Reformed and Rethinking: Introducing Chris Date

Chris DateIt is my tremendous honor to be invited to contribute to the RethinkingHell.com blog and podcast, and I would like to thank Peter Grice for inviting me.

Allow me to introduce myself and let you know a little bit about me. My name is Chris Date and I host the Theopologetics podcast, as well as contribute to my friend Dee Dee Warren’s The Preterist Blog and podcast. I am also a software engineer by trade.

I do not have any formal, higher education and lack any official ministry experience. That said, I believe theology and apologetics are nevertheless for every average Joe in the pews, and not just for pastors, philosophers, PhDs and the erudite in ivory towers (which some of my co-contributors are). And I am perhaps somewhat of an enigma, for while I am “rethinking hell”—by which I mean to say that I am a conditionalist or annihilationist (and I will refer to myself as the latter henceforth)—I’m also Reformed.

… their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence

… and all the dead shall be raised up with the selfsame bodies, and none other; although with different qualities, which shall be united again to their souls forever.

… the wicked, who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast aside into everlasting torments

Given the above statements found in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (LBCF), statements that are reflected in other Reformed confessions, one might find it strange that I say I’m Reformed. Indeed my recent debate opponent once wrote, “Mr. Date also considers himself ‘Reformed’, which I believe is an odd identification to make given the crystal clear confessional/systematic position on eternal punishment.” One notable and published author who shall remain nameless, since his email is private communication (but I will give you a hint: he is very cantankerous) wrote in an email that I “cannot be Reformed as the first book Calvin wrote was against soul sleep and conditionalism. All the Reformed creeds are against it.” Well, if what makes one Reformed is one’s affirmation of a Reformed confession, and if a denial of elements of a mere three paragraphs out of 160 (by my count) disqualifies one as Reformed, then I guess I shall hand in my membership card. I find it strange, however, that an inability to affirm less than two percent of the LBCF would somehow disqualify me from the Reformed label. Denying certain elements of those three paragraphs in no way affects my ability to affirm the remaining 157 paragraphs.

As a matter of fact, I posit that I am able to make better sense of some of them. Take paragraph 3 of chapter 11 for example. When I affirm that “Christ, by His obedience and death … and by the sacrifice of himself through the blood of His cross, underwent instead of them the penalty due to them,” I actually believe that in His sacrificial death He suffered what the elect would have. Conversely, Reformed traditionalists cannot. Or take paragraph 3 of chapter 7 which says that “all the descendants of fallen Adam who have ever been saved have obtained life and blessed immortality,” and paragraph 1 of chapter 17 which says that God “continues to beget and nourish in [the elect] faith, repentance, love, joy, hope, and all the graces of the spirit which lead to immortality.” I actually believe that life and immortality are the result of salvation alone. Conversely, my Reformed traditionalist brothers and sisters cannot.

Nevertheless, if people object to my self-identification as Reformed, then so be it. What I love about the Reformed tradition, what makes it great, is not its adherence to creeds or the teachings of the theological giants who have been its leaders but that at its heart, at its core, unlike Rome and even other Protestant movements the Reformed tradition seeks to subject the fallible and ever-changing thoughts and traditions of men to the authority of the holy, inerrant, unchanging word of God. And more than any other alternative, it elevates and glorifies God and truly recognizes the consequences of the fall and the total inability of man to autonomously free himself from slavery to sin.

But unfortunately my Reformed brethren are just as capable as anyone else of succumbing to zealously defending one’s tradition so fervently that it blinds one to the truth and subjects Scripture to the speculations of men. And so it is when it comes to the doctrine of final punishment, as I will seek to demonstrate here at Rethinking Hell in future posts and podcasts. Zeal in defending tradition appears to have blinded many to the truth of annihilationism as clearly and obviously—yes, I mean that!—laid out in Scripture. For whatever reason God has shown me mercy and opened my eyes to the truth; but I see no reason to abandon the Reformed tradition altogether. (Please bear in mind that I do not intend to start a debate over Reformed doctrine with this post. I simply wanted to explain why I call myself Reformed despite also being an annihilationist.)

But just how did a Reformed individual like me become an annihilationist to begin with? Well, I became a follower of Jesus Christ in the summer of 2002 and, from the beginning of my faith, without having had this explained to me, I believed the Bible to be absolutely authoritative and free of error. Due to interactions with Jehovah’s Witnesses very early on I quickly learned to defend the traditional view of final punishment as endless conscious suffering—we will come back to that in a moment—and my commitment to the authority of Scripture skyrocketed. At the same time I was completely unfamiliar with Reformed doctrine and continued to uncritically believe in libertarian free will (although I did not know it was called that). But when a dear friend challenged me with the doctrines of grace it was my deep commitment to the authority of Scripture that forced me, kicking and screaming, to eventually accept them.

