Thanks to the help of a brother I’ve been reading through Edward Fudge’s The Fire That Consumes. No, I don’t need help reading; he’s graciously allowed me to borrow the book (he’s also let me borrow the Fudge and William Peterson dialogue, Two Views of Hell: A Biblical & Theological Dialogue).
On page 48 I came upon a very familiar statement that I just wanted to touch on. This has nothing directly to do with Hell, but is very telling when involved in a conversation or debate on Hell (or any other theological concept for that matter), After putting forth a small argument on how to view the term aionios, Fudge wrote:
Like most of the conditionalist arguments, this one has simply been ignored. If the traditional understanding of hell is to stand, a cogent and persuasive answer must be forthcoming. Since all we want to know is God’s truth as revealed in Scripture, no one needbe threatened on either side of the discussion. This is a challenge which calls for careful exegesis and prayerful study within a commitment to the final authority of the Word of God.
I could almost see the semi-smile on Fudge’s face as he wrote those words. Almost always, some statement along these lines comes from the mouth or pen or keyboard of a spokesperson for a minority perspective. I myself have said these words. Whether in arrogance or with a truly humble heart, you say these words knowing the outcome of going through the Scriptures for the answer, or openly dialoguing and testing the arguments.
“There’s nothing to worry about. We’re all here to just find the truth. It’s the truth that matters, right? Well, then let’s figure it out together.”
But, unfortunately, the tendency from the spokespersons of the traditional perspective (on whatever issue it might be) is to be a bit more close minded, unwilling to have a simple dialogue. The roadblock could be fear, or a feeling of arrogance coming from the other side, or simple ignorance or naivete. No matter the reason, a dialogue simply goes nowhere. And in this case, Fudge is saying that the traditionalist (someone who believes hell is eternal conscious torment somewhere) has to present a reasonable, understandable, and Scripturally authoritative response. By ignoring the argument and assuming the traditional view is right just because it’s been that way for so long, dialogue and growth get tossed out the window, and truth along with it. Truth is revealed to be merely traditions.
Well, that’s all I wanted to say about that at 12:30 am. I’m sure a lot more could be said, but you get the idea. I’m just going to start rambling.
Good night.
