Product Description

Hell is real and terrible. Evangelicals agree about this unhappy truth. Hell is the fate of those who reject God. Yet on some questions about hell not all agree.

Some evangelicals believe the wicked will experience perpetual, conscious torment after death. Others argue that the wicked will experience a limited period of conscious punishment and then they will cease to exist.

In this book you will find an irenic yet frank debate between two evangelical theologians who present strong scriptural and theological evidence for and against each view. Both make a case that their view is more consistent with Scripture and with the holy and just nature of a loving God.

Robert Peterson defends the traditional view that those who do not have faith in Christ will suffer eternally in hell. Edward Fudge advocates the conditionalist perspective that after a period of suffering, the unfaithful will experience a complete extinguishing, or annihilation, of existence. In addition, each author presents a rebuttal to the viewpoint of the other.

Here is a dialogue that will inform and challenge those on both sides, while impressing on all the need for faithful proclamation of the gospel of deliverance from sin and death.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #242938 in Books
• Published on: 2000-04
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 228 pages

From Publishers Weekly
Two distinguished authors convincingly present their opposing views on hell. Introductory remarks on both traditionalism (the belief that the wicked suffer in hell for eternity) and conditionalism (the belief that the wicked are punished by God and then destroyed) set the stage for the authors' in-depth studies. Edward Fudge, a practicing lawyer and theologian (The Fire That Consumes: The Biblical Case for Conditional Immortality) argues on behalf of conditionalism, drawing from a study of Old Testament figures, Jesus' teachings on hell, the writings of Paul and other New Testament verses and explanations. Robert Peterson (professor of theology at Covenant Theological Seminary and editor of the Presbyterian) responds from the traditionalist perspective, as his previous book's title (Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment) would suggest. Peterson provides readers with the positions of early Church Fathers and exegeted verses, and offers an overall theological look at why traditionalism is biblically sound. Each section ends with the other author debating the preceding arguments, contributing to the "dialogue" of the book. Throughout the text, both authors do their level best to dismantle the other's arguments. Professionals, seminary students and well-educated laity will find much to mull over here, though the average reader may consider the continual bantering somewhat tedious. (May)
Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc.

About the Author
Edward Fudge is a theologian and practicing lawyer who resides in Houston, Texas. He is the author of The Fire That Consumes: The Biblical Case for Conditional Immortality (Paternoster).

Robert Peterson, professor of theology at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri, is the author of Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment (Presbyterian & Reformed) and editor of the theological journal Presbyterion.

Customer Reviews

A quick evaluation of both sides...
Both agree that Hell is real and horrible, but they disagree on how long it lasts. If you are searching for the best arguments this book is not for you. Both sides are a bit lacking, but it is a good starting place to get the core rationale of each side. I am glad I bought it and read it.

I have noticed strengths and weaknesses in both men's arguments and so for anyone interested here is what I thought:

Let's start with a look at Fudge.

Fudge's Conditionalist sections are very typical to others of his view. He gives a dynamic chronological walk though hundreds of scripture references and includes developments that occurred between testaments and post-apostolic development. Although I'm not entirely sure of where I stand on this issue, the conditionalist/annihilationist position is far from anti-intellectual (as claimed by another reviewer). The arguments presented here are quite formidable, even if only a handful of respected Evangelicals have broken ranks with tradition to side with it.

Fudge's strategy seems to be to overwhelm the reader with a ton of scripture. He uses awkward sentences at times and often inexplicably gives the Greek word for various terms throughout his portion even though the Greek words have no apparent relevance to what he is saying. Fudge, as far as I remember, never quotes Peterson's published works on Hell in his arguments but usually just gives arguments against common traditionalist beliefs in general--somewhat of a cheesy straw man tactic.

A more significant error is his use of scriptures that speak of destruction of sinners but not necessarily in the context of "Final Judgment." These references are important for understanding the Final Judgment, but Fudge makes little effort to point out the difference or explain them in their proper context. He simply throws them in the same pile as the more relevant scripture. However in his 500 page book entitled The Fire the Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, he is a little bit more astute in pointing out such differences and making concrete references to the theologians through the centuries. But in both books Fudge sometimes comes across as one who is analyzing scripture a mile wide and an inch deep.

Frankly, Fudge's arguments in favor of his position are not as good as I think they legitimately could be. Peterson quickly jumps on many of his weaker spots.

Lets turn our attention to the Traditionalist, Mr Peterson.

While Fudge is like a machine gunner in his use of scripture, Peterson is therefore like a sniper. He bases his entire argument on 10 verses (explaining each of them with laborious detail). Despite this more focused and meaningful strategy, the main portion in favor of his position spends more time claiming that Fudge is wrong than why his own ideas are right.

Peterson, on the Traditionalist side, left a strong first impression in his early comments against Fudge's beliefs. It is quite apparent that in this format, Peterson is a much more polished writer. He is easier to read and his thoughts are a little more organized and even "entertaining." But on the other hand I was less pleased with Petersons performance over all as far as actually proving and defending his position.