Fast-forward to early 2011—or perhaps late 2010 (I am not exactly sure)—when, having become a fan of Dr. Glenn Peoples’ work and a listener to his podcast, I stumbled upon his treatment of hell. I found his case surprisingly strong and I began to wonder if perhaps I had been wrong about final punishment. I had already interviewed Glenn to learn about physicalism or monism and wanted to find someone else to present the case for annihilationism. So I reached out to Edward Fudge, author of The Fire That Consumes, who graciously agreed to let me interview him on the topic. After preparing for and conducting the interview I found myself squarely on the fence between annihilationism and the traditional view of hell. And over the course of the next several months—during which I read many and varied traditionalist authors and bloggers, interviewed traditionalist author Larry Dixon, moderated a debate on the topic and participated in one myself—that same deep commitment to the authority of Scripture once again dragged me kicking and screaming, this time toward accepting the truth of annihilationism.

Despite bald assertions to the contrary by some critics of annihilationism, this is not about the perversion of sola scriptura that is sometimes called solo scriptura (i.e., “my Bible and me under a tree”). No, I have read many authors and listened to many presentations critiquing annihilationism. I have examined many of the prominent works on the subject, both ancient and contemporary. For a long time I hoped—even desperately so—that one of them would finally refute the case that I had been finding so increasingly persuasive. Time and time again, however, they came up short, and woefully so. And they continue to do so. If it were true that the traditional view of hell had been clearly taught from the beginning of church history, then I am not sure what I would have done. Perhaps I would have thought myself insane. After all, I agree with Dee Dee Warren’s oft-repeated maxim that “theological novelty is not a good thing.” But since eternal torment has not been the consistent teaching of the church from the first century—which is something I intend to demonstrate in the future here at Rethinking Hell—I was left with no choice. My unwavering commitment, at least in intent, to the supreme authority of God’s word demanded that I reject what I had come to realize clearly as an unbiblical tradition, despite how cherished and zealously defended it is. After all,

The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and by which must be examined all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, and doctrines of men and private spirits can be no other than the Holy Scripture (LBCF 1.10).

In the opening chapter of his latest and final book, Hell: A Final Word, Edward Fudge reflects on the path that began with an assignment to research final punishment and resulted most recently in a feature film telling Fudge’s story. He writes,

God being sovereign, I trust that each event fell into place according to his agenda, through his power, and to his glory. At most, any of us just happens to be a hunk of mortal clay that he had prepared for some purpose, then picks up and uses when the time is right in his own eyes. If I am ever tempted to think otherwise, I need only remember that this entire chain of events resulted from an intensive restudy of the subject that I did not plan, and required a change of my own mind that I did not desire. Indeed, I would have happily avoided the entire matter and everything connected with it, had there been any honest way around it.

I can relate. I did not plan on reconsidering my view of final punishment either, and certainly did not desire to adopt a view considered heterodox, if not downright heretical, by those friends and teachers whom I deeply respect and admire. Some part of me honestly wishes I had never listened to Glenn’s podcast and had never interviewed Edward Fudge or read his book. Perhaps I would have been able to remain honestly and blissfully ignorant and would never have adopted this view so maligned by most of my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ—many of whom might not consider me their brother as a result. But for better or worse I did listen to Glenn’s podcast, I did read Fudge’s book, and I did interview him, all as part of the sovereign decree of the Lord. And the rest, as they say, is history.

