on conditional immortality

Theologian Clark Pinnock is an annihilationist; he argues that "the ultimate result of rejecting God is self-destruction, closure with God, and absolute death in body, soul, and spirit... Hell is the possibility that human beings may choose in their freedom and thus break relations with God. God loves these persons and does not choose death for them, but hell is nevertheless a possibility arising out of their sin and obduracy. Hell is not the beginning of a new immortal life in torment but the end of a life of rebellion." His sentiments echo those of C.S. Lewis, who said that hell is the "outer rim where being fades away into nonentity." 

The idea that hell isn't a geographical place of unending conscious torment chafes against the prevalent view within Christendom, but conditional immortality isn't a foreign concept. The idea that the wicked will be destroyed forever rather than tortured forever is seen in the Judaism of Jesus' day; the Wisdom of Solomon spoke of the destruction of the wicked, whereas the writer of 1 Enoch advocated everlasting conscious torment. By the 6th Century A.D., the Christian view of hell as eternal physical, mental, and spiritual torment held sway. Immortalized by Dante's The Inferno and authorized by St. Augustine, this view has continued as the stock picture of hell within evangelicalism. 

Throughout the New Testament, hell is pictured as destruction; annihilationists hold that hell is "final, irreversible destruction." The Bible uses the language of ruin, perishing, and destruction when it speaks of the fate of the wicked who refuse to turn to God. The imagery of a consuming fire with the promise of destruction makes a good case for conditional immortality. This fate of the wicked is seen throughout the Old Testament and into the New. Jesus spoke of God's ability to destroy both body and soul in hell; he warned that the wicked would be burned up just like weeds thrown into the fire (Matt 10.28; Matt 13.30, 42, 49-50). St. Paul wrote of the everlasting destruction that would come upon sinners (2 Thess 1.9). He said the wicked would reap corruption (Gal 6.8) and that God would destroy the wicked (1 Cor 3.17; Phil 1.28). He said that the fate of sinners is a death they deserve to die (Rom 1.32); death is the wages of their sin (6.23). In Phil 3.19, he said of the wicked, "Their destiny is destruction." St. Peter spoke of the destruction of ungodly men (2 Pet 3.7); false teachers denying Christ bring upon themselves swift destruction (2.1, 3). The wicked will be like the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah that were burned to ashes (2.6); the wicked would perish like the ancient world perished in Noah's Flood (3.6-7). The writer of Hebrews said that the wicked would shrink back and be destroyed (Heb 10.39). Jude saw Sodom as an analogy to God's final judgment, being the city that underwent "the punishment of eternal fire" (Jude 7). St. John speaks of a "lake of fire" and a "second death" (Rev 20.14-15). 

Many annihilationists, taking seriously the nature of destruction, hold as their linchpin argument the mortality of the soul. The idea that our souls are inherently immortal, and created by God to be that way, is a fusion of Greek and Christian thoughts. Nowhere in the Bible are we told that the soul is naturally immortal; this was a Greek idea (whose origins lie in Plato) thrust onto a Christian paradigm. In fact, the Apostle Paul tells us, by implication, that our souls are not naturally immortal; in 2 Timothy 1.10 he says that Jesus Christ "abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel." Immortality is a gift of God given to His people; it is not something human beings inherently have. Why is this important? "If a biblical reader approached [the Bible] with the assumption that souls are naturally immortal, would they not be compelled to interpret texts that speak of the wicked being destroyed to mean that they are tortured forever, since according to that presupposition souls cannot go out of existence?" Pinnock goes on to say, "People mixed up their belief in divine judgment after death (which is scriptural) with their belief in the immortality of the soul (which is unscriptural) and concluded (incorrectly) that the nature of hell must be everlasting conscious torment." God alone has immortality (1 Tim 6.16) but grants embodied life after death to His people (1 Cor 15.21, 50-54; 2 Tim 1.10). Immortality is a gift God offers us in the gospel, NOT an inalienable possession. 

The concept of conditional immortality does more justice to God's justice than the concept of everlasting conscious torment. In Exodus 21.24, we see God's prescription of justice: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Two eyes for an eye is not just; two teeth for a tooth is not just. No eye for an eye is not just; no tooth for a tooth is not just. Those who hold to the traditional view of hell must explain why a just God torments finite creatures for finite sins for an infinite amolunt of time. Aware of this problem, the Christian thinker Anselm tried to argue that our sins are worthy of an infinite punishment because they are committed against an infinite majesty. His explanation made sense to the people of his day: since society accepted inequality in judgments on the basis of the honor of the victim, this seemed to cover up the embarrassment of an eternal, conscious hell. Though we don't see stealing from the town physician as worse than stealing from the beggar on the city corner, we're still apt to stretch our imaginations and to swallow Anselm's argument, repeating it as if it were mantra. It is a mantra at its best; its origins aren't found in scripture, but in taking a Medieval concept of justice to try and explain why God can act so apparently cruelly in his everlasting punishment of sinners.

"Though annihilationism makes hell less of a torture chamber, it does not lessen its extreme seriousness. After all, to be rejected by God, to miss the purpose for which one was created, to pass into oblivion while others enter into bliss, to enter nonbeing--this will mean weeping and gnashing of teeth." All doctrines undergo development over times; issues such as soteriology and Christology get taken up at various points in Christian history and receive a special stamp from intellectual and social conditions prevalent at the time. A variety of factors in society and thought impact the way doctrines are interpreted, so that all doctrinal formulations reflect to some extent historical and cultural conditions that have been factors in the doctrine's evolution. The doctrine of hell isn't exempt from this. 

When it comes to our perceptions of hell, emotional sensitivities ought not be a factor. If a certain view is unappetizing, it doesn't mean you should automatically discard it; indeed, we ought to expect to be faced with many things we don't like. Infinite torment may very well be the reality, but I don't think the whole testimony of scriptures necessarily negates the idea of conditional immortality.