On 3/20/2021, Christ Date and Mark Corbett debated Keith Sherlin and Brannon Poore.  The topic was “The Bible’s View of Hell.”  Date and Corbett hold to annihilationism (also known as conditional immortality, CI), and Sherlin and Poore hold to eternal conscious torment (ECT). You can find the debate at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35oyH16uFF8.  I watched the entire exchange and thought it went very well for the ECT side.  A few days later, Christ Date reviewed the debate with Glenn Peoples, who is also an annihilationist and works with Chris at rethinkinghell.com.  You can find their discussion about the debate at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvYGUzd0O6g.  Some of the things said in that discussion are very concerning and worth examination.

I’ve written a great deal on annihilationism. At worst, I think certain aspects of annihilationism are damnable heresies, and at best other teaches are just errors.  In my studies of CI, I have discovered three main positions concerning the human person upon his death.

1. The spirit is conscious and self-aware  Upon death, the human person continues to exist and is in a conscious state, self-aware, and waits for the final judgment of annihilation or eternal life with God.
2. The spirit is sleep, not self-aware Upon death, the human person continues to exist but is in a state of unconscious, soul sleep, with no activity, and will be awakened for judgment to annihilation or eternal life with God.
3. The spirit ceases to exist   Upon death, the human person ceases to exist and is resurrected to judgment for annihilation or eternal life with God.

This third position is theologically dangerous and, I believe, supports damnable heresy because of how it relates to the person of Jesus who died on the cross. If Jesus’ humanity ceased to exist upon his death, then the person of Jesus is destroyed and is non-existent. This invalidates the resurrection of Christ.  I’ll talk more about this later.

Transcription of Chris Date and Glenn Peoples’ Discussion

As a side note, in the dialogue Chris Date had with Glenn Peoples, at 1:22:30, we find out that Glenn does not affirm the inerrancy of Scripture, but he does affirm infallibility. He said at 1:22:50, “every doctrine taught in Scripture is true.”  This is interesting. How do you have infallibility without inerrancy? That seems inconsistent. That might be a discussion with having with him sometime.

At 1:23:20 in their discussion, Chris Date said, “…they [Sherlin/Poore] made a much bigger deal out of you [Glenn Peoples] being both a physicalist and an annihilationist. And so you affirm that Jesus died in his whole person.”  Glenn affirmed that statement by saying, “Yeah.”  Chris then played a clip from the debate where Shirlin talks about Glenn’s view of the Trinity.  At 1:24:23 of Chris and Peoples’ discussion where Glenn was quoted, Glenn said, “I want to take the bull by the horns, and say, what if we did claim this? What if we actually do claim that the whole person Jesus died and that there was no surviving remnant? Again, in my opinion, but [unintelligible word] I think it is true, and I’m asking you to consider thinking it.” They then talked about it for a bit.  At 1:25:27, Chris date said, “You do affirm that as a physicalist and as an annihilationist that Jesus fully died.”  Glenn said, “Oh, yeah.” At 1:25:55, Chris said to Glenn, “How would you defend your view that Jesus did in fact die fully, his whole person, and yet that’s not a challenge to either the hypostatic union or the Trinity?” (I added underline for emphasis)

For the next few minutes, they discussed this issue, and, honestly, I could not make sense of Glen Peoples’ position, which was frustrating. He spoke quickly, in fragmented sentences, without really focusing on the issue. In my opinion, he did not directly and sufficiently answer Chris’s question. So, to find out exactly what he and others believe, I wrote an article, 50 Questions for Conditionalists, Annihilationists.  It is designed to find out exactly what annihilationists actually believe so that later discussions can be more informed.

I hope that both Chris Date and Glenn Peoples would be so kind as to answer those questions and clear up any confusion.  Again, the carm email is [email protected].

Glenn Peoples says he holds to classical theism.