For starters, Peterson opened his remarks with several pages against Fudges "techniques" that Peterson disliked. Throughout the book I perceived Peterson as having a condescending attitude toward Fudge. This certainly does not make his arguments wrong, but it does makes his own "techniques" more suspect.

I just became distractingly annoyed by Peterson. If you're going to point out someone questionable techniques, you'd better first be sure that you're not using those techniques yourself! For example, Peterson writes on page 84 -85 against Fudge's use of "the argument from silence." He says, "This type of argument carries very little weight. It is an argument from silence, from what the Bible does not say rather than an argument based on what the Bible does say."

But in his own arguments Peterson uses the argument from silence all the time, such as when he says, "It is vital to see that Isaiah does not teach annihilation here. He does not say that that fire consumes what is put in it...He does not say that the worm symbolizes a total and final consumption..." (p.133). Just as Fudge said that certain verses do not say X, and therefore teach Y, Peterson does the same thing. Again, on p.136 Peterson writes, "Surely this is a mishandling of Daniel 12:2. The prophet says nothing of annihilation." So, Peterson your position is true then because of what Daniel doesn't say? Hmm? :)

There is another technique used by Peterson that is absolutely absurd. First he makes an assertion or quotes a verse in response to a belief he believes is wrong. Next, instead of giving actual reasons why it is wrong, he simply asks a meaningless rhetorical question and then re-asserts that Fudge is wrong. For example, on the same page he says: "Listen to Daniel's words again: `Multitudes...will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt' Does a resurrection `to everlasting contempt' mean annihilation? No Indeed. Instead it indicates...etc."

That's it? "No Indeed"? No explanation of why someone absolutely must be conscious and alive to be the object of contempt?

Both authors had their most convincing writing in their refutation of the other. Fudge, gives a very convincing response to Peterson's Traditionalist section. Peterson had some strong arguments in his "Road to Traditionalism" section about the influence upon church Fathers NOT being based on Greek (Platonic) philosophy (while citing individuals as examples). Fudge responded then by quoting the very church leaders whom Peterson had relied upon as support--men who, as we see, openly used Platonic reasoning (not Scripture) to supports their traditionalist beliefs.

I could go on, but I am out of space. Good luck!

It won't please everyone, but it's very good
As one would expect from a debate of this public nature, the two authors are not trying to persuade one another, they are trying to persuade the reader. I am biased, since I was already a conditionalist when I read the book. I will say, however, that I think Fudge's case is considerably better, even if not perfect.

Peterson at times quite outrageously misrepresents the conditionalist view. For example at one point he suggests - without evidence - that a conditionalist will deny an orthodox Christology by teaching that the natures of Christ separated at the cross, when no coniditionalist says any such thing. He entirely misses the point about hermeneutical method when it comes to his crucial text of Revelation 20:10. Peterson also dismisses the vast number of biblical texts that speak of the destruction of the lost by committing the fallacy of the "illegitimate totality transfer," that is, trying to import all the possible meanings of words for destruction in order to avoid the meaning suggested by context on multiple occasions, predominantly in the Gospels. In the case of 2 Thess 1:9 Peterson makes an argument that stands or falls entirely on his use of the NIV, even though Fudge had already pointed out to him that the greek literally said something quite different (I still can't believe that - insisting on an NIV only reading!). Peterson also has the audacity to start out by childishly telling the reader that Fudge's book gave his students toothaches, and when he exposed Fudge's sneaky tactics in class, their toothaches gave way to moral outrage! Examples could be multiplied, but Peterson's case will not wash.

Fudge's biggest weakness, in my view, was that he was too much of a gentleman. He simply did not take Peterson to task for the plethora of fallacies and mistakes found in his arguments. But when it comes to the biblical case presented, one thing stood out immediately and obviously. While Peterson had consumed page after page pointing out that his view was more popular and appealing to this big name and that big name, Fudge's position, from start to finish, was built on the exegesis of Scripture. THAT much, I think any reader must concede, and I found it telling. Truth be told, Peterson would have struggled to find any further biblical material to put in his essay, and his drawn out comments about history seem to be padding his work to obscure this fact. One gets the clear impression that Fudge could have written a much larger volume with the amount of biblical material in his favour. In fact, he has.

Unbalanced Presentation
I have been a Traditionalist for a long time, and never gave much consideration to the Conditionalist view. But Fudge has opened me up to the possibility that he is correct.

In the first part of the book each author is given space to present his view. Fudge does a good job I think, while Peterson uses his space to beat up on Fudge. Peterson uses "classroom" humor to ridicule Fudge and his position. I find that unprofessional. I would of liked to see Peterson stick to a presentation of the Traditional view in his opening statement so I could better judge it on its own merit apart from other views.

I intend to read each author's dedicated volume on this subject: Fudge - "The Fire That Consumes," and Peterson - "Hell on Trial." I would like to see them rewrite the above book and stick strictly to the plan. That would be fairer to Peterson and Fudge both, and would serve to ther reader what he expected and paid for.