We are blessed to have Rebecca Miller, Head of Reference & Instruction at Trinity International University’s Rolfing Library and a graduate student in Christian Thought: Christianity and Contemporary Culture at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, as our guest writer this week. Specially, we are looking at her recent paper on Annihilationism (the view that unbelievers simply cease to exist).

Following the publication of Rebecca’s paper, I will post some of my thoughts (which won’t be quite as eloquent) on the issue. Hopefully you all will join us in conversation as we discuss is important but controversial topic.

If you just joined us, you can find the previous posts here.

*************************************************

Conclusion

After looking at background issues, we discussed theological and biblical arguments for annihilationism. Overall, the annihilationists can make a reasoned argument for their position from theological arguments and Scriptures. Their position does not need to be thought of as a direct contradiction of Scripture, or a weakening of Biblical authority. Rather, they employ a different method of interpreting crucial passages. Their position can be logically sustained without denying Scripture.

Nevertheless, in comparing the interpretations of the relevant passages, the traditionalist perspective seems stronger. It takes the passages more for their straightforward meaning, how they would be interpreted by someone just reading them, and closer to how the original audience would have understood them. The annihilationist interpretations make sense, but only when you are using that perspective as an interpretive lens. It appears that the annihilationists first took their position based on theological or emotional objections to the traditional view, and then they turned to Scripture to support it. Although they did a good job with interpretation, it is not the best interpretation, and all things being equal we should choose the best interpretation.

Yet it would also be a mistake to condemn annihilationists as misinterpreting Scripture, or to say that they are unbiblical or not Christians, as has been suggested. The afterlife is something that we are given a hazy picture of in Scripture. It is likely to be much different than what we picture or expect. We should thus not hold too dogmatically to any one position. Some of the combatants even point this out. Stott says he holds the annihilationist position tentatively, but that it should “at least be accepted as a legitimate, biblically founded alternative.” Carson says the actual Hell is likely much different from the medieval images we have of it.  Grenz says that “the difficulty between the two positions arises from attempts to pinpoint with too much detail the eternal situation of the lost,” and that we should take seriously the annihilationist concerns.  We should try and get as close to an accurate picture of the afterlife as the Bible gives us, but not go beyond its limits.

Note from Ardell:

While today marks the final piece of our publication of Rebecca Miller’s paper on Annihilationism, I hope you will return tomorrow for some of my thoughts on the issue. 🙂

We are blessed to have Rebecca Miller, Head of Reference & Instruction at Trinity International University’s Rolfing Library and a graduate student in Christian Thought: Christianity and Contemporary Culture at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, as our guest writer this week. Specially, we are looking at her recent paper on Annihilationism (the view that unbelievers simply cease to exist).

Following the publication of Rebecca’s paper, I will post some of my thoughts (which won’t be quite as eloquent) on the issue. Hopefully you all will join us in conversation as we discuss is important but controversial topic.

If you just joined us, you can find the previous posts here.

*************************************************

Biblical Interpretation

Although the motivation for annihilationism may rest on some of these troubling theological issues, both sides of the debate would say their main argument rests on interpretation of Scripture. Both would say that Scripture (properly interpreted) supports their views. Next we will examine how each side interprets relevant passages on Hell.

Passages on destruction

The primary passages used in the defense of annihilationism are those that speak of the destruction of the wicked. Stott particularly points to Matthew 10:28 which says “Be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in Hell.” He says this means that both the bodies and souls of the impenitent will be annihilated in Hell.  He says if they aren’t destroyed, then they are in the “perpetually inconclusive process of perishing,” which would be an odd situation, to never arrive at the culmination of the destruction process.  Pinnock supports this by pointing to passages that speak of sinners not lasting, such as Psalm 37, which compares them to “grass that will soon wither.”

The response of the traditionalists is to point out that destruction can mean different things in the Bible; it doesn’t necessarily mean annihilation. Carson points out that the same Greek word for destruction is also used for the widow’s lost coin (Luke 15), the wineskin that bursts (Matt. 9:15), and the ointment that was poured on Jesus (Matt. 26:8). In each of these cases, the item doesn’t cease to exist, rather it ceases to be useful and fulfill its function.  Thus the destruction of the sinner can mean something different than annihilation. It can also mean that the sinner cannot fulfill the purpose God intended for him as a true human. I believe this interpretation better fits the feel of many of the passages on destruction, which seem to imply destruction as a state of being rather than non-being.

Hell as a consuming fire

Related to the idea of destruction are passages that speak of Hell as fire. The annihilationists say such an idea also implies destruction, since normally a human cannot continue living long in a fire.  As Stott says, “The main function of fire is not to cause pain, but to secure destruction, as all the world’s incinerators bear witness.” Hughes points to Augustine’s attempts to explain how humans could physically continue existing in a fire as examples of how absurd such an endeavor is.

In response, many of those who currently hold a traditional view would say that the fire is symbolic, not literal. It represents the pain the impenitent experience in Hell – perhaps physical, and likely emotional pain. Pinnock complains of traditionalists who say the fire is metaphorical, saying that they are straying from a literal interpretation of Scripture (which is ironic, since that is the accusation often leveled against annihilationists). He claims they are “taking the Hell out of Hell.”  However, traditionalists would say it’s impossible to not interpret it metaphorically, since mutually exclusive imagery is used for Hell – Hell is also described as eternal darkness (Jude 1:6) and with worms that eternally feed on humans (Mark 9:48). In our physical world, fire, worms and darkness don’t normally co-exist. Such reasoning leads to absurdity.

