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 the fifth and final part of their discussion; listen to episodes 132 through 135 for the first four parts.
Continue reading “Episode 136: Conditionalism Stands to Reason (Part 5)”
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.
Continue reading “Episode 135: Conditionalism Stands to Reason (Part 4)”
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.
Continue reading “Episode 134: Conditionalism Stands to Reason (Part 3)”
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.
Continue reading “Episode 133: Conditionalism Stands to Reason (Part 2)”
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.
Continue reading “Episode 132: Conditionalism Stands to Reason (Part 1)”
This is the second part of my response to an article by Tim Barnett and Greg Koukl (henceforth B&K) of the ministry Stand to Reason, called “Hell Interrupted – Part 2.” In their article, B&K attempt to critique the conditionalist reading of the Bible via three interpretive principles drawn from a textbook on hermeneutics by William Klein, Craig Blomberg, and Robert Hubbard.1 William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 3rd Ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2017), 264. In the first part of my response I focused only on their first two principles of interpreting passages and words in their immediate contexts. I avoided addressing their third principle because I believe that technically it isn’t an interpretive principle. In this article I will address this principle in detail. It would be best to begin by quoting this principle in full as B&K articulated it:
Biblical teaching in earlier parts of the Bible…are developed and enlarged in later revelation …. In some instances, God reveals His truth progressively [emphasis added]. Often, the first word is not the complete story. Later revelation gives us the fullest picture, the most complete characterization. Consequently, “where earlier revelation has progressively prepared the way for later formulation of God’s truth, we must give priority to the later [emphasis added].” Put simply, the final word is the last word.
| ￪1 | William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 3rd Ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2017), 264. |
|---|
I consider myself an exegete. For seven or so years last decade during my dual degrees at Malyon College–a Baptist seminary in Brisbane, Australia–I developed a passion for biblical hermeneutics and exegesis that remains with me today.1 In this article the term hermeneutics refers to those principles one employs when interpreting and applying a text. Exegesis is the process of applying hermeneutical principles to properly read meaning out of a text. Eisegesis is the hermeneutical sin of reading meaning into a text. At the start of each semester, I would make sure I could fit every single exegetical subject into my schedule. I became capable enough in this area to be employed by the college as their first study skills tutor, a role in which I was responsible for teaching new students hermeneutical and exegetical principles. I point all this out simply to show that I am in a position to recognize when these principles may be incorrectly applied, or not even applied at all. Continue reading “Exegesis Interrupted: A Critique of Stand To Reason’s Article “Hell Interrupted, Part 2””
| ￪1 | In this article the term hermeneutics refers to those principles one employs when interpreting and applying a text. Exegesis is the process of applying hermeneutical principles to properly read meaning out of a text. Eisegesis is the hermeneutical sin of reading meaning into a text. |
|---|
I highly recommend Greg Koukl’s Stand to Reason ministry and radio program. Greg and I don’t agree on a number of theological issues, but I greatly respect and appreciate his passion for teaching Christians the importance of careful thinking. As he’s been known to say, “Emotions are what make life delicious, careful thinking is what makes life safe.” Unfortunately, however, as is certainly the case with every generally careful thinker, Greg thinks less carefully about some issues than he does others.
In a recent episode, Greg explained that he sees spiritual warfare not primarily as battle during a direct and immediate assault by the devil against the individual believer but as the tearing down of lofty ideas that hinder the message of Christ. “Many of those who identify themselves as genuine followers of Christ,” said Greg, “have been undermined in their ability to communicate the gospel because of other beliefs, theological beliefs, that take the wind out of the sails of the Great Commission, to put it simply.”1Koukl, Greg. http://www.strcast2.org/podcast/weekly/062412.mp3">Stand to Reason, June 25th, 2012, 12:50 Among other examples of such beliefs, Greg included annihilationism:2Ibid., 19:09
So the point here is, I see in, say the teaching of annihilationism…the hallmarks of spiritual warfare. That is, I see an idea now, that if taken seriously, takes the wind out of the sails of the Great Commission. It makes the gospel seem less important, or less urgent. Now who would have an interest in making the gospel less important or less urgent? Not Jesus. The devil. When I notice a doctrine coming in from the side that doesn’t seem to be consistent with classical Christian teaching and which doctrine seems to have the impact of taking some of the force out of the Great Commission, I immediately know that this is an example of spiritual warfare, and I need to resist it.
Annihilationism is false, then, according to Koukl, because it makes the gospel less important, less urgent, thus taking the “wind out of the sails” of the Great Commission. Let us examine this claim, and see if it is a compelling reason to reject conditional immortality.
Continue reading “Wind Out of the Sails: A Response to Greg Koukl”
| ￪1 | Koukl, Greg. http://www.strcast2.org/podcast/weekly/062412.mp3">Stand to Reason, June 25th, 2012, 12:50 |
|---|---|
| ￪2 | Ibid., 19:09 |