
Heaven and hell
Does punishment in Hell last
forever? A description of two evangelical Christian beliefs: Traditionalism and
Annihilationism

Sponsored link.

Overview:
Christianity has traditionally taught that Hell exists as a place of torture
and torment for those who have not met certain criteria for
salvation -- criteria normally based either on
correct beliefs or proper actions. This topic is gradually fading as a subject
for sermons, perhaps because of the conflict between historical concepts of Hell
and modern-day secular values of religious freedom, personal dignity, prisoner's
rights and elementary justice. Some
parts of the Bible have sunk into obscurity. For example, Revelation 14:9-11 is
very rarely discussed. It describes an endless torture scene, with angels and
Jesus present either as observers or as officials who are directing the torture
of the victims in Hell.
If one accepts that Hell exists as a place where its inhabitants are in
extreme pain, there still remains two concepts about the duration of the
torture:
 |
Annihilationism: It is finite. |
 |
Traditionalism: It lasts forever. |
Traditionalism is fading rapidly, being replaced by annihilationism. It is
unclear whether the latter belief will also eventually fade and be replaced by a
Hell that is interpreted symbolically.

Annihilationism:
This is a.k.a. conditionalism and conditional
immortality: This belief states that unsaved individuals will be
punished in Hell only for a period of time that is appropriate to pay for the nature and
frequency of their sins while they were alive on earth. This belief is vaguely similar to the
Roman
Catholic Church's belief in Purgatory. However, they
differ from the Catholic view in one important point: supporters of
annihilationism believe that when the inmates' punishment in Hell is
finished, and they have paid the full penalty for their sins, they will be
exterminated and will cease to exist in any
form. The Roman Catholic church teaches that after the individual is
cleansed from the temporal consequences of her or his sins while on
earth, they are eligible to be transferred to Heaven.
The term "annihilationism" is derived from the belief that the
unsaved will be totally destroyed in Hell without any trace. No trace will be
left of their body or soul. The term "conditional
immortality" comes from the belief that a person only attains
immortality on the condition that they are saved before death. "Conditionalism"
comes from the phrase "conditional immortality."

Traditionalism:
This belief states that unsaved individuals will be punished in Hell
for all eternity without any hope of relief, moderation or cessation of the
pain. Their
sentence will not be for a year, or a decade, or life-imprisonment like
many prisoners on Earth receive. They will be in constant torment not just for
a century, or millennia, or even a billion years. Their punishment lasts
forever!
The term "traditionalism" is derived from the fact that the belief in unending punishment
has been the traditional, historical view of the vast majority of
Christians for almost two millennia.
There are many passages in the Bible that appear to describe punishment in Hell as
lasting for all eternity.
 |
Traditionalists interpret these passages literally. They view
the inmates' physical punishment as unceasing, continuous, severe, and infinite in duration.
|
 |
Annihilationists teach that punishment is time-limited because the individuals'
eventual state is to be exterminated without a trace of their existence remaining, forever.
Their final punishment -- to be totally exterminated -- lasts forever. 1 |
Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any mechanism for harmonizing
these conflicting beliefs. The obvious way would be to assess the will of
God through prayer. But, this appears to be impossible, at least according
to a small-scale pilot study that we have
conducted.

Where believers in traditionalism and annihilationism agree and disagree:
In recent decades, most liberal and many mainline denominations have either rejected the idea of
punishment in Hell, or have seriously downplayed it. Most
conservative religious denominations maintain their belief in a literal Hell and in the inerrancy of the Bible. This
leads them to hold certain beliefs in common:
 |
Hell exists as a place of punishment for individuals have
died and who:
 |
Have been exposed to the Gospel but have rejected it and thus have
never been saved. |
 |
Have been exposed and accepted an invalid version of the Gospel taught by a
faith group which deviates from traditional Christian teachings; such groups are
often called new religious movements or "cults." |
 |
Have never heard of the Gospel, Christianity or Jesus and thus
have not had the opportunity to be saved. There is some debate
among conservative Protestants about this specific point. |
|  |
God's moral standards conflict with the most highly developed human moral
systems:
 |
Civilized countries regard the torture of prisoners as
uncivilized and immoral. One example was the outrage and criminal
prosecutions after news of the torture of prisoners at the Abu
Grahab prison in Iraq surfaced in the media. Dictators and countries who engage in it
are regarded as pariahs. However, torturing prisoners is the purpose
of Hell; it was created by God to perform exactly that function. |
 |
Imprisoning people for a thought crime is regarded as
immoral
behavior on Earth. For example, there was considerable outrage and anger when
Abdul Rahman was arrested in Afghanistan
for converting from Islam to Christianity and threatened with execution. Civilized countries only imprison people who have been
found guilty of some criminal activity, not for people who simply hold
minority beliefs. Again, those who imprison people for having
thought "crimes" are
considered pariahs. However, imprisoning people for
their beliefs is the purpose of Hell. |
 |
More details |
|
Their main point of disagreement is whether punishment in Hell:
 |
Lasts for all eternity, or |
 |
Is finite in duration, and is then followed by absolute annihilation. |


