REFUTING ANNIHILATIONISM

REFUTING THE FIRE THAT CONSUMES - EDWARD FUDGE

The following refutation is covering the statements made in the following youtube video:

Lecture - Edward Fudge - The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of Hell

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHUPpmbTOV4

ERRORS, LIES, AND FALSE DOCTRINE

"He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him." -
Proverbs 18:17

"The word hell doesn't occur in the Old Testament"

Actually the word hell occurs 31 times in the Old Testament. That is if you are reading God's
preserved word, the King James Bible. If you are reading a modern perversion of the Bible, than
yes they take out the word hell from the Old Testamant. (Along with the word sodomite, 17
entire verses, and the word repent many times)

"The hell described by traditionalist is not described in the OT"

Sure it is. The verses that talk about hell describe it as a place under our feet where the wicked
go, it has fire, people experience pain and sorrow, and it is never satisfied. It says their worm
shall not die nor their fire be quenched just like Jesus said.(The One who made hell)

"The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall
dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?" - Isaiah
33:14

"The wicked are cut off as it says in Psalms 37"

Let's look:

"[9] For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.

[10] For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his
place, and it shall not be.
[11] But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of
peace." - Psalms 37:9-11

Edward Fudge briefly mentions that some may say this refers to the wicked being cut off in this
life, but he dismisses it by saying if we don't SEE it, then it can't refer to that.

Look at the context. The wicked are cut off, yet where are the righteous? They shall inherit the
earth. It says this two times within the 3 verses. The context is about the existence of the wicked
on the earth. The promise is that there will come a day when no more wicked people will exist
on the earth.

"The similes and metaphors used to describe the end of the wicked fit annihilationism"

It is very telling that Fudge jumps right into a bunch of the passages that use figurative language
first, instead of dealing with the clearest and plainest verses that prove everlasting conscious
punishment in fire.

His point isn't legitimate either way. All the descriptions of God's judgment of the wicked
describe various aspects of God's judgment. There is a first death and a second death. The
manner in which the wicked experience the first death is a judgment of God. God destroyed
Sodom with fire and brimstone. He had an angel of the lord kill 100,000 Assyrians in a day.
Nadab and Abihu were consumed by fire. Elijah called down fire from heaven on the soldiers
that tried to capture him. Over and over again, God killed the wicked with powerful, miraculous,
and unusual judgments. The wicked who experienced these judgments on earth experienced the
first death at that time. Then they went to hell to await the day of judgment after which they will
be cast into the lake of fire, which is the second death. There is no evidence in the Bible that the
passages Fudge listed must all be metaphors referring to the lake of fire.

"Exhibit 1: Noah's flood destroyed everyone on earth and Peter said that's what it will be like in
the end of the world except with fire"

Once again, Fudge conflates God's judgment of man ON THE EARTH with God's judgment of man
IN ETERNITY.

The Bible says everyone on earth except Noah and his family perished in the flood. Does God
mean that was all the judgment they would ever experience? No. It clearly means that they all
died a physical first death as a result of God's judgment. Then they go to hell and await the day
of judgment to be thrown in the lake of fire.

Then he compares it to fire at the end. The fire described by Peter that melts the elements with
fervent heat is NOT the lake of fire. It is a judgment of fire on the earth and heavens. There will
be many people killed on earth at the end of the world by various plagues and judgments of
God, but that is only the first death. After that they must stand before God to be judged and
THEN thrown in the lake of fire. Fudge keeps equating God's supernatural judgment on the earth
of the wicked with eternal judgment in the lake of fire.

"Exhibit 2: Sodom turned into ashes"

This is wrong for a couple reasons.

1. Sodom experienced the supernatural judgment of God ON EARTH and died the first death. If
the Bible says it is appointed to man once to die but after this the judgment(which it does), then
the inhabitants of Sodom are still waiting for judgment and have only tasted eternal fire because
the materials used to judge them were fire and brimstone which will be in the lake of fire.

2. Jesus said, "But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day
of judgment, than for thee." - Matthew 11:24

If Jesus is telling them it shall be(in the future) more tolerable for Sodom in the day of judgment,
then this obviously means Sodom hasn't experienced the day of judgment yet. The entire city of
Sodom was wicked except Lot so the whole city will be condemned in the day of judgment.

There is no way you can say Sodom experienced the second death, which is what the lake of fire
is called, when God destroyed it.

"Broken in pieces"

Judgment on earth.

"Piles of dead bodies"

"He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound
the heads over many countries." - Psalm 110:6

Clearly in Revelation 19 Jesus kills the armies of the beast and the piles of dead bodies are
stacked up so that the fowls are feasting on them. This is not in any way a description of the lake
of fire.

"Piles of corpses being eaten by worms"

He puts the words "CORPSES CONSUMED" at the top of the slide even though that's not what
the text says.
"And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against
me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an
abhorring unto all flesh." - Isaiah 66:24

The word corpse is used in Fudge's modern version, but the KJV says carcas. What is the
definition?

CARCASS, noun

1. The body of an animal; usually the body when dead. It is not applied to the living body of the
human species, except in low or ludicrous language.

It says USUALLY when dead. So it doesn't HAVE to mean dead body, it can just mean body.

Jesus clearly quoted this verse and applied it to eternal punishment in hell:

"[43] And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than
having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

[44] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." - Mark 9:43,44

The word hell can refer to either just hell inside of the earth, or it can refer to both hell and the
lake of fire. This passage refers to both hell and the lake of fire because it says the fire shall never
be quenched. That would not be true if it was just hell in the earth because that hell will be cast
into the lake of fire.

