The origins of the doctrine known as “annihilationism” go all the way back to the 4th-century when a man named Arnobius first propagated a doctrine that unbelievers passed into “nonexistence” either at death or at the time of resurrection. “As to man, Arnobius . . . denies his immortality. The soul outlives the body but depends solely on God for the gift of eternal duration. The wicked go to the fire of Gehenna, and will ultimately be consumed or annihilated” (Schaff 859). It was condemned as heresy at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 A.D. The doctrine did not reappear again in church history until at least the 12th century. Throughout church history, leading church fathers have taken a strong stand against annihilationism (or conditionalism) in favor of the traditional (orthodox) view of hell as eternal punishment (everlasting) for those who choose to reject Jesus Christ and His gracious offer of eternal life. A few of the more famous figures of Christ’s church who have given whole-hearted support to the traditional doctrine include: Tertullian, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, George Whitefield, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, and Dwight L. Moody. The Westminster Confession of Faith was very clear in its affirming of hell as eternal punishment: “but the wicked who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power” (Grudem 1196).

This past generation has experienced the movement of men believed to be stalwart evangelicals reaching to defend annihilationism. The well-known ones include John Stott, Clark Pinnock, John Wenham, Philip E. Hughes, Steven Travis, and their numbers (those advocating “annihilationism”) appear to be growing. Why should this be so, and what is the Biblical “weight” to be given their arguments? Can it be possible that evangelicalism is being attacked from within by a low view of God and His inspired, infallible, and inerrant word?

ANNIHILATIONISM ARGUMENT #1

Our immortality is not a natural attribute of being human (is not inherent in the make-up of man as a corporal-spiritual creature) at present; so, eternal life can only be given to believers at the resurrection as God’s gift. Unbelievers will pass into destruction (annihilation) of body and soul in hell (Matt. 10:28). Only God has immortality in Himself (I Tim. 6:15-16).

RESPONSE

The eternity of God and eternal life for believers is not in doubt amongst evangelical Christians. What is at issue is whether eternity means the same in regards to “eternal punishment.” Clark Pinnock argues that if souls will exist forever, then those who reject the Gospel must be put somewhere: “I am convinced that the Hellenistic belief in the immortality of the soul has done more than anything else (specifically more than the Bible) to give credibility to the doctrine of the everlasting conscious punishment of the wicked” (252).

Louis Berkhof argues that: “God is indeed the only one that has inherent immortality. Man’s immortality is derived, but this is not equivalent to saying that he does not posses it in virtue of his creation . . . . Eternal life is indeed the gift of God in Jesus Christ, a gift which the wicked do not receive, but this does not mean that they will not continue to exist (691).

Edward Fudge, in summarizing his annihilation argument for Matthew 25:41, 46 says that unbelievers:

Our Lord Jesus Christ tells us perhaps as clearly as anywhere else in the Bible that the unsaved “will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matt. 25:46). Significant here would seem to be the parallelism. Millard Erickson holds that it (the parallelism) is of great significance:

Finally, John tells us in Revelation 20:10-15 that first the devil is thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, to “be tormented day and night forever and ever” and a few verses later he describes unbelievers as being thrown into the same lake of fire. Robert A Peterson closes out this discussion aptly:

The eternality of hell and its eternal punishment of the wicked could not be clearer than Christ’s own description in Mark 9:48: “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” in conjunction with Jude 7’s scenario : “[the wicked] are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.” This writer must conclude, as does John Walvoord, that: “eternal punishment is everlasting, regardless of the terminology, [for] . . . it is never regarded as being terminated . . . . Doubting the matter of eternal punishment requires either doubting the Word of God or denying its literal, normal interpretation (26-27).

This writer concludes that the arguments here for annihilationism by Pinnock and Fudge are shallow and are not supported by Scripture.

ANNIHILATIONISM ARGUMENT #2

The Biblical words and imagery such as “fire,” “death,” and “destruction” indicate extinction and annihilation. John Stott suggests that the imagery of hell as “eternal fire” points toward destruction rather than torment. He argues that: “The main function of fire is not to cause pain, but to secure destruction, as all the world’s incinerators bear witness” (316).

RESPONSE

A reading of Daniel 12:2 and Matthew 25:41 and 46 together seems to clearly reveal that Jesus Christ and Daniel intended that hell be understood not as a place of extinction or annihilation, but rather of conscious eternal punishment. David F. Wells discusses the wide range of meanings of the above three Biblical words:

Just as was argued by Millard Erickson for Argument # 1, it seems most appropriate here to renew it again: “the main contrast between eternal life and its opposite is two very different types of life, not existence verses (sic) non existence” (Habermas and Moreland 172).

Robert Reynold makes a most appropriate inquiry to those espousing the doctrine of annihilationism: “Why (does) John (the Baptist) characterize the fire as ‘unquenchable’ (Matt. 3:12) if every impenitent sinner at the final judgment is instantly consumed by it?” (50)

This writer concludes that the argument that the imagery of “fire,” “death,” and “destruction” indicates extinction and/or annihilation is a weak one, unsupported by the Scriptures as a whole.

ANNIHILATIONISM ARGUMENT #3

Annihilationists argue that the goodness of God makes the traditional view of eternal punishment incongruent with God’s perfect justice: doesn’t hell contradict God’s love? The famous British writer and philosopher, John Stuart Mill, of the 19th century, went so far as to proclaim that a good God could not punish unbelievers forever and therefore refused to believe in hell.

RESPONSE

Clark Pinnock announces his position on this issue in the most scathing language:

Edward Fudge is in substantial agreement with Pinnock, for he pleads with his readers:

Gary R. Habermas and J. P. Moreland, believing that this argument of the annihilationist theologians is their strongest, give this response:

Wayne Grudem makes a most significant response to the argument that eternal punishment cannot be reconciled with God’s goodness and love:

The love of God and the goodness of God are attributes that give us great gratitude in this life, and yet for now we only see them (and appreciate them) “through a glass darkly.” The same can be said of God’s corresponding attributes of His holiness and His righteousness. He instructs us to “Be ye holy, for I am holy” and He never compromises His holy being to moral evil. Harold T. Bryson brings these last two attributes together when he declares:
God’s righteousness helps us to understand the reasons for hell. God uses diverse means to reveal his moral requirements - conscience of men, law and prophets, teachings of Christ, and the character of Jesus. When men lack righteousness, God must condemn to be true to his character. He must punish transgressors. Scholars call this facet of God’s action “punitive righteousness.” To overlook or to neglect sin would be to act contrary to his nature. Hell does not mean that God does not love people - it means that he hates sin. [For] those who persisted in unbelief, Jesus condemned . . . . God condemns only those who will not repent. Hell or the consequences of sin cannot be blamed on God . . . . If we believe that God is holy and righteous, then we must believe that hell is part of his will . . . [H]ell does not contradict God’s character or cast a shadow on his goodness (88-89). (underscoring supplied)
This writer finds that this argument is a clear victory for the traditional doctrine of hell. The factor of eternal punishment is evidence of God’s goodness, His righteousness, His holiness, and His benevolence. William Shedd expressed clearly over one hundred years ago that rationale for endless punishment as a necessity because sin is an infinite evil: