Annihilationism:

A flawless response to traditional

eschatology?

"Annihilationism: A flawless response to

traditional eschatology?"by Ryan
Paetzold is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0
Unported License.
 1

In the late 1980s, the uneasiness within evangelicalism concerning the concept of “hell”,

especially the concept of hell as an eternal punishment, began to gain significant attention.1 As a

result of that uneasiness, alternative concepts began to gain popularity- concepts such as

“universalism”, and “annihilation.” Because of the complex nature, and the passionate

arguments both for and against each of these concepts, it is important to have as broad of a view

as possible. The broader the view, the easier it will be to understand what these different

concepts truly mean, whether they have any sort of defendable biblical or theological basis, and

whether the concepts are in any way plausible, or helpful to understanding what happens after

bodily death.

Part of the reason this topic is so complicated is because it seems that as a result of many

of the viewpoints being the passionate beliefs of their authors, sometimes claims are made that

are not entirely accurate, and as a result, misleading statements are made. For example, Richard

Mayhue wrote that, “A belief in the eternal, conscious torment of the lost in hell has been the

almost unbroken testimony of the church, as has been the doctrine of the certain immortality of

mankind.”2 At best, Mayhue’s statement is misleading by implicitly suggesting that “eternal,

conscious torment” is a teaching clearly understood (without any amount of dissention) to have

been taught by Jesus. At worst, Mayhue’s statement is willingly untruthful in that it ignores early

dissenting opinions, along with the actual time frame that such beliefs about hell began to

emerge. In regards to Mayhue claim of “certain immortality of mankind”, that doctrine does not

have any biblical support, and stands complete against 1 Timothy 6:16 which states that God

alone is immortal- but the issue of immortality will be explored later. Of course, after making

1
Richard L. Mayhue, “Hell: Never, Forever, or Just for a While?” The Master’s Seminary
Journal 9, no. 2 (Fall 1998): 129.
2
Mayhue, 132.
 2

the statement, Mayhue then goes on to concede that it wasn’t till the “fifth century” that the

“unbroken testimony of the church” began to have freedom from serious challenges.3

In spite of Mayhue’s argument for “eternal, conscious torment,” other positions have

emerged including universalism, and annihilation. Of these three positions, annihilation will be

the focus of this exploration due to the way annihilationism seeks to combine elements from the

other positions to develop an understanding that has been passionately argued for and against.

As a result, certain questions emerge: What does the position of annihilation maintain? Does

annihilationism have any sort of defendable biblical or theological basis? Does annihilationism

serve as a realistic and/or helpful response or critique of traditional thinking? Finally, what

strengths and weaknesses does the annihilation position have over the other positions?

While it can be claimed that there are an extraordinary number of perspectives

concerning eschatology (partially because of the number of nuances that are possible for any

given position, which would result in a new perspective), three general categories of positions

are helpful as a general basis for understanding additional perspectives and nuances: double

destiny4, universalism, and annihilation. While the focus of this effort is on annihilation, a

working definition of the other categories is very important in order to understand how

annihilation relates to those other positions. Again, the following definitions are meant to foster

a general understanding of each position with the knowledge that there are many different

perspectives based on nuances within each position (for example, within universalism, different

perspectives emerged based on whether particular universalists completely deny the existence of

hell, or whether they affirm the existence of hell for a particular segment that is a special

exception and not the general rule).

3
Ibid.
4
Ted Peters, “Where Are We Going?” Essentials of Christian Theology (Louisville: Westminster
John Knox Press, 2003), 360ff.
 3

Double destiny can be understood as the belief that after death, a person is judged by

God, and then sent to one of two possible destinations for all eternity: heaven, or hell where the

person will be subject to conscious eternal torment. Generally, this is understood to be the

“traditional” view, and has its roots with Augustine.5 This idea also has support from many

others including Thomas Aquinas who wrote, “The fire of hell is not called so metaphorically,

nor an imaginary fire, but a real corporeal fire.”6

Universalism is best understood as “belief in universal salvation and no damnation.”7

Essentially, this position maintains that, upon death, all people will be with God in heaven-

though, many supporters of universalism deny any existence of hell in the first place.

Universalism also has a number of variations. For example, it is often claimed that Rob Bell and

N. T. Wright fall into this category, though they, themselves, deny being universalists because

they affirm the existence of some sort of hell, but they’re understanding is that only “non-

humans” are there.8 For our purposes, Bell and Wright will be considered universalists since

they believe all humans end up in heaven with God.

Annihilation can be defined as the belief that those judged by God to be unworthy to

enter heaven, would cease to exist at some point. This position is often referred to as “conditional
5
Clark H. Pinnock, “The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent,” Criswell Theological Review
4/2 (1990): 244.
6
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica: Volume V – Part III, Second Section & Supplement (New
York: Cosimo, Inc., 2007), 2829.
7
Gabriel Fackre, The Christ Story, 3rd Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdsman Publishing
Company, 1996), 223.
8
Rob Bell maintains this position in an interview for his 2011 book, Love Wins (HarperOne).
The interview can be viewed at http://www.livestream.com/lovewins/video?
clipId=pla_9997e760-b88d-4294-91a8-142e5ed1c619&utm_source=lslibrary&utm_medium=ui-
thumb. A full transcript is also available at
http://www.patheos.com/community/loveandjudgment/2011/03/16/full-transcript-of-rob-bell-
interview-on-hell-and-love-wins/. N.T. Wright alludes to this understanding in an interview he
did for the television series 100 Huntley Street. The interview can be viewed at
http://www.100huntley.com/video.php?id=vggzqXzEvZ0.
 4

immortality” since “God created Man only potentially immortal.”9 Variations of this position

include the question of whether ceasing to exist occurs immediately following judgment, or some

time late after some amount of conscious torment.

With an understanding of basic definitions in hand, the arguments for annihilation can

now be examined.

Arguments Supporting Annihilationism

The argument for annihilation or conditional immortality stems from multiple directions.

Those who defend traditional understandings of hell often accuse advocates of annihilation of

being overly sentimental, stating that they “appear to back into [annihilationism] in horrified

recoil from the thought of billions in distress, rather than move into it because the obvious

meaning of Scripture beckons them.”10 However, supporters of the annihilationism argue that it

is actually the result of a close reading of Scripture that leads them to their position. Three of the

strongest arguments of annihilation advocates are: that humans aren’t immortal by nature- so an

eternal punishment would not be possible for beings which haven’t attained immortality, and that

an eternal, conscious punishment is against the nature of God (especially as revealed by the

cross), and finally that Scripture repeatedly uses language similar to “second death” which is

difficult to understand in terms of an eternal punishment.

It is important for any eschatological position to be viewed in light of Scripture, and to

not contradict Scripture without justifiable reasons or explanations. To that end, John W.

Wenham begins his case for annihilation on shaky grounds by immediately stating that he

9
John W. Wenham, “The Case for Conditional Immortality,” Universalism and the Doctrine of
Hell: Papers Presented at the Fourth Edinburgh Conference on Christian Dogmatics, 1991
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 162.
10
J.I. Packer, “The Problem of Eternal Punishment,” Crux 26/3 (1990), 25. The title of this
article, originally a lecture, is facetious.
 5

ignores any part of Scripture that is in conflict with any other part of Scripture (with this weak

logic, it leads one to wonder what percentage of Scripture would remain if any parts that stood in

conflict were tossed out).11 However, Wenham then continues on to make a case for annihilation

based partially on his accounting of two hundred and sixty-four New Testament references to life

after death, of which there is only one reference that Wenham believes clearly refers to any

eternal conscious torment for humans (Revelation 14:11)12 and one reference from Scripture is

not enough to justify the position eternal conscious punishment.

Another serious issue that annihilation supporters have with the traditional of heaven and

hell is the implicit idea that all humans are immortal by nature. Instead, Wenham argues, “God

created Man only potentially immortal… [and that] immortality is a state gained by grace

through faith when the believer receives eternal life and becomes a partaker of the divine nature,

immortality being inherent in God alone.”13 With that understanding, if a person is not a believer,

then that person will not receive eternal life, and therefore will not be immortal. As a result,

eternal-conscious punishment is impossible because only believers ever attain eternal status, and

thus, those who are judged unworthy will cease to exist.

Edward William Fudge points out that often the very theologians who argue that the

soul is immortal will admit that “immortal soul” is not found anywhere in the Bible.14 This is

also evident in the writing of Robert A. Peterson who does not appeal to Scipture to defend the

immortality of soul, but rather he reasons that the soul must be immortal simply because

Tertullian, Augustine, Luther and others “believed that this is what the Bible taught.”15

11
Wenham, 161.
12
Wenham, 174.
13
Wenham, 162. Emphasis added.
14
Edward William Fudge, The Fire That Consumes (Houston: Providential Press, 1982), 52.
15
Robert A. Peterson, “A Traditionalist Response to John Sttott’s Arguments for
Annihilationism,” Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 37/4 (1994), 567.
 6

Philip Edgcumbe Hughes directly addresses Augustine’s teaching, especially Augustine’s

rather contradictory language such as “death will not be abolished, but will be eternal”16 with

confusion as to how passages in the New Testament which refer to a second death17 could be

viewed as eternal. Additionally, Hughes writes, “It would be hard to imagine a concept more

confusing than that of death which means existing endlessly without the power of dying.”18

Even John Stott, who is very hesitant to distance himself from evangelicalism and the

traditional concept of heaven and hell writes that, “the ultimate annihilation of the wicked should

at least be accepted as a legitimate, biblically founded alternative to their eternal conscious

torment."19

Thesis

The thesis of this exploration is that the annihilation position is, in a sense, a helpful

response and partial correction to the traditional understanding of a double destiny eschatology

by illustrating theological and biblical points of conflict, but annihilationism still harbors some

significant problems, ultimately, fails to fully acknowledge God’s grace. A few of those

problems will be examined, along with my current eschatological position that seeks to avoid the

problems, which still remain in annihilationism.

Arguments for a Position Beyond Annihilationism

There are a few problems inherent in annihilationism that are especially notable. First,

there are serious implications regarding salvation if anyone is to suffer at all. It stands to reason
16
Augustine, The City of God xxi.23. Quoted in Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, The True Image
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdsman Publishing Company, 1989), 403.
17
There are many examples including Luke 20:36, John 8:51, and John 11:26.
18
Hughes, 403.
19
David L. Edwards and John Stott, Evangelical Essentials (Downers Grove: InverVarsity Press,
1988), 320.
 7

that if anyone is in hell or to be annihilated, that the salvation, which resulted from Jesus’

atonement, was insufficient to save all. To suggest that the salvation from Jesus is insufficient is

a very serious charge that would at the very least be uncomfortable within orthodox Christianity.

Ironically, it is Clark Pinnock who so well illustrates that torment is not in the nature of

God (an issue previously identified as a major flaw in the traditional understanding as well)

when he wrote, “Surely a God who would do such a thing [torment for all eternity] is more

nearly like Satan than like God, at least by any ordinary moral standards, and by the gospel

itself.”20 Pinnock continues on to ask, “Does the one who told us to love our enemies intend to

wreak vengeance on his own enemies for all eternity?”21 Pinnock makes strong statements in

addressing the concept of eternal, conscious punishment. But is it really the eternal component

that makes a punishing God “like Satan”? If so, where exactly would the line be? Is torment for

eternity Satanic, but torment for a thousand years acceptable? Pinnock fails to recognize that the

incongruence between God’s teaching for us to love our enemies and the concept of God

wreaking vengeance on God’s enemies does not lay in the duration of the vengeance, but with

the vengeance itself.

But the concept of annihilation also poses a problem for those in heaven. Brian McLaren

succinctly illustrates the issue when he asks, “how could good and generous people rest in peace

or celebrate in bliss when they know the majority of their ancestors, friends, family members,

and descendants are experiencing eternal conscious torment in hell?”22 And it does not seem to

be too large of a stretch to suggest that good and generous people would still be unable to

celebrate in bliss, if their friends and loved ones were not being tormented, but were annihilated

instead.
20
Pinnock, 247.
21
Ibid.
22
Brian D. McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity (New York: HarperOne, 2010), 195.
 8

Differentiation

I acknowledge that the arguments in support of the concept of annihilation do effectively

highlight the problems with the idea of an eternal conscious torment. But I differ from those

arguments because I do not believe that an eternal conscious suffering is the only problem within

the traditional eschatological thinking of heaven and hell. While I agree with Pinnock’s

characterization of the traditional idea of an eternal burning hell as an “everlasting Auschwitz for

victims whom [God] does not even allow to die,”23 similarly strong language is also warranted in

regards to the destruction of creations, that were made in God’s image, as an abhorrent waste of

divine resources and energy, at the very least. Again, I completely agree with the sentiment of

Pinnock’s strongly worded statement, the solution is not to suggest that God chose to create

people only to eventually destroy them.

So, my position is different. Yes, that means I am stepping outside of the early tradition

of the Church, but I believe the issues that remain even after adopting an annihilation

understanding requires me to do so, and history permits me to do so. Paul J. Griffths

acknowledges that by the forth century, an understanding of the after-life “had been largely

agreed upon by Christians.”24 But Griffith doesn’t view the fact that the traditional

understanding was developed early with a significant amount of support as the bestowment of

infallibility on that understanding, rather Griffith views the traditional understanding as “a

picture intimately linked with a particular anthropology as all such inevitably are…Disputes in

eschatology are always disputes in anthropology.”

23
Pinnock, 253.
24
Paul J. Griffiths, “Self-Annihilation or Damnation? A Disputable Question in Christian
Eschatology,” Pro Ecclesia 16, no 4 (2007): 416. Emphasis added to show that Griffiths, unlike
Mayhue, recognizes that there was at least at least a small amount of opposition.
 9

Pinnock has also faced criticism for going against the tradition of the church, but has an

incredibly accurate response which is more than sufficient, in which he lists examples of how

many of the Church’s understandings have often undergone revisions including eschatology such

as “the way thinking moved from the expectation in the NT and the early church of the nearness

of the Second Coming of Christ to the willingness of later orthodox theologians to delay their

expectations until the far distant future…”25

I maintain that salvation through Jesus Christ is, indeed, salvation for all- and that

salvation necessarily requires that no one will face an eternal torment, nor annihilation. It is this

kind of understanding that is necessary in order to take seriously Scripture passages such as

“Christ died for all.”26

Additionally, I maintain that it would be against God’s nature for the to be a place of

torment, eternal or otherwise. Further, I affirm that annihilationism is also outside of God’s

nature. Again, it is this kind of understanding that is necessary if we are to take Jesus’ words in

Matthew 5:44ff seriously. Specifically, “But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those

who persecute you” which is then immediately followed by “Be perfect, therefore, as your

heavenly Father is perfect.”27 It is quite clear in this passage that, according to Jesus, it is love of

enemies that contributes to make God perfect. And, it would be quite a challenge to argue that

torment or annihilation are ways to show someone love. My understanding not only is takes

seriously those words of Jesus, but it is also consistent with the theology of the cross- the