About the debate between Annihilationism and Traditionalism:
The debate between these viewpoints is not grounded in what the biblical
text says. Evangelicals generally accept the accuracy of the words in the New International
Version, the King James Version of the Bible, and/or the surviving
copies of Greek Hebrew and Aramaic texts. The core problem is disagreement
about what the Bible's words actually mean. The Bible is clearly
ambiguous, because intelligent, devout, sincere, thoughtful theologians read
the same Bible text and yet have come to very different beliefs about Hell and many
other topics.
Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any hope of harmonizing
these conflicting beliefs. The obvious way would be to assess the will of
God through prayer. But, this appears to be impossible, at least according
to a small-scale pilot study that we have
completed. And so, the debate continues.

What is at stake in the debate?
Emotions run high in the writings of Evangelicals on both sides of this
issue:
James I Packer is one of the leading Evangelical theologians. He supports
traditionalism and has written:
"Does it matter whether an evangelical is a conditionalist
[annihilationist] or not? I think it does, for a:
 |
Conditionalists' idea of God will miss out on the glory of divine justice, and
|
 |
His idea of worship will miss out on praise for God's judgments,
and |
 |
His ideal of heaven will miss out on the thought that praise for
God's judgments goes on and 2 |
 |
His idea of man will miss out on the awesome dignity of our
having been made to last for eternity, and |
 |
In his preaching of the
gospel he will miss out on telling the unconverted that their
prospects without Christ are as bad as they possibly could be, for on the conditionalist
view they aren't." |
|
"These, surely, are sad
losses. Conditionalism, logically thought through, cannot but impoverish
a Christian, and limit our usefulness to our Lord. That is why I am
concerned about the current trend towards conditionalism. I hope that
it may soon be reversed." 3
John Wenham, another leading Evangelical,
supports annihilationism. He has written:
"Unending torment speaks to me of sadism, not
justice. It is a doctrine which I do not know how to preach without negating
the loveliness and glory of God. From the days of Tertullian it has
frequently been the emphasis of fanatics. It is a doctrine which makes the
Inquisition look reasonable. It all seems a flight from reality and common
sense....I believe that endless torment is a hideous and unscriptural
doctrine which has been a terrible burden on the mind of the church for many
centuries and a terrible blot on her presentation of the gospel. I should
indeed be happy if, before I die, I could help in sweeping it away." 4
Theologians on both sides of the issue are totally
convinced of the correctness of their position. They are often critical of their
opponents' reasoning:
Packer writes:
"The biblical arguments [for annihilationism]
are to my mind flimsy special pleading, and the feelings that make people
want conditionalism to be true seem to me to reflect, not superior spiritual
sensitivity, but secular sentimentalism..."
Wenham writes:
"The extraordinary thing about these
[traditionalist] replies [to annihilationism] is that none of them actually
addresses the arguments used by the conditionalists...While not answering
the conditionalist arguments with any seriousness, these writers do of
course state their own case. They set out certain well-known texts and claim
that their meaning is 'obvious.' I would claim that the natural meaning of
the vast majority of relevant texts is quite otherwise."

Site navigation:

References used:The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above
essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.
-
E.W. Fudge & R.A. Peterson, "Two views of Hell: A biblical and
theological dialog," InterVarsity Press, (2000) Read
reviews and/or safely purchase this book from Amazon.com online bookstore
- See Revelation 16:5-7 and 19:1-5.
-
James Packer, "The Problem of Eternal Punishment," Crux 23, #3,
(1990), Pages 24-25.
-
John Wenham, "The case for conditional immortality," in Nigel M.
de S Cameron, "Universalism and the doctrine of Hell," Baker, (1992), Pages
187 - 190.
-
Jeff Spencer, "The Destruction of Hell: Annihilationism examined,"
Christian Apologetics Journal, Volume 1, #1, 1998-Spring, at:
http://www.ses.edu/

Copyright © 2001 to 2006 by Ontario Consultants on Religious
Tolerance
Originally written: 2001-APR-5
Latest update: 2006-MAY-15
Author: B.A. Robinson 

|