How solo Scriptura is Demonic: Conditional Immortality, Annihilationism, and a Defense of After Barth Theological Exegesis

In this post I want to respond to a comment made in my previous post from a reader named, Phil Lueck. My last post was going to simply serve as an introduction to a larger post I had intended on writing as an argument against what is called conditionalism, conditional immortality, and often is associated with annhiliationism. I was motivated to write such a post because I had just recently
joined a group on Facebook called Re-Thinking Hell; one of its founding members is a guy named Chris Date (a Masters student at Fuller Seminary NW), and then there are others. They engage in debates (in real life and online) promoting what they think is the only viable reading of the text when it comes to ‘hell’ or ‘punishment’ texts; i.e. their conditionalism. After I’ve now had the chance to interact with them in their group, and listened to a few video interviews of Chris Date about his style of conditionalism, I’ve come to realize that they are simply advocating for a solo scriptura approach; the idea that people can read the bible, pretty much, without presuppositions and theological preunderstandings—which is horrifically dangerous. I shared a link to my previous post in that group, and one of the admins made it clear that they only wanted to hear what the Bible says about hell; they wouldn’t be that interested in getting into theological or Christian Dogmatic concerns. Oh, he was clear that he’d considered all the theological stuff (as if that’s distinct from biblical exegesis), and that he didn’t want me, really, to offer the type of post I was intent on offering. He thinks that I prioritize theology over scripture (again as if those two things can be disentangled in the neat and tidy ways he seems to think). This segues us back to Phil’s comment; let me share that, and then I will offer some response to him. If I seem defensive, it’s because I am. Here’s Phil:

Dear Bobby,

I have been reading your posts for several years and have appreciated your sand[sic], even when I have not agreed with you. While I have had a long interest in TFT and a more recent interest in Barth, I am not a Confessional Christian. I have studied church history, Christian thought and historical theology enough (M.A., Wheaton Grad School) to realize the diversity that exists within Christianity makes for significant challenges to the Reformation concept of the authority of God as it is mediated through Scripture.

Two years ago, after considerable consideration, I changed my understanding of Hell, from the traditional ECT view to CI. I have found a useful site for that understanding. However, I do not merely believe just anything that they post. The test of truth for the evangelical believer must, in the final analysis, be Scripture. If I find a weakness in your site it is that your appeal to the truth of your theological understandings on just about any biblical text or theme seems to loyalty to Torrance and Barth.

I await you your follow of today’s post and trust that you will seek to make a greater place for the Scriptures themselves (i.e. some independent exegesis) instead just of using TFT and Barth as your support.

Blessings in Christ,

Phil Lueck

We can quickly see how Phil’s disposition fits the description I provided of those I encountered in the group: ReThinking Hell. But Phil, as does anyone who advocates for solo scriptura or de nuda scriptura (the idea that we can just read the Bible for all its worth without theological preunderstandings forming our exegetical conclusions), has a serious dilemma. The dilemma arises when Phil, or any solo scriptura advocate have to make interpretive decisions, and even translational decisions when it comes to the text of scripture; particularly when we are doing exegesis in the original languages.

Okay, so from Phil’s comment, he thinks I favor Barth and Torrance too much when I interpret scripture. But then I’m left asking: who does Phil favor; and who does the ReThinking Hell crowd favor? You see, the fact is this: theological-exegesis is something that all Christians do. Yes, those still under the spell of modernity would like to think that they can approach the text as a tabula rasa and simply allow the external stimuli and data of the text of scripture fill out the blank pages of their brain; but this just is not the case (Kant, if nothing else deconstructed that notion). Since this isn’t the case, since biblical exegesis will always already be a spiraling dialogue between scripture’s inner theo-logic and the lexical and grammatical realities of the text itself, it would do everyone really well to admit how this whole process works; and adjust their hermeneutical approaches accordingly.

Phil has to engage in the work of developing a theological-anthropology, as do those who are proponents of ReThinking Hell, in general; but as far as I can see that doesn’t even enter their minds. This is interesting, really, because the very premise of conditional immortality is grounded in how we conceive of the nature or being of humanity; i.e. when humans were created, originally, were they immortal or simply mortal awaiting immortality? In other words, the primary question, contra Chris Date, isn’t the nature of ‘eternal punishment’, as he asserts in the video interviews I’ve watched of him; but instead the issue here has to do with the nature of humanity itself. But interrogating this issue is not a matter of simply reading the text of scripture and using the analogy of scripture, comparing this scripture with that scripture in the interpretive process; no, it’s much more basic than even that. The process here is one where the interpreter must engage with the inner-logic of scripture; in other words, we mustn’t go beyond scripture, but we must dig into the depth-dimension of scripture. This is what theological-exegesis entails, and this is what ReThinking Hell proponents reject.

So they aren’t interested in me writing a post that engages this issue from a theological-exegetical approach; they want me to offer a more enlightened biblical exegetical process and conclusion based upon the type of form/redaction criticism interpretive process they’ve inherited as evangelicals. They want me to ignore confessional exegesis; they want me to ignore the history of interpretation; they want me wipe my brain clean of any other stimuli I might bring to the text, and simply offer a clean prima facie reading of the text that they themselves have ostensibly offered the church catholic.

