Here is an article about the pastor of a large church who now denies Hell.
ABC News: 'Heretic' Minister: Nobody Goes to Hell
ABC News: 'Heretic' Minister: Nobody Goes to Hell
Last edited by a moderator:
Pastor Denies Hell
- Thread starter JoeRe4mer
- Start date
- Status
!!!!!! I did not know Stott held to that Heresy (and yes I think it a heresey) that saddens me, I liked a lot of Stott's older stuff, is this a newer position for Stott?Not too unusual these days. Even John R. W. Stott is an Annihilationist (as was my Sys Theo III prof in seminary 100 yrs ago - Colin Brown).
BobVigneault
Bawberator
I am awarding Minister Pearson the First Annual PB Baghdad Bob Award for denial in the face of the obvious.
Here's to you Minister Pearson.
Here's to you Minister Pearson.
Heresy?
Is this REALLY heresy to be an annihilationism? I thought heresy was something that damned the soul.
There is a HUGE difference between gross error and heresy. Many annihilationists uphold the glory of Christ despite their other errors.
I think the word heretic gets thrown around too loosely. Not all error is damnedable error.
I am not sure denial of hell warrents it.
Is this REALLY heresy to be an annihilationism? I thought heresy was something that damned the soul.
There is a HUGE difference between gross error and heresy. Many annihilationists uphold the glory of Christ despite their other errors.
I think the word heretic gets thrown around too loosely. Not all error is damnedable error.
I am not sure denial of hell warrents it.
JohnOwen007
Puritan Board Sophomore
Absolutely. He's no universalist, if by that you mean all people will eventually get saved.
Stott believes in conditional immortality: the reprobate will suffer for a period in hell and then eventually cease to exist. His position can be seen in the book Essentials, which is a dialogue Stott has with the liberal theologian David Edwards. An interesting read.
Like Pergumum, I don't believe we should call this "heresy"; I don't see it as calling salvation into question, even though I don't agree with it. We need to be very careful with that word.
Whatever Perg! I STAND by what I wrote...end of story!
Pergi...a denial of Hell...is in conflict with Holy-Writ. I have to note something, my Brother you have some GREAT posts here, you are witty and funny...lately, you seem very "in your face" to the people on the PB, you were not that way in many of your past threads and posts.....Brother, I hope if something is bothering you, you will PM someone or talk to your pastor...I just sence a lot of tension from you lately. Grace and Peace.
Last edited:
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
!!!!!! I did not know Stott held to that Heresy (and yes I think it a heresey) that saddens me, I liked a lot of Stott's older stuff, is this a newer position for Stott?
No. It is not a newer position. Stott has apparently held to this view for some decades. He had, however, out of deference to his role in the leadership of evangelicals worldwide, not wanted to promote controversy. His 1988 book, Evangelical Essentials, a dialogue with liberal David Edwards is where he wrote openly about his views for the first time.
"The former [i.e., a traditional belief regarding hell] has to be described as traditional orthodoxy, for most of the church fathers, the medieval theologians and the Reformers held it. And probably most Evangelical leaders hold it today. Do I hold it, however? Well, emotionally, I find the concept intolerable and do not understand how people can live with it without either cauterising their feelings or cracking under the strain" (pg. 314).
He does go on to say that the mark of evangelical belief is not my feelings, but what has God said in scripture. And, here he marshalls several arguments from language, imagery, justice, and the so-called universalist texts to support annihilationism.
He concludes: "I am hesitant to have written these things, partly because I have a great respect for longstanding tradition which claims to be a true interpretation of Scripture, and do not lightly set it aside, and partly because the unity of the world-wide Evangelical constituency has always meant much to me. But the issue is too important to suppress, and I am grateful . . . to declare my present mind. I do not dogmatise about the position to which I have come. I hold it tentatively" (319-320).
lololong
Puritan Board Freshman
Saying that there is no hell is taking away (removing) from the Word of God who clearly says otherwise in many places.
Saying that there is no hell also presents God as a liar: God says there is a hell, the pastor says is not so. Obviously one is wrong and we do know who.
Saying that there is no hell also presents God as a liar: God says there is a hell, the pastor says is not so. Obviously one is wrong and we do know who.
elnwood
Puritan Board Junior
Annihilationism is indeed a gross error, but the position is defended by Scripture. Its proponents are not simply disregarding the teaching of Scripture. There's a "two views" book on the topic. In a nutshell, they interpret the "second death" of the lake of fire to be an actual death, and would say that the "eternal" punishment of hell is to be taken figuratively in the same way Sodom and Gomorrah are said to be burning with eternal fire.