I see a little reformation on the horizon. I see the tide turning. I do not think it will be too much longer before annihilationism is accepted by the majority of Christians, even in America—although perhaps not by self-identified Reformed Christians like myself. And for whatever reason, the Lord’s will for now at least is that I contribute to the movement. Indeed I have been encouraged by several people who have told me that my work was part of what changed their mind on this topic. If, as seems clear to me, annihilationism most accurately encapsulates what God has revealed about final punishment in the Bible, then I am truly and incredibly blessed to be one person out of many that He uses to bring this truth to His people. On the other hand, if we have it wrong, and if it is I who has been blinded to the truth contained in Scripture, I can only speculate as to why God has taken me down this road. But being Reformed I rest assured of one thing: It will have been to His glory.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Introductions
Bookmark the permalink.
  • Hi Chris. Thanks for the post. My name is Travis Quin. I listen to your Theopologetics podcast and I’ve emailed you once informing you of your influence on my own “rethinking” of Hell. I have a few questions regarding the relationship between the reformed tradition of which you still participate and the traditional view of Hell which you have rejected in favor of a conditionalist understanding. First, do you know of any prominent Reformed scholars or theologians that would hold to an annihilationist position? Second, perhaps not unlike yourself, I find it odd that it is Reformed brethren who seem the most hostile to a conditionalist view of Hell and who defend so ardently the traditionalist view. Do you think there is some kind of theological link within the Reformed system which requires the traditional view? Or, do you think those in the Reformed tradition tend to hold to the traditional view so strongly because the greatest defenders of the traditional view in the past half millenium have been also the greatest leaders of the Reformed tradition, from the pulpit and/or the publishing house (e.g. John Calvin, Johnathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, W.G.T. Shedd, etc.)? I am in no way insuating that Reformed defenders of the traditional view do not intend their understanding of final punishment on solid Scriptural gounds. Clearly they do. Still, as you noted, the loudest critics of annihilationism and the staunchest defenders of the traditional view seem to be Reformed thinkers, even in the present debate over Hell (consider, for example, Robert Peterson and Christopher W. Morgan, perhaps the two biggest defenders of traditionalism within contemporary evangelicalism, both of whom are Reformed, if I am not mistaken). If you could, elaborate a little more on why you think this is the case. As always, thanks for your thoughts. May the Lord bless as you do His will and preach His truth.

  • Chris Date

    Hi Travis, thanks so much for listening, and for our interaction over email! I don’t know if I can name any prominent Reformed scholars or theologians who hold or have held to conditionalism. I do personally know, however, Reformed laymen, like myself, and Reformed teachers or pastors who affirm the view. I don’t want to name them, however, for what may be obvious reasons :) I think there are several reasons why few Reformed people affirm conditionalism.
    For one (in no particular order), I think a common perception is that the only reason people become conditionalists is because of an emotional or philosophical objection to the traditional view, and because they believe in Total Depravity and are in principle committed to the authority of Scripture, they think that by defending traditionalism they are properly placing Scripture in authority over emotions or philosophy (and they’re right to place it there).
    Second, they belong to or minister in churches in which membership and positions of teaching require affirmation of a Reformed confession, such as LBCF, which explicitly communicates the traditional view of hell. Some really are convinced that such a confession and the years of exegetical tradition upon which it is based has correctly captured the truth of Scripture, and go into challenges like conditionalism with the plan to defend the tradition, rather than carefully consider its truthfulness. And the thought of losing such positions or being excluded from their congregation can be terrifying (and I understand and can relate).
    Third, as you suggest, they highly respect and have benefited from the great teachers in Reformed history, who have affirmed the traditional view. More broadly, even outside of the Reformed tradition, the great teachers have tended to be traditionalists, and so it’s hard to imagine that they could have all been so wrong about something we claim is so obvious.
    Fourth, there is something to be said about the fact that for 1,300 years or so, from the third to the sixteenth centuries, the Church was united in affirming the traditional view. Since then, still the majority have been so united. This was definitely a concern for me as I considered conditionalism, as I explained in the Q&A portion of my debate yesterday.
    I think these and other reasons explain why Reformed folks like myself are often the least likely to consider the biblical view of final punishment.

    • Thanks Chris. Very helpful thoughts. I look forward to reading the blog and listening to the podcast.

    • Giles

      John Stott was the leading English Calvinist and a conditionalist.


  • I do personally know, however, Reformed laymen, like myself, and Reformed teachers or pastors who affirm the view. I don’t want to name them, however, for what may be obvious reasons :)

    Why the reluctance to name names?

  • Chris Date

    I would prefer not to say the names of people in public if I’m not sure that they’ve stated in public what they’ve told me in private.

    • It would seem rather duplicitous if there are pastors or teachers who hold a view not held by their church or their teaching institution to not reveal it.

      • Chris Date

        I didn’t say they hold a view that differs from their church, or have not revealed it; I said I’m not sure if they’ve stated in public what they’ve told me in private.

        • Misunderstanding then. As I would assume a church to be a public setting.

          • Chris Date

            I think what’s being misunderstood is my use of the phrase, “I’m not sure.” What I’m saying is, I don’t know where they teach publicly or in what capacity, and whether or not they’ve stated their belief there, and whether or not it goes contrary to the doctrines agreed upon by that church.

  • I can empathize, Chris. I remember discussing with you the rather uncharitable way in which this topic can be discussed. My hope is this site and it’s podcast can be a way forward from that sort of animosity and a chance to simply interact with the subject in an even handed manner.

    I always find myself a bit uneasy when discussing beliefs with other Christians. We agree on so very much, but when the topic of hell pops up, well, that’s when it gets nerve wracking.

