 6 (2017), 14–30; available online at http://www.stephenjbedard.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/HRV6-Hell.pdf. and we’d prefer that our lost loved ones live forever; so if we were emotionally motivated to find an alternative to eternal torment, we’d have become universalists. We at Rethinking Hell have never advanced emotional arguments, in over ten years of ministry, and any honest evaluation of our body of work will conclude that Scripture, not emotions, ultimately determines our convictions.

The late Edward Fudge is perhaps the most prominent Christian known for defending conditionalism in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and his work clearly indicates that his commitment to Scripture is what moved him to embrace conditionalism. “I am a theist,” he writes, “a Christian and an evangelical, persuaded that Scripture is the very Word of God written. For that reason I believe it is without error in anything that it teaches, and that it is the only unquestionable, binding source of doctrine on this or any subject.”⁸Edward William Fudge, The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment (Cascade, 2011), 4–5. He goes on to admit that it’s “always tempting to read into Scripture what we wish,” but he urges readers “not to confuse our own desires with the Bible’s teaching.”⁹Ibid., 6. In his published debate with traditionalist Robert Peterson, Fudge writes, “The growing evangelical rejection of the traditional doctrine of unending conscious torment is not propelled by emotionalism, sentimentality or compromise with culture but by absolute commitment to the authority of Scripture.”¹⁰Edward William Fudge and Robert A. Peterson, Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Dialogue (InterVarsity, 2000), 21. In fact, Fudge’s seminal work in defense of conditional immortality is so exclusively exegetical that John Stackhouse calls it “a juggernaut of biblical exegesis that simply crushes any alternative” but critiques it for failing to present its case “within a larger, compelling view of God.”¹¹John G. Stackhouse Jr., “The Legacy of Edward Fudge,” A Consuming Passion: Essays on Hell and Immortality in Honor of Edward Fudge, edited by Christopher M. Date and Ron Highfield (Pickwick, 2015), 7.

If nothing else, I am proof that Lisle’s sweeping psychologizing is inaccurate. In over a decade of publicly making the case for annihilationism, I have repeatedly pointed out that I have no emotional aversion to the prospect of eternal torment. Indeed, my emotions attract me toward the traditional view, because if I once again believed it, I’d fit in much better with the conservative, Reformed evangelicals with whom I most identify. I’ve also frequently said I think God would be perfectly just in subjecting lost people to eternal torment, were he to choose to do so. At the tail end of my debate with Al Mohler, for example, I said, “I don’t think that if the traditional view is true that it paints God out to be unjust, or an unjust ogre.”¹²Unbelievable? [radio program], “Should Christians Rethink Hell? Dr Al Mohler & Chris Date Debate the Traditional & Conditionalist View,” January 2, 2015, https://www.premierunbelievable.com/unbelievable/unbelievable-should-christians-rethink-hell-dr-al-mohler-and-chris-date-debate-the-traditional-and-conditionalist-view/11580.article. I became and remain convinced of conditional immortality—despite wanting to believe in eternal torment—because I must bend my knee to the authority of Scripture. It’s that simple.

It may be true that some people are motivated by “emotional preferences” to find conditionalism in Scripture, but Lisle’s sweeping generalization is obviously false and unjustified. He would do well to re-read the Gospel of John, whose author seems to think Jesus is unique in knowing human hearts (John 2:24-25; cf. 6:61; Matt 9:4; 12:25). Lisle certainly isn’t capable of reading our minds, and I suggest he leave the psychoanalysis to the professionals.

Liked it? Take a second to support Rethinking Hell on Patreon!