I remember that, because of this issue, there were some protests at Westminster Seminary when Stott spoke there.
I remember that, because of this issue, there were some protests at Westminster Seminary when Stott spoke there.
Simply_Nikki
Puritan Board Junior
When I first saw this, I knew it was going to be Carlton Pearson. My pastor debated him on a local radio station in Los Angeles. It was atrocious (on Mr. Pearson's part).
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
Don, I am attempting to reconcile your first 2 statements. Gross error, yet defended by scripture appears to be some sort of oxymoron...
Calvibaptist
Dallas Cowboys' #1 Fan
I assume it would be error in interpretation of Scripture. It is not as if Stott (forget Pearson for a moment) is denying that the Bible says these things. He is just interpreting the statements of Scripture in a manner that is not the traditional interpretation.
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
There has to be a better way of putting it then...
If one even takes a cursory look at Church History one will notice a clear pattern, gross error in interpretation of Holy-Scripture, almost always is a stepping stone to full blown heresy. When Scripture is clear about about a matter, eternal punishmnt and eternal reward a denial of this to go against Holy-Writ...it is a very dangerous path, regardless of intent or how "good" a Pastor or teacher is.
Southern Presbyterian
Puritan Board Doctor
Why is it that "they" always say that hell is a medieval construct? I've read this in other so-called news articles and seen it in several productions from the History Channel and Discovery Channel. What's the deal? 
caddy
Puritan Board Senior
Sad. Do all of these guys read Brunner, Barth, Tillich? Where are they getting their ideas?
caddy
Puritan Board Senior
Interesting. I remember discussing this with my brother, who believes this view a few months ago.
Amazing Grace
Puritan Board Junior
I must say when I first saw the title of this thread, I thought it was about a pastor named "Denies Hell" (Denny's Hell")
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Why is it that "they" always say that hell is a medieval construct? I've read this in other so-called news articles and seen it in several productions from the History Channel and Discovery Channel. What's the deal?
Medieval artwork, probably. It was graphic. And then there was Dante's masterpiece, The Inferno. Take a bunch of stuff like that, and then add the point that said pictures aren't in the Bible (which, phrased that way, they aren't), then they can make the claim that the Medieval invented it.
Now, I can believe in a real, agonizing hell without adopting the "medieval construct" (although I have no bones to pick with it--no pun intended).
Wannabee
Obi Wan Kenobi
Thanks. Guess I had it a bit skewed.
Robert Truelove
Puritan Board Sophomore
The doctrine of Hell is an important one in regards to Christian orthodoxy for the following reasons...
1. Most obviously, the Bible teaches it.
2. The doctrine of Hell is not to make God the big meanie...the truth is that we all are WORTHY of Hell. It is our 'just deserts'. If God is just, there must be a Hell. For there to be no Hell, means that that God is not just. This is why in Christ God is said to 'be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus' (Romans 3:26).
3. The denial of Hell and the teaching of annihilationism are both heretical. The former has no punishment for sin at all while the later sees God justice as having been met by the one time annihilation of the sinner. The problem with the later is that it too makes God unjust. If justice is to be truely met out, then one must consider the nature of sin and to whom it is against. When we sin, we sin against an infinitely holy God. As our sin is against He who is infinite in holiness, our sin is infinite in its nature (as far as the appeasement of God's wrath goes). Why must Hell be the suffering of God's eternal wrath? Because after two million years in Hell, the sinner is still no closer to satisfying God's wrath.
To summarize, if God's wrath could be satisfied by the one time annihilation of the sinner, then God's wrath is appeased in this single act at a point in time thus making his holiness finite. It is for this reason that annihilationism is a heresy and not merely gross error.
1. Most obviously, the Bible teaches it.
2. The doctrine of Hell is not to make God the big meanie...the truth is that we all are WORTHY of Hell. It is our 'just deserts'. If God is just, there must be a Hell. For there to be no Hell, means that that God is not just. This is why in Christ God is said to 'be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus' (Romans 3:26).
3. The denial of Hell and the teaching of annihilationism are both heretical. The former has no punishment for sin at all while the later sees God justice as having been met by the one time annihilation of the sinner. The problem with the later is that it too makes God unjust. If justice is to be truely met out, then one must consider the nature of sin and to whom it is against. When we sin, we sin against an infinitely holy God. As our sin is against He who is infinite in holiness, our sin is infinite in its nature (as far as the appeasement of God's wrath goes). Why must Hell be the suffering of God's eternal wrath? Because after two million years in Hell, the sinner is still no closer to satisfying God's wrath.