    I am excited for this new endeavour and plan to visit frequently. I have something else to add to my twitter feed, as well!

    • Chris Date

      Thanks so much, Jonathan! I, too, hope this site presents us with that opportunity.

  • Reformed Brother

    Chris, I understand that you are convinced of annihilationism and that you think there is a strong biblical case for it. But having listened to your debates with at least two Reformed Christians (the Federal Visionist is not Reformed), I don’t see how you have grounds to say that their belief in everlasting conscious torment is simply traditionalism.

    For instance, Diaz’s argument for the everlasting torment of the wicked was not based on some tradition external to the Bible but rooted in the active and passive obedience of Christ, the positive and punitive demands of the Law, and the exegesis of Matthew 5:21-26. He didn’t simply appeal to tradition or argue in that way because of his traditions. Sure, it is not the typical way of arguing the doctrine of hell, but if the doctrine is true it can be defended from a number of different doctrinal points. Christ argued for the ongoing conscious existence and the resurrection of the saints on the basis of the present tense of the existential verb “to be” because the Sadducees held the Torah as the authoritative Word of God. Was He arguing on the basis of tradition alone or drawing unwarranted conclusions from just one word? I don’t think so.

    Similarly, Joshua Whipps, in my opinion, did an excellent job of showing how not having a definite anthropology made your case for annihilationism only probable, and if only probable, then not truth, and if not truth, then not the position that Scripture teaches. His case, as well, was complex and not what most would expect, for sure. But that doesn’t mean that he could not substantiate his belief in the doctrine from the Scriptures. Joshua’s intention, somewhat different from Diaz but following a similar trajectory, was to show that an argument in favor of your position is not reducible to a concatenation of biblical verses and the bald lexical definitions of the words contained in those verses. In both debates, I’ll admit, you are the one who used a larger quantity of Scripture – but that doesn’t make your case biblically sound.

    I appreciate your frankness about how you feel, but I don’t think it is a fair characterization of your opponents to say that they are simply zealously defending a “tradition” that is unbiblical. Their arguments are biblical, in accord with sound theology, and have not been addressed by your counterpresentations.

    In the same way that you would not want to be lumped together with those who reject the orthodox doctrine of hell on some emotional basis, I’m sure Diaz and Whipps would not want to be lumped together with Roman Catholics and other “traditionalists.”

    Just wanted to say that :)

    • Chris Date

      Hi, RB. I cannot know anyone’s heart. However, making a biblical and theological case does not prove that one is not blinded by zeal to defend a tradition. I could, of course, be wrong, but what convinces me that that’s often what’s happening are what I perceive to be the very poor quality of the arguments they make and continue to make confidently even after their error has been demonstrated. We can discuss particulars, like those you mentioned, in the forum if you like, as that’s a better place for that discussion than the comments section of this introductory post.
      By the way, “traditionalism” is not a term used in this debate by either side–and it is used by both sides–as a pejorative communicating that one believes something on the basis of tradition. I recommend reading this: http://conditionalism.net/blog/2012/05/is-traditionalism-a-pejorative/

  • Pingback: Evangelical and Unashamed: Introducing Joseph Dear | Rethinking Hell()

  • fleetwd1

    Chris your confession of “Reformed” is much more to the spirit of the best from that tradition who add “and always reforming.” I like your application of how this belief allows you to believe more fully in the principles it adheres to.

    One thing markedly different in Edward’s approach to the subject of final punishment is the absence of condemnation toward those with whom he disagrees. It is as if he understands God’s grace in Christ in a practical way as overriding all else. He encourages study of the matter and prefers a gradual acceptance over time as one weighs the evidence, just as your confession describes. I remember your interview a year ago where you were not fully decided. Remaining open to see where the evidence leads is a great gift. Thank You for your contributions to our further enlightenment.

  • fleetwd1

    For all of those who want a Reformed scholar who publicly endorses the conditionalist view. A book written by Philip Edgcumbe Hughes published in 1988 just prior to his death raised quite a ruckus. It has only recently been republished titled “The True Image – the origin and destiny of man in Christ” .In it Philip a well versed Calvin scholar quotes from Calvin showing inconsistencies with himself at times on the matters discussed in the book. There are other surprises there as well. An excellent book to have, even if you chose to disagree.

  • Giles

    Wow. Would never have guessed you had no higher education. But I shouldn’t be surprised. My father didn’t either and he was also highly intelligent. Respect.
    I read Glenn’s blog. His character fits well with his Calvinism. He takes no prisoners.

Featured audio: Dr. Al Mohler & Chris Date debate
"Should Christians rethink Hell?" on Unbelievable?