Annhilationism v Traditional View of Hell

[Dee Dee Warren]

I will be moderating a debate in a month or so on annihilationism v the traditional view of hell and need to get some Q&A together for both views.

So if you have any questions on these issues, post them here and I will pick out some for the debate.

[Cojiro]

Is there really any weighty debate on this issue to be had? One view is backed up by textual and socio-historical evidence; the other isn't, based instead in misconception and driven mainly by humanistic sentiment.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Is that a question? Please format a question. I think you are sadly mistaken if you believe what you just said. I hold to the traditional view of hell, but I have been very impressed by the arguments of the opponents.

[KingsGambit]

What is the proper role of tradition in determining truth in these cases, or more specifically, how much weight do we give to it? While a strong exegetical case can be made for annihilationism, I'm somewhat hesitant of going against what even most of the Church Fathers taught without a good reason (though I have a very open mind on this issue).

[KingsGambit]

Another question, if I may throw it in: The Greek word "aphtarsia" (spelling?), which can mean either immortality or incorruptibility, has been used by both sides of this debate because of its two possible senses. Which sense of the word is better to take this word in passages such as Romans 2:7-8?

[Littlejoe]

Ok, for Annihilationism:
Do you see there being an immediate "annihilation" or does this happen at the final Judgement?
Followup: If the answer is Final Judgement, what happens to the person between now and final judgement?
Bible quotation:

Hebrews 9:27 ESV

And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

How do you reconcile Jesus statements about the "Afterlife" such as Matt 8:12 where it talks about those thrown into "Outer Darkness" where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth?

For Traditionalist: John's Gospel chapter 3 contrasts "perish (death)" with "Everlasting Life" How can there be an eternal "life" in hell and yet, also have those that do not believe are said to "perished"?

John 3:15,16 KJV

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Isn't eternal death...i.e. permanent and final ceasation of existence, punishment enough to satisfy the eternal consequences of our finite sin?

[John Reece]

Another question, if I may throw it in: The Greek word "aphtarsia" (spelling?), which can mean either immortality or incorruptibility, has been used by both sides of this debate because of its two possible senses. Which sense of the word is better to take this word in passages such as Romans 2:7-8?

From Hermeneia ― A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible: Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), by Robert Jewett (brackets added):

The motivation of perseverance in good work is described in terms that the audience will find flattering. The verb ζητέω [zēteō] ("seek") is often employed in the context of moral endeavor on the part of believers, and it appears here as a present participle that denotes "a sustained and deliberate application," rather than a merely momentary pursuit of the good. The triad of δόξα καὶ τιμὴ καὶ ἀφθαρσία [doxa kai timē kai aphtharsia ("glory and honor and incorruptibility") evokes many qualifying comments among commentators who are intent to preserve selfless ethical motivation and avoid justification by works, but Paul is deliberately employing honorific categories that will appeal to his audience. The first two terms in the triad appear in the same sequence in Pss 8:5; 29:1; 96:7; Job 37:22; 40:10; 1 Macc 14:21; 2 Macc 5:16, and in the opposite sequence in Exod 28:2; Dan 2:37; 4:27, so that in view of their appearance together in Greco-Roman literature, they constitute a "traditional combination." Both glory and honor are central motivations in the culture of the ancient Mediterranean world, where young people were taught to emulate the behavior of ideal prototypes. As Cicero remarked, "A few men ― a handful ― great in honor and glory (honore et gloria amplificati) can either corrupt or correct the morals of the city. That one should seek such honor and glory was simply assumed in Rome, the capital of what J. E. Lendon has aptly called "the Empire of Honour." The third item, ἀφθαρσία [aphtharsia] could be translated either "immortality" or "incorruptibility," and I prefer the latter because it avoids redundancy with "eternal life" and because "immortality" does not fit the category of a "good work." Since this word is never otherwise linked in a series with glory and honor, Paul must have had a specific reason for its employment here. While these three terms are inadequate in constituting an authentically Christian ethic as set forth in Rom 12-16, they are an apt description of the motivations present in the Roman situation, as our congregational reconstruction suggests. Not only were these groups intent to maintain precedence of glory and honor compared with others (14:1), and to act in a manner to give "honor" to the Lord (14:6), but it is also clear that some of them (the weak) were involved in ascetic avoidance of corruption. At the end of chapter 3 Paul will make a case that no boasting in the honor of one's own group is allowed, and in chapter 7 he will show that obedience to the law with the motive of gaining honor will not produce the good. Yet there is no hint of disapprobation in Paul's formulation of good works in 2:7, because all who perform such deeds receive "eternal life." The expression ζωὴ αἰώνιος [zōē aiōnios "eternal life"] that occurs for the first time in Dan 12:2 and surfaces in later Jewish writings appears here as the direct object of the verb "recompense" in verse 6. As in this verse in Romans, ζωὴ αἰώνιος [zōē aiōnios "eternal life"] is a reward for good deeds in passages like Psalms of Solomon 3:12, "those who fear the Lord shall rise up to eternal life." Later in Romans, Paul will link "eternal life" more closely with grace in Christ (Rom 5:21; 6:21-22), thus removing it from a framework of a reward for good behavior. But there is no hint of this clarification in 2:7, which simply conforms to what Paul perceives to be the orientation of his audience. The Roman believers will have no inkling that in the later course of the letter, the problematic dimension of their motivation and its bigoted social consequences will come to light.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Thank you everyone!

[Dee Dee Warren]

Posting some questions I got elsewhere


Annhilitionists say the judgement is eternal because the killing is eternal since the wicked dead never live again, so, would they say when a day is past, it is eternally past?

Are the devil and his angels annihilated? When?

If the traditional view is wrong, and your explanation of the language correct, how could God have expressed the traditional view and meant it?


To the traditionalist, does the judging in Hebrews 6:2 go on forever?

[Sparko]

Why the parable of the rich man and Lazarus if annhilationism is true?

[Dee Dee Warren]

That is the intermediate state--- annihilationists don't by necessity deny conscious suffering in an intermediate state

[Sparko]

That is the intermediate state--- annihilationists don't by necessity deny conscious suffering in an intermediate state

ah ok. then I guess the question becomes: If God annihilates people because tormenting them forever is something a loving God would never do... then how could he allow them to be tormented for thousands and thousands of years (depending on how long before the judgement they died) in the intermediate state ?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Most annihilationists don't reject the traditional view based on the idea that a loving God would never do that. The annihilationists in this debate believes if God wanted to He would be fully just in doing so.

[KingsGambit]

Why the parable of the rich man and Lazarus if annhilationism is true?

An annihilationist would respond to this by stating that it was most likely a common religious parable that Jesus was using as a background and not intended as a map of the afterlife (as it is unlikely that a saved man and a lost man could communicate in the afterlife), and that in any event, "hell" there refers to the intermediate state, not the second death aka lake of fire. A traditionalist might respond that the parable itself still assumes eternal conscious torment.

[seanD]

An annihilationist would respond to this by stating that it was most likely a common religious parable that Jesus was using as a background and not intended as a map of the afterlife (as it is unlikely that a saved man and a lost man could communicate in the afterlife), and that in any event, "hell" there refers to the intermediate state, not the second death aka lake of fire. A traditionalist might respond that the parable itself still assumes eternal conscious torment.

This would only hold any weight if it was found used in other Jewish literature. From what I understand, this is not the case, which is why people assume Christians invented the concept of hell.