Wednesday, June 27, 2018

William Lane Craig’s Uncharacteristically Unreasonable Response to a Question about the Nature of Hell Regarding Conditional Immortality vs. Eternal Conscious Torment


I thank God for the ministry of William Lane Craig. I have personally been helped by his writings and his videos. His teaching is a model of excellence in two important ways. First, what he teaches is God’s truth. I’m not claiming he gets every detail correct but, overall, he is teaching and defending important truths taught in God’s Word. Second, he is a model of how to use good, clear, reasoning. The following critique of Craig’s recent response to a question about Condtional Immortality (also called annihilationism) doesn’t change any of this. It does show, in my opinion, that even the best of Christian teachers can occasionally give poorly reasoned answers.

Recently, a listener/reader of Dr. Craig sent him a question about the nature of hell.  The questioner very briefly presented some biblical arguments in favor of conditional immortality and asked for Craig’s response. Craig posted his response in the Question of the Week portion of his website. You may read both the question and Craig’s response here. In the rest of this post I will analyze Craig’s response.

1.  The claim that eternal torment is well-attested in Scripture

Dr. Craig begins with a general assertion that Scripture supports eternal torment. He then quotes one verse which apparently he intends as an example of Scriptural support for eternal torment:

It seems to me that the traditional view that hell implies eternal, conscious torment is reasonably well-attested in Scripture. “These will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, separated from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might” (II Thessalonians 1.9).

I’m not sure why Craig believes that 2 Thessalonians 1:9 supports eternal torment. He doesn’t tell us. Based on a previous answer Dr. Craig gave to a question about hell (see this video from Rethinking Hell) he may be focusing on the word “separated”. If so, his case is quite weak since the word “separated” is added by some translators but is not in the original Greek text (for an in-depth discussion of this translation issue you may read helpful articles here and here).

Or perhaps Dr. Craig feels the phrase “eternal destruction” supports the doctrine of “eternal torment”. While the Greek word for destruction here, olethros, has a range of meaning that doesn’t seem to completely rule out torment, it turns out that this is one of the words used earlier in Greek philosophy specifically and explicitly to refer to the annihilation of souls:

And, Cebes, I believe, granted that the soul is more lasting than the body, but said that no one could know that the soul, after wearing out many bodies, did not at last perish itself upon leaving the body; and that this was death—the destruction [Greek: olethros] of the soul, since the body is continually being destroyed. (From Phaedo 91d, by Plato.)

I certainly would not have chosen 2 Thessalonians 1:9 as an example of scriptural support for eternal torment. But then again, there aren’t any better options since Scripture does not actually support eternal torment. Like other conditionalists, I found that the handful of proof texts often given to support eternal torment all actually support annihilationism when examined with proper exegetical care (for example, you may read this post about Matthew 25:46, or this series on the two oft-quoted passages in Revelation).

2.  An irrelevant and questionable belief

Craig goes on to state a belief he has:

Denials of this doctrine spring primarily, I believe, from emotional abhorrence and noncogent philosophical objections.

If you read the question which Craig is responding to you will find no hints of emotional abhorrence. Nor are the brief arguments made philosophical in nature. The arguments are entirely biblical and exegetical. Of course, Craig seems to be referring to people in general and not just the author of the question. But how does Craig know the primary motives of those who deny conditional immortality? I’ve been immersed in the writings, discussions, and debates associated with conditional immortality for about 9 years now. Over and over again I hear the same testimony from those who, like myself, have shifted from belief in eternal torment to belief in conditional immortality. The testimony is that the shift was driven by the study of Scripture.

But even if some people reject the doctrine of eternal torment because they find it emotionally abhorrent (which it is!), what would this have to do with whether or not the doctrine is true? Christians have sometimes been accused of believing in a perfect eternal life after death because such belief is emotionally attractive. In fact, it is very emotionally attractive. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true!

As far as the charge of “noncogent philosophical objections”, Craig gives neither examples nor evidence that this is the case. In my experience, conditionalist arguments are overwhelmingly exegetical rather than philosophical in nature. The few philosophical arguments which are made in favor of conditional immortality have biblical and logical support.

3.  Craig vs. the Apostle Peter on meaning of Old Testament Prototypes

Next, Craig responds to the questioner’s use of Old Testament examples of judgment as giving support to annihilationism:

First, it’s just bad hermeneutics to take Old Testament “prototypes” as the interpretive key to New Testament doctrine on the state of the damned after death. You risk imposing some accidental feature of those stories onto New Testament teaching, which may be contrary to that feature.

It is true that not every detail of Old Testament judgments are representative of final judgment. However, Craig seems to reach a conclusion about which features are relevant that is not consistent with the conclusion reached by the Apostle Peter:

. . .  and if he reduced the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes and condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is coming to the ungodly; (2 Pet. 2:6 CSB17)

Peter does not see reducing people to ashes as an accidental feature of God’s judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah, but specifically as “an example of what is coming to the ungodly.” Being turned to ashes is much more consistent with annihilationism than it is with eternal torment!