Continue reading Guest Series: Annihilationism by Rebecca Miller (Part 3 of 4) →

We are blessed to have Rebecca Miller, Head of Reference & Instruction at Trinity International University’s Rolfing Library and a graduate student in Christian Thought: Christianity and Contemporary Culture at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, as our guest writer this week. Specially, we are looking at her recent paper on Annihilationism (the view that unbelievers simply cease to exist).

Following the publication of Rebecca’s paper, I will post some of my thoughts (which won’t be quite as eloquent) on the issue. Hopefully you all will join us in conversation as we discuss is important but controversial topic.

If you just joined us, you can find the previous posts here.

*************************************************

Theological Arguments

Man is not essentially immortal.

A major annihilationist argument is that the traditional view of Hell was not based on the Bible, but rather on Greek thought, particularly Platonism. They say that the idea of the soul being inherently immortal is a Greek idea.    Annihilationists would say that only God is immortal, and that humans can only continue to exist after death if they are given his gift of eternal life. Emmanuel Petavel, a 19th century annihilationist, even says that it would be claiming we are gods to say we have inherent immortality.

Annihilationists also connect inherent immortality to the dualistic idea that the soul can exist without the body, so that even when the body dies, the soul will continue to live eternally. Those who argue for a more unified view of humanity say that once the body dies the soul should also cease to exist unless God chooses to provide a new body. Some traditionalists such as Wayne Grudem respond that the impenitent are given bodies for Hell.  Carson argues that there are hints in the Bible of a dualistic perspective. He points to 1 Corinthians 12:2 where Paul says that he was caught up to heaven and was not sure whether it was in the body or not. This would imply he believed that the soul could exist apart from the body.

It is important to remember that just because an idea could be linked to Plato does not mean it’s wrong. We need to see whether the Bible also supports it or not.  Some traditionalists would actually agree with conditional immortality, that we are not essentially immortal. However, they would say that this does not necessarily disprove the traditional view.

Continue reading Guest Series: Annihilationism by Rebecca Miller (Part 2 of 4 →

There are few topics within Christianity that are more controversial then what one believes about the ‘afterlife’ of those who choose not to follow Jesus. Because it is a topic full of emotions, pain, and, as we will soon see, without a clear answer most Jesus followers tend to stay away from the topic altogether, focusing more on the love and salvation side of the Cross. This, in my opinion, means that we SHOULD talk about it as there is nothing worse then stuffing something away in a back corner and letting it get moldy.

Accordingly, I have requested and received permission from my sister-in-law Rebecca Miller, Head of Reference & Instruction at Trinity International University’s Rolfing Library and a graduate student in Christian Thought: Christianity and Contemporary Culture at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, to publish her recent paper on Annihilationism (the view that unbelievers simply cease to exist).

While I don’t agree with everything Rebecca says, I love the way she handles the issue within her paper. Starting from the very beginning, she takes the reader on a journey through the background of the different views of hell into the theological arguments for and against Annihilationsim. Finally, near the end, she leads one through the myriad of biblical interpretation on the issue before coming to a Christ-centered conclusion.

Following the publication of Rebecca’s paper, I will post some of my thoughts (which won’t be quite as eloquent) on the issue. Hopefully you all will join us in conversation as we discuss is important but controversial topic.

*****************************************************

Annihilationism by Rebecca Miller

What will happen to us after we die is an issue that has (and should have) deep intrinsic interest for us as humans. It can be an issue laden with emotions. One of the most controversial issues about the afterlife is that of Hell. Particularly in our modern times, many find the traditional view of an everlasting Hell both gruesome and ungodly. Clark Pinnock, a major proponent of annihilationism, asks, “How can Christians possibly project a deity of such cruelty and vindictiveness whose ways include inflicting everlasting torture upon his creatures, however sinful they may have been? Surely a God who would do such a thing is more nearly like Satan than like God.”

In the face of such objections, a view called annihilationism has recently gained traction among some evangelicals. Annihilationism is the view that the impenitent will suffer annihilation in the world to come, rather than suffering eternally in Hell. This paper will describe and assess the validity of this view. We will begin with a background section, which will provide definitions of key terms, a history of the view, and a discussion of hermeneutical issues. Next we will examine the major theological arguments for annihilationism. Then we will look at relevant Bible passages and how each side interprets them. Finally, we will conclude with an assessment of which side has the stronger view.

Continue reading Guest Series: Annihilationism by Rebecca Miller (Part 1 of 4) →

I was having coffee with a friend last week when they mentioned that they just finished a book about different views on hell. Intrigued, we talked a bit about the three main ways that Christians see view hell as mentioned in the Bible. Ever since then, the concept of hell has been on my mind…. And as a result, this blog post was written. 😕

Three Main Views

It seems that within Protestantism, there are three main views on hell – or the end destination of those who choose not to follow the Living Creator God, relieved through Jesus Christ.

1) Literal View

I would guess that this is the most common view as it is the one I hear the most about. In a nutshell, proponents say that hell is a real place, where those who rejected God’s gift of grace are tormented by fire and darkness for all of eternity.

Thoughts:

This view would seem to assume that humans are in essence immortal – in that they can continue for eternity without God. However, if God is the sustainer of all life (Heb 1:3), then how can anything – human or not – continue to exist outside His presence….. noting, of course, that hell, by its very definition, is outside God presence… Continue reading Thoughts on Hell →