As far as Phil’s desire to see me not rely so much on Barth and Torrance, I’m afraid he’s not appreciating the revolutionary type of thing Barth, in particular, has offered the church. Barth might be a single man, but his reworking of election/predestination (as he inherited some of that from a French school of thought), and his style of Christ concentration is nothing more than an interpretive tradition in and  of itself; as explanatory and weighty as what we get from Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, Athanasius, Augustine et al. So why would I attempt to do theological-exegesis from outside of a theological tradition that I think provides the greatest explanatory power when we come to consider some very basic realities as we get into engaging with the inner-logic of the text of scripture? I’m wondering what interpretive tradition informs Phil’s exegesis of the biblical text? Or what about Chris Date of ReThinking Hell? He claims to be a Calvinist, a classically styled Calvinist; which of course means his interpretive tradition comes mediated through Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and Augustine; to one degree or another. This is the type of non-criticalness that a commitment to a solo scriptura can foster; it can cause someone like Phil to tell me to quit relying so much on Barth and Torrance, when he in the same instance is relying on his own broader theological framework and interpretive tradition, at a macro, first order level.

In light of all these developments I’m really not all that motivated to write that long post on conditional immortality anymore. Not to mention that in that group on Facebook, once I shared my post from last night it caused a few in the group to come after me. I actually de-joined the group and one of them stalked me to my page and private messaged me attempting to egg me on into further jousting and debate; that didn’t make me happy at all (it caused some unfortunate words on my part). I think I’ll let this issue die immortally for a bit, and maybe revisit it when I’ve cooled off a little. I’ll just leave with this parting shot: solo Scriptura is demonic.



This entry was posted in Barth, Hermeneutics, T. F. Torrance, Theological Exegesis. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to How solo Scriptura is Demonic: Conditional Immortality, Annihilationism, and a Defense of After Barth Theological Exegesis

  1. Pingback: How solo Scriptura is Demonic: Conditional Immortality, Annihilationism, and a Defense of After Barth Theological Exegesis — The Evangelical Calvinist | Talmidimblogging

  2. Mark Schnee says:

    We must also say that the ecclesiastical community stewards the faith handed down from the church fathers throughout the centuries on behalf of the world. Not to read or quote their testimonies to the gospel and witness to the Word would mean to cut them out of the ecclesiastical community of believers like you would a cancer.


  3. Bobby Grow says:

    I don’t fully understand what you’re getting at in your comment. Do you mean like in reference to the ecumenical councils of the church; something else? Not totally clear on what you mean.


  4. Pingback: Clarifying on a Distinction Between solo Scriptura and sola Scriptura, and Why I Used the Language of ‘Demonic’ | The Evangelical Calvinist

  5. William Kilgore says:

    Wright annihilated Barth. It is ammusing that you actually quite yourself. Barth’s interpretive method is highly selective, and ends up placing blinders on those who follow through wilful ignorance of the “whole counsel of God.” You’re left with no sound basis for rethinking much of anything. Your Barthian presuppositions have bent you over and gone to town, to put it mildly.


  6. Bobby Grow says:

    William, or is it Bill? I thought that was a great quote; a paraphrase of Barth’s Deus dixit which he develops so nicely in his Göttingen Dogmatics.

    Wright annihilated Barth? You jest. After Barth thinkers are left with no room for rethinking anything? Really? Again, you jest. I’ve been bent over by Barthian presuppositions? What presuppositions might those be, and how have they gone to town on me? Wright annihilated Barth? How’s that? If you’re not going to splain yourself then don’t comment again; not really interested in drive by assertions. And actually Barth’s theological ontology annihilates Wright’s historicism and naturalist mode of biblical interpretation. Samuel Adams details how Barth’s theological ontology makes mince meat of NTW’s linear and history of religions approach to the bible. In this book:

    And then I’ve discussed this more intelligently with this guy:

    And here watch how a Barthian exegete, Douglas Campbell works NT Wright over in persona:

    Now what are you going to say?


  7. Bobby Grow says:

    And in reality, just so you’re aware, Bill, I’m more Torrancean than Barthian when it comes right down to it. But Barth set an interpretive tradition; who set yours? Let me guess … Jesus?


  8. Bobby Grow says:

    And when I think about it, it is funny that I quote myself. 😂 I wasn’t going to keep that one up forever, but someone I respect thought it was good so I put it up.

    But you seem angry at me; I can’t control that. But something that is in my purview is that I can press you back. Again, I’ll look forward to seeing how you unpack your assertions about Barth and what he’s done to me. And it would be great if you could reveal what intepretive tradition you work from. You’ve mentioned NTW so far. So if you solely follow him then I’d imagine you follow the solo Scriptura approach I just explained further in my newest post. None of us are “clean” when we approach scripture; that’s an important point, and I’m using that in an double entendre sense. John Webster is good on all of this; especially his book Domain of the Word. And here’s a link to my new post for easy access:


Comments are closed.