As to the Gehenna argument, gehenna was filled with fire, filth, and worms, but guess what?
That fire went out and those worms died. Jesus and Isaiah are clearly showing that hell will be
like gehenna except eternal.

"We will tread the ashes of the wicked underfoot"

Again, this refers to the wicked consumed on the earth at the second coming of Christ. It does
not refer to the lake of fire.

"Not literal descriptions"

He mixes some of the metaphors God uses in the Psalms to describe the destruction of the
wicked on the earth with literal descriptions of hellfire. This is sloppy exegesis.

"Isaiah has them consumed"

"Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls, Rabbinical"

It means nothing what any of these writings say. What matters is what the inspired word of God
says.

"Unquenchable fire doesn't mean it will never go out, it means it won't be put out until it
accomplishes its job"

This is absolute hogwash. The bible says,

"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having
two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

[44] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." - Mark 9:43,44

So the Bible says the fire of hell is unquenchable, it is not quenched, and it shall never be
quenched, yet this guy is going to try and say it will go out after the job is done??? It says that no
where in any of these passages or in the entire Bible. This is him shoving his view on the text. No
where does it say that this fire will go out.

"Fear him which can destroy soul and body in hell"

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him
which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." - Matthew 10:28

He literally said, "It MUST mean cessation of existence like the body being killed"

He makes this assumption because it fits the narrative of his false doctrine.

What is another form of the word destroy?

"[7] And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from
heaven with his mighty angels,

[8] In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of
our Lord Jesus Christ:

[9] Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from
the glory of his power;" - I Thessalonians 1:7-9
The destruction of soul and body is everlasting, it lasts forever and it is the same thing as
everlasting fire, everlasting punishment, everlasting shame and contempt.

"Perish means cease to exist"

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him
should not perish but have everlasting life" - John 3:16

He just quotes a bunch of random verses that use the words perish and destroy and concludes
that since those instances use the word to refer to the end of existence on earth, that is the only
way we should interpret it.

I already showed how destruction can mean everlasting destruction and it is no different with
perish. It can mean just death of the body or it can mean going to hell.

His argument doesn't even make sense anyway because if perish usually means death of the
body then John 3:16 only means death of the body and nothing else. No judgment after. That
doesn't even fit his own position.

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering
to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." - II Peter
3:9

"gnashing of teeth"

All he said was they were gnashing their teeth in anger not pain. This doesn't prove anything
even if it were true.

"Eternal means the results that do not end"

This is such a butchering of the Bible it is shocking.

Whenever eternal things begin now, God tells us they are already done. He speaks of the future
in present tense as if it is already accomplished:

"Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy
place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." - Hebrews 9:12

Having obtained means He already obtained it for us.

When God speaks of eternal punishment, He speaks of it as something in the future that has not
happened yet:
"[8] In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel
of our Lord Jesus Christ:

[9] Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from
the glory of his power;"

Shall be punished in the future.

"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment:" - Matt. 25

This guy can't tell the difference between when eternal starts now or in the future. Those who
get saved possess eternal life now. Those who are lost still have a chance to be saved so it
doesn't say their eternal destruction has already started.

"If you go to the Greek"

This scholar is a typical Nicolaitin who acts like you can't truly understand the Bible like he does
unless you know Hebrew and Greek. The clergy conquers the common people with their
credentials just like the Catholic church.

Also there is no "the Greek" there is more than one Greek text and they contradict each other.

"Eternal fire is the result of the fire"

Once again that is not what the Bible says, that is imposing his belief on the clear text. He brings
up Sodom again which we refuted earlier.

Then he tries to make it seem like the Apostles didn't talk much about hell and if they did, they
only described death and destruction.

He minimized the word wrath. The wrath of God is mentioned many many time throughout the
New Testament. I wonder why he side stepped that one?

"[9] And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast
and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

[10] The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture
into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the
presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

[11] And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest
day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his
name." - Revelation 14:9-11

"the smoke goes up forever"

He then conveniently leaves out the words "OF THEIR TORMENT" when referring to the smoke
that rises up forever and ever in the lake of fire. Look at the clear and plain language here:

"He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone"

How long?

"And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day
nor night"

There is nothing confusing here. The only way to misunderstand is to do so willingly.

CHURCH HISTORY

A lot of church fathers are filled with heresy, it means nothing.

Protestants are hit or miss. Luther was also a heretic on baptism and supported persecution.

Some Anabaptists were heretics. They were not all the same.

Historic Christian teaching apart from Rome has always been eternal conscious torment in fire.

SEPARATION

He says it's not a salvation issue or a fellowship issue. I strongly disagree because this doctrine
teaches a different god than the God of the Bible. It teaches a god that does not exemplify true
justice for evil and the wicked. If you preach another god than the God of the Bible, you are not
my brother and I must separate from that heresy.

Watch this clip of Fudge as he makes a comparison of what the true teaching of hell is likened to.
He mocks God and despises God's creation of everlasting hell. He is mocking the true God. The
people in the audience are laughing at his metaphor for what the God of the Bible does with the
wicked in hell. This will show you the true heart of people that teach this false doctrine of
annihilationism:

Play from 1:00:34 - 1:01:40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHUPpmbTOV4
Here are some false teachers that were hurting people's faith by their teaching on the future
state of the dead:

"[15] Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth.

[16] But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

[17] And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;

[18] Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and
overthrow the faith of some." - II Timothy 2:15-18