Do you live within a road trip’s driving distance from Northern California? And do you enjoy live debates, or are you on the fence when it comes to whether the Bible teaches conditional immortality or the traditional doctrine of hell? Striving for Eternity Ministries is hosting a debate between Rethinking Hell contributor Chris Date and […]
I want to apologize straightaway for capitalizing on the baffling, yet wearisome global conversation happening around the color of a dress that was buzzing on the web last night (and if you’re reading this months later, I apologize for referencing something that has long been relegated to the dustbin of internet disinterest), but I think that the experience of cognitive dissonance (and indeed questioning of objective reality!) between those people who perceive a white & gold dress and those who obviously see the fabric as blue and black is analogous to what many of us at the Rethinking Hell project have experienced.
I tried (and may have failed) to explain this in my Preface to our book, Rethinking Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism, but my own obsessive interest in studying the topic of hell (which, I mean, why would ANYONE make this an object of 20 years of study??) comes from a very similar experience to those who see different colors in the dress. How can we be looking at the same thing, but see something completely different? Read more about Hell and #thedress …
On December 14th, 2013, Moody Radio’s Julie Roys moderated an informal debate between Edward Fudge and Dr. Kevin Zuber on the radio show she hosts, Up For Debate. This episode contains the second half of Rethinking Hell contributors Ronnie D and Chris Date’s response to some of the arguments offered by Dr. Zuber.
On December 14th, 2013, Moody Radio’s Julie Roys moderated an informal debate between Edward Fudge and Dr. Kevin Zuber on the radio show she hosts, Up For Debate. This episode contains part one of Rethinking Hell contributors Ronnie D and Chris Date’s response to some of the arguments offered by Dr. Zuber.
On Saturday, September 28th, 2013, Dr. Phil Fernandes and Rethinking Hell contributor, Chris Date, debated the proposition, “The punishment of hell will be annihilation: the everlasting loss of life and conscious existence.” Date affirmed, articulating and defending conditional immortality and annihilationism. Dr. Fernandes denied, articulating and defending the traditional view of hell as eternal torment. […]
With upcoming debates scheduled for late August and September, I wasn’t going to plan any other debates until next year. However, a last-minute opportunity has arisen to defend conditional immortality and annihilationism in a less formal dialogue with traditionalist Michael Willenborg. Michael holds a B.A. in Philosophy from the University of Hawaii, an M.A. in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary, and is […]
“The punishment of hell will be annihilation, the everlasting loss of life and conscious existence.”
I have promoted the conditionalist view of final punishment in debates with two fellow Reformed bloggers, and I recently scheduled a debate on the topic with a Catholic. Now I have been given the opportunity to debate an Arminian, Dr. Phil Fernandes, pastor of Trinity Bible Fellowship in Silverdale, Washington, and president of the Institute of Biblical Defense, a Christian apologetics ministry based in Bremerton, Washington. Dr. Fernandes has a Ph.D. in philosophy of religion from Greenwich University, an M.A. in religion from Liberty University, and a B.Th. from Columbia Evangelical Seminary. He is the author of several books, including The God Who Sits Enthroned: Evidence for God’s Existence (Xulon, 2002), No Other Gods: A Defense of Biblical Christianity (IBD, 1998), God, Government, and the Road to Tyranny (Xulon, 2003), Contend Earnestly for the Faith (PublishAmerica, 2008), and most recently Hijacking the Historical Jesus: Answering Recent Attacks on the Jesus of the Bible (CreateSpace, 2012). Read more about Chris Date vs. Dr. Phil Fernandes on Hell …
Having promoted the biblical view of final punishment in debates with two fellow Reformed theologians, I’ve been given the opportunity to do so in a debate with a Roman Catholic, William Albrëcht. ((Stay tuned to Rethinking Hell for a possible announcement in the near future; I may have an opportunity to engage in my first live, in-person debate defending conditionalism, this time with a well-known Arminian here in the Pacific Northwest. Calvinist, Armininan, Catholic… What’s next?)) Raised in a non-religious household, William became a Protestant and, later, converted to Roman Catholicism. He has a B.A. in Theology, is an apologist on staff at The Catholic Legate, and has published many videos on his YouTube channel.
A number of months ago I had the honor of being invited by my friend Nick Ahern to participate in a written debate on the three major views of hell. I was asked to write promoting the conditionalist view; Jason Pratt, who debated pseudonymous blogger TurretinFan on my Theopologetics podcast, wrote promoting the universalist view; and T. Kurt Jaros, founder of Real Clear Apologetics, wrote promoting the traditionalist view. You can read the introduction to the written debate at Nick’s blog, Split Frame of Reference, which includes links to the three essays.
Joseph Dear, fellow contributor here at Rethinking Hell, will be responding to Jason Pratt’s universalism essay, whilst in this article I will be responding to T. Kurt Jaros’ traditionalist essay. As I hope to make clear, the presentation delivered by Jaros, like that of most traditionalists, is mistaken about hell.