To summarize, if God's wrath could be satisfied by the one time annihilation of the sinner, then God's wrath is appeased in this single act at a point in time thus making his holiness finite. It is for this reason that annihilationism is a heresy and not merely gross error.
Ha! Thanks for the psycho-analysis. Yes, things have been hard here. Just de-wormed my son (he plays in the dirt too much here) and the electricity water and phone lines don;t work real well. Hard to get my PB fix...I'm like a junkie with the shakes!
But, I will try to find some witty and funny posts. MY internet stinks here, so I have been picking those posts only which I feel most strongly about. Hence, the stronger posts.
Sorry guys! I'll take a chill pill.
Truthfullly, I DELIBERATELY am "in your face" on some posts here to challenge the status quo (the status quo does need challenged among Reformed circles sometimes...does it not...that whole semper reformanda bit).
AGAIN, A man CAN deny hell and still be saved. Heresy is soul-damning. Gross error is awful, but one can go to heaven with gross error, but not with heresy.
Let's start another thread and hammer out what heresy is. I do think we over use it. It seems like there is a minimum standard of saving doctrine concerning the Godhead and salvationin Christ. But hell, though important, seems to be not at this vital center.
Are you telling me that John Stott, who glorifies Christ as the God man is going to roll in the flames of hell because he doubts there existence forever?
I but a lot of them OT guys didn't know a lot about hell. They seemed to have a very vague conception of the afterlife.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
From what I understand of John Stott's views, he believes in an eternal punishment, but not an eternal torment (i.e. the eternal punishment is their eventual annihilation, not an eternal torment). This is not denying Hell, but defining it in an unorthodox way.
Personally, I would call his view of Hell heresy, but not damnable heresy (such as teaching justification by works). Moreover, it should be kept in mind that he only holds this tentatively, and admits that he may be wrong.
Personally, I would call his view of Hell heresy, but not damnable heresy (such as teaching justification by works). Moreover, it should be kept in mind that he only holds this tentatively, and admits that he may be wrong.
Sydnorphyn
Puritan Board Freshman
I answer that: please provide proof for Stott's position - book, article or sermon.
Thanks in advance.
John
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
John,
I already provided the information earlier in this thread. Here it is again:
Stott has apparently held to this view for some decades. He had, however, out of deference to his role in the leadership of evangelicals worldwide, not wanted to promote controversy. His 1988 book, Evangelical Essentials, a dialogue with liberal David Edwards, is where he wrote openly about his views for the first time.
"The former [i.e., a traditional belief regarding hell] has to be described as traditional orthodoxy, for most of the church fathers, the medieval theologians and the Reformers held it. And probably most Evangelical leaders hold it today. Do I hold it, however? Well, emotionally, I find the concept intolerable and do not understand how people can live with it without either cauterising their feelings or cracking under the strain" (pg. 314).
He does go on to say that the mark of evangelical belief is not my feelings, but what has God said in scripture. And, here he marshalls several arguments from language, imagery, justice, and the so-called universalist texts to support annihilationism.
He concludes: "I am hesitant to have written these things, partly because I have a great respect for longstanding tradition which claims to be a true interpretation of Scripture, and do not lightly set it aside, and partly because the unity of the world-wide Evangelical constituency has always meant much to me. But the issue is too important to suppress, and I am grateful . . . to declare my present mind. I do not dogmatise about the position to which I have come. I hold it tentatively" (319-320).
I already provided the information earlier in this thread. Here it is again:
Stott has apparently held to this view for some decades. He had, however, out of deference to his role in the leadership of evangelicals worldwide, not wanted to promote controversy. His 1988 book, Evangelical Essentials, a dialogue with liberal David Edwards, is where he wrote openly about his views for the first time.
"The former [i.e., a traditional belief regarding hell] has to be described as traditional orthodoxy, for most of the church fathers, the medieval theologians and the Reformers held it. And probably most Evangelical leaders hold it today. Do I hold it, however? Well, emotionally, I find the concept intolerable and do not understand how people can live with it without either cauterising their feelings or cracking under the strain" (pg. 314).
He does go on to say that the mark of evangelical belief is not my feelings, but what has God said in scripture. And, here he marshalls several arguments from language, imagery, justice, and the so-called universalist texts to support annihilationism.
He concludes: "I am hesitant to have written these things, partly because I have a great respect for longstanding tradition which claims to be a true interpretation of Scripture, and do not lightly set it aside, and partly because the unity of the world-wide Evangelical constituency has always meant much to me. But the issue is too important to suppress, and I am grateful . . . to declare my present mind. I do not dogmatise about the position to which I have come. I hold it tentatively" (319-320).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