25
Pinnock, 243. Pinnock continues on to list other ways in which the popular understandings
regarding eschatology has changed, but I have left out the examples in the interest of space.
26
For example, 2 Corinthians 5.
27
Matthew 5:44, 48.
 10

theology that the Incarnate Word loved his enemies so much, that he was willing to die for

them.28

By maintaining that there is no place of torment, nor annihilation, I also avoid the

problem of those in heaven having any sorrow or sadness as the result of their loved ones being

tormented or their existences stomped out. The only way anyone in heaven could celebrate

despite mass torment or annihilation of others is if those in heaven have a great capacity for

indifference, which would stand in stark contrast to the Lord who taught incredible compassion

by explaining when a person feeds the hungry, it is really the Lord being fed.29

In response to the comment from Packer that was previously mentioned, that it is

“horrified recoil from the thought of billions in distress” that leads to the rejection of the

traditional understanding of hell (and in my case, the rejection of annihilationism as well), I

respond that he is absolutely correct. A serious reading of Scripture reveals that God is love, a

love so extreme that it is beyond justice. With that revelation in mind, we are required to reject

the idea of God causing torment or annihilation.

But it is also a result of the revelation of God’s love that prevents me from embracing a

position of universalism. Quite simply, God’s love for us is too great to force anyone in God’s

Kingdom, if that is not where they want to be. As a result, I do not need to deny the existence of

hell, rather, I can affirm that hell is a place for nonhumans. This is because that the desire of a

person to be apart from God is to reject the image of God within that person, and by rejecting

that fundamental aspect of humanity, that person ceases to be human. This is an understanding

shared by prominent Christians including N.T. Wright and Rob Bell.30

28
I must credit Dr. Eric Flett for this line of reasoning as a result of his simple questions
regarding whether the concept of hell is compatible with the theology of the cross.
29
Matthew 25:37ff.
30
See previously referenced interviews.
 11

Conclusion

Annihilation uses biblical and theological reasoning to critique and improve the most

difficult aspects of the traditional double destiny eschatology. In an odd sort of way,

annihilationism appeals to many people because it’s a “best of both worlds” scenario; it affirms

the punishment of hell from the “double destiny” position- which people seem afraid to reject,

while agreeing with supporters of universalism by denying an eternal, conscious punishment.

But though annihilation is an improvement over the traditional understanding of hell, it is

still a challenge to reconcile a concept of annihilation with a loving God- though, admittedly, it is

not nearly as great of a challenge as a God that wills suffering.

My position extends beyond that the understanding of annihilation, and while I move

further away from the traditional understanding of hell in my attempt to reconcile the remaining

issues within the understanding of annihilation, I am able to do so without denying an existence

of hell. Of course, I am certain that my understanding will continue to grow and evolve, but for

this moment, I am comfortable with the basics of my position regarding a concept of hell.

"Annihilationism: A flawless response to traditional eschatology?"by Ryan

Paetzold is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0
Unported License.
 Bibliography

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica: Volume V – Part III, Second Section & Supplement. New

York: Cosimo, Inc., 2007.

Augustine, The City of God. Quoted in Hughes.

Edwards, David L. and John Stott. Evangelical Essentials A Liberal Evangelical Dialogue.

Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988.

Fackre, Gabriel. The Christ Story, 3rd Edition. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdsman Publishing

Company, 1996.

Griffiths, Paul J. “Self-Annihilation or Damnation? A Disputable Question in Christian

Eschatology.” Pro Ecclesia 16 no 4 (Fall 2007): 416-444.

Hughes, Philip Edgecumbe. The True Image. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company, 1989.

Fudge, Edward William. The Fire That Consumes. Houston: Providential Press, 1982.

Mayhue, Richard L. “Hell: Never, Forever, or Just for a While?” The Master’s Seminary Journal

9/2 (Fall 1998): 129-145.

McLaren, Brian D. A New Kind of Christianity, New York: HarperOne, 2010.

Packer, J.I. “The Problem of Eternal Punishment,” Crux 26/3 (1990): 18-25.

Peters, Ted. “Where Are We Going?” Essentials of Christian Theology. Louisville: Westminster

John Knox Press, 2003.

Peterson, Robert A. “A Traditionalist Response to John Stott’s Arguments for Annihilationism.”

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37/4 (December 1994): 553-568.

Pinnock, Clark. “The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent,” Criswell Theological Review 4/2

(1990): 246-247.

Wenham, John W. “The Case for Conditional Immortality,” Universalism and the Doctrine of

Hell. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1992.