Later in the discussion, at 1:29:51, Glenn said, “I hold to a very traditional concept of God called classical theism. And most theologians in history did hold to it. Including all the church fathers that these guys would appear to.”  Please see my article, What is classical theism? It helps clarify the issue.

Glenn went on to explain what he meant by the term “classical theism.” At 1:30:30, Glenn said,

“according to classical theism, um, God is timeless. That means God’s existence is not like ours, divisible into units of time. But God exists endlessly, and therefore without change. The only way that God has ever existed in time is in the incarnation, and that creates a really interesting situation because now, during the incarnation, there are two ways in which the second person of the Trinity, the Son, exists. So, when God became incarnate in Jesus, of course, all three members of the Trinity exist timelessly. That can’t change because it is timeless, and you know nothing that nothing in time can change God’s timelessness existence. But now there’s another mode of existence that the Son has, and that is existence in time, like you and me in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. And here’s the crucial thing about that. If God did not exist timelessly, so if we reject classical theism, if the three persons of the Trinity exist only in time and the logos, God the Son, the second person, became incarnate in Jesus, then the only existence that the Son would have would be in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. And so, under those circumstances, yes, if that person dies fully, then the Trinity would be down to two members. And that’s why it sounds like your two debate opponents don’t hold to classical theism because they imagine that if the whole person of Jesus died, then the Trinity is affected. But that’s not true given classical theism.”  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvYGUzd0O6g, 1:30:30ff, underline added

Glenn misses the point of the criticism about his position of the whole person of Jesus dying and how that relates to the incarnation. I hope that is merely due to a lack of clarity on his part that sometimes happens in live discussions. But, regarding the person of Christ who has two distinct natures, to say that the whole person died would imply a dissolution of the hypostatic union and raise questions about the nature of the Trinity.  Sorry, Glenn Peoples, but it does, and you need to be very clear about this – as does Chris Date.

Glenn responds to that criticism by saying that “God exists endlessly, and therefore without change.” But, that doesn’t answer the challenge to his position. I ask how does “God’s eternal existence” answer the challenge to the death of the ‘whole person of Jesus’? It doesn’t.  Remember, in the above quote that began at 1:23:20, Glenn said …

“I want to take the bull by the horns, and say, what if we did claim this? What if we actually do claim that the whole person Jesus died and that there was no surviving remnant? Again, in my opinion, but [unintelligible word] I think it is true and I’m asking you to consider thinking it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvYGUzd0O6g, 1:23:20 

This is seriously problematic. For Glenn to say that “the whole person Jesus died, and there was no surviving remnant” is simply heresy.  It’s damnable heresy because it necessarily denies the hypostatic union.  Glenn needs to repent of this heretical false teaching.

I can only hope that he misspoke. Chris Date should have pressed him for clarity and not just politely nudged him along in a series of comments that didn’t clarify this extremely serious issue. Again, this is at the heart of the Christian gospel. It is serious!

“God is timeless” does not fix the problem

I am dismayed when someone who claims to be a Christian, says that God “exists outside of time,” or “God is timeless.” Usually, it is offered when trying to answer an objection to things like Transubstantiation, or in this case, “the whole person of Jesus dying on the cross…”  Consider again what Glenn Peoples said.

“God is timeless. That means God’s existence is not like ours, divisible into units of time. But God exists endlessly, and therefore without change. The only way that God has ever existed in time is in the incarnation…” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvYGUzd0O6g, 1:30:30ff

In light of this response, I want to ask questions of Gleen, and anyone else who uses this approach.

1. Can you provide us with a definition of time?
2. How do you know your definition of time is correct?
3. How do you know God is or is not related to time?
4. What does it mean for God to be timeless?
5. What does it mean for God to exist outside of time?
6. Do you, who does not exist in a timeless state, understand what it means to exist in a timeless state so you can apply it to God?

I can go on asking these kinds of questions. It isn’t me just trying to be difficult. I actually ask these kinds of questions when dealing with Catholics and Eastern Orthodox who sometimes say that “God exists outside of time.” I ask them if they know what that means since they don’t “exist outside of time” – or whatever that phrase means. And how do they know it applies to God? If they don’t know what time is or how it relates to God, how do they know it applies to God or not?