4.  Existence vs. Life, zōē vs. bios

Now we come to a common traditionalist argument repeated here by Craig. The Bible clearly states that the penalty for sin is death. It does so in contexts referring to ultimate outcomes (see Romans 6:23). If the normal definition of death is used, this seals the case in favor of conditional immortality. One of the great strengths of the doctrine of conditional immortality is that it flows naturally from the normal everyday meaning of words like perish, death, destruction, burned up, and consumed. I have studied the Greek words behind these English words and consistently find that in-depth word studies lend further support to conditional immortality. However, Craig and other traditionalists have a different view. Craig writes,

The most fundamental failing of your argument is the failure to appreciate that everlasting existence is not the same as everlasting life. The damned in hell have everlasting existence but not everlasting life.

The distinction between eternal life and eternal existence may sound convincing at first. However, the doctrine of eternal torment does not require merely eternal existence, but eternal conscious existence. And in all our universal experience only living creatures are conscious and can experience torment. Annihilationists like myself believe that after God’s judgment something like ashes or dust may remain from the ungodly. It’s possible that the ashes and dust will exist eternally, perhaps as a testament to God’s righteous judgment and victory over all evil. But ashes and dust, even if they exist eternally, cannot be tormented.

To support his claim that “death” as final punishment doesn’t mean what “death” normally means, Craig goes on to offer one piece of linguistic biblical evidence. This evidence is a distinction he claims exists between two Greek words for life: zōē and bios. Craig writes,

In the New Testament everlasting life is not bios (physical life, from which our word biology derives), but rather zōē (spiritual life). The damned, even if they have physical life, having been resurrected, do not have zōē.

Craig notes the interesting fact that our English word “biology” comes from the Greek word bios. This fact may sway some readers to accept his claim that bios refers to physical life whereas zōē refers to spiritual life.  But the meaning and etymology of words in English today do not determine the meaning of Greek words used in the New Testament. Craig could just as well have noted that a Greek word for animal, zōon (see Hebrews 13:11, for example), is closely related to zōē and that our words for zoo and zoology are derived from these Greek words. But those facts would not have helped his case.

The correct way to determine the meaning of words like zōē and bios is to look at examples of how they were used by Greek authors. The New Testament does not appear in a vacuum. It’s message, images, hopes, and language are all deeply rooted in the Old Testament. In terms of language, the New Testament authors often draw from the Greek Translation of the Old Testament they used, the Septuagint (LXX). Let’s begin by looking at some examples of how zōē is used in the LXX and see if they fit Craig’s claim that zōē mean “spiritual life”:

CSB17 Genesis 1:30 for all the wildlife of the earth, for every bird of the sky, and for every creature that crawls on the earth-- everything having the breath of life (zōē) in it-- I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.

CSB17 Genesis 3:14 So the LORD God said to the serpent: Because you have done this, you are cursed more than any livestock and more than any wild animal. You will move on your belly and eat dust all the days of your life (zōē).

CSB17 Judges 16:30 Samson said, "Let me die with the Philistines." He pushed with all his might, and the temple fell on the leaders and all the people in it. And those he killed at his death were more than those he had killed in his life (zōē).

The above examples do not support his claim. I looked at all 184 uses of zōē is in the LXX. It appears to me that it’s basic meaning is simply “life” in the same ordinary sense that we use that word in English every day.

In the New Testament we also find examples of zōē being used to refer to the normal meaning of “life”:

CSB17 Luke 16:25 " 'Son,' Abraham said, 'remember that during your life (zōē) you received your good things, just as Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here, while you are in agony.

CSB17 Philippians 1:20 My eager expectation and hope is that I will not be ashamed about anything, but that now as always, with all courage, Christ will be highly honored in my body, whether by life (zōē) or by death.

CSB17 James 4:14 Yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring-- what your life (zōē) will be! For you are like vapor that appears for a little while, then vanishes.

Do any of the examples above support Craig’s distinction that zōē refers to a type of spiritual life distinct from normal life in this world?

As for bios, it can be used to mean the same thing as zōē, but in the New Testament it often refers to material possessions (see Luke 15:12, 1 John 3:17).

Moving on to the phrase “eternal life”, Craig is correct that this phrase uses the word zōē. But I see no reason that zōē should not have its normal meaning in this phrase. If zōē meant something like “fellowship with God” than we would expect the phrase “eternal life” to be contrasted with “eternal separation”. If zōē meant something like “glorious life”, then we would expect “eternal life” to be contrasted with something like “eternal misery”. In fact, “eternal life” is contrasted with perishing (John 3:16 and 10:28) and with death (Romans 6:23). This further supports the conditionalist view.

As for the concept of “spiritual life”, it’s important to remember that the phrases “spiritual life” and “spiritual death” are not used in the Bible. The Bible does sometimes use the words “death” and “life” metaphorically. This non-literal usage does not teach eternal torment. On the other hand, a phrase which the Bible does use and which is relevant to our discussion is “the second death”. The phrase “second death” supports the view of annihilationism. “Second death” simply means dying a second time. I defend and explain this  meaning of death and second death here.

Conclusion

As stated at the beginning of this article, I thank God for the ministry of Dr. Craig. Yet, even highly gifted and godly Christian teachers can be wrong sometimes. I’m convinced that Craig is wrong about the nature of hell. When examined carefully, the evidence he gives to support the doctrine of eternal torment does not hold up. On the other hand, there is no reason to reject the plain teaching of Scripture that the unrighteous will eventually perish (John 3:16), have both their bodies and souls destroyed by God (Matthew 10:28), and be burned to ashes (2 Peter 2:6).

Hebrews 13:16 And do not forget to do good and to share with others . . .

No comments:

Post a Comment