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. 🙂