My point is that people should not say God exists outside of time or that God is timeless if it can’t define exactly what that means.  This is especially true when they’re trying to excuse their position which says that “the whole person Jesus died, and there was no surviving remnant.”

In regard to God’s relationship to time, I simply say that God appears to not be restricted to time the way we are. Since I don’t comprehend the essence of the natures of both God and time, I can’t say God does or does not have a relationship with it.  I just don’t know.  I’m not knowledgeable to say. Remember, in serious theological discussion, you must sometimes define the terms you use before you make statements using those terms. Then we ask questions about those statements and Scripture and logic to validate or invalidate the statements.

So, Glenn People’s statement about the timelessness of God doesn’t absolve him of the difficulties facing his position.

Jesus is one person with two natures.

The correct Christian position concerning Jesus is that he is one person with two distinct natures. This is called the hypostatic union. In addition, the doctrine known as the communicatio idiomatum, “the communication of the properties,” means that the properties of both the human and the divine natures are ascribed to the single person. The single person, Jesus, said, “I am thirsty” (John 19:28), claiming the attributes of human nature and, “I am with you always even to the end of the earth” (Matt. 28:20); thereby claiming attributes of his divine nature.)

This is the proper teaching regarding the person of Jesus. But, do Chris Date, Glenn Peoples, and any other annihilationist who hold to the human nature of Jesus dying, so there is “no surviving remnant.”

The damnable heresy of “no surviving remnant.”

If the single person of Jesus with two distinct natures stopped existing, then the person of Jesus is no longer the person of Jesus. This would mean his resurrection was not a resurrection but a recreation.  A recreation of the person is not actually the same person. It is a duplicate. The continuity of his personhood is lost if there is “no surviving remnant” of Jesus’ human nature upon His death.  See the articles Problems with anthropological physicalism/materialism, and In conditionalism, there is a logical problem with the soul ceasing to exist, then being resurrected.  Note: The articles I just recommended are important in this discussion.  Physicalism leads some serious problems.

Chris Date did not challenge Glenn Peoples’ statement that “the whole person Jesus died, and there was no surviving remnant.”  Why? Chris should have seen the problem of this teaching and gotten more specific in his questioning.  I would have!  Because Christ failed to do this, it shows his lack of properly theological understanding and, in my opinion, it shows his commitment to annihilationism over biblical truth concerning Jesus.

Now, to be fair, it appears that Peoples tried to work through the problem and provide a solution.  But it made no sense. Under the heading dealing with classical theism above, I’ve provided the transcription of what Glenn said.  Now, in all fairness, I’m not just looking for some heresy and then point an accusing finger. This is serious and trying to be objective about what they said. But, in my opinion, Glenn’s analysis of Classical Theism as a response to the issue that “the whole person Jesus died, and there was no surviving remnant” was completely insufficient. As important as this topic is, precision is necessary, and it was not provided by Glenn Peoples or Chris Date.

Conclusion

Because of the critical nature of this issue regarding the person of Christ and the “no surviving remnant” issue of the person of Christ upon his death, and because neither Chris nor Glenn were sufficiently clear in their analysis of this issue, I have produced an article, 50 Questions for Conditionalists, Annihilationists.  The goal of the article is to obtain clarification on what is meant by conditionalists regarding this critical issue and others related to it.  In fact, if any conditionalist/annihilationist ever wants to debate me, he or she will have to answer all the questions before I accept any debate offer.

So, if either Chris Date or Glenn Peoples want to tackle this issue, I politely request that they answer the questions as I have related in this article. I can then publish their answers here on CARM so we can all know exactly what they believe.

If they choose not to provide the answers, that is their prerogative. They certainly are not answerable to me. But, since this is such a critical issue, I would hope that they would desire to provide clarification.  Why wouldn’t they?