Like the other alternatives to hell, the motivation for annihilationism is emotional. Hell is just too horrible to be true.
Whether that’s intuitively plausible isn’t self-evident. After all, many unbelievers fear death because they fear oblivion. They fear death precisely because they don’t think anything lies on the other side of the grave. So it isn’t obvious that they view a disagreeable afterlife as worse than no afterlife at all.
This also depends on your view of hell. Opponents of hell typically take the eternal torture chamber as their foil. That’s the kind of thing that Ingersoll used to rail against.
Of course, if I were God, I might make a point of consigning Ingersoll to the very paradigm of hell he expended so much effort to revile. Seems like poetic justice. Punish him with the very punishment he reviled.
Mind you, this entire line of objection is misguided from a Christian perspective. Doesn’t Hitler deserve a worse fate? Isn’t that the point? Should the damned get to choose how they want to be punished?
However, there’s another problem with annihilationism. Remember that right now I’m not discussing the exegetical pros and cons of the issue. (I think it doesn’t hold up exegetically, but that’s an argument for another day.) For now I’m just discussing the emotional appeal of annihilationism, as a preferred alternative to hell.
A person is often better off having never had a certain experience in the first place than to have it, then lose it. Take a story of revenge. One teenage boy (let’s call him Bryce) does something to tick off another teenage boy (let’s call him Ted).
In retaliation, Ted cuts a deal with the prettiest girl in school (let’s call her Amber). In exchange for some favor from Ted (like helping her get through math and physics), Amber will pretend to take an interest in Bryce. She will lavish her considerable charms on Bryce until he falls madly in love with her. Then, at the last moment, she will dump him.
Yet that’s like the God of annihilationism. He lets certain people taste the gift of life, then he snatches it away, half-eaten. In a sense, they end up worse off than if he never gave them that tantalizing taste in the first place. All their fond hopes and memories extinguished in the blink of an eye.
But if God is too loving to send anyone to hell, why would he confer the gift of life in the first place, only to take it away? Isn't that a mean thing to do?
Good thoughts. Stott is the only one who I have heard that I understand where he is coming from with annihilation. And it is an emotional thing indeed with him.
ReplyDeleteThe truth that our Lord says about Judas, the son of perdition, is what makes me reject annihilation; that it would have been better for him never to been born.
I don't think arguments about whose version of hell is a "better" judgment or, perhaps more merciful, advance the ball of the discussion much.
ReplyDeleteA pastor friend of mine was trying to convince me that eternal separation from God was merciful, while at the same time -- as I confirmed in the conversation -- he holds to a rather literalistic version of hell, complete with literal flames and various tortures. In what ethical system can that be considered merciful?
But of course hell, the final judgment of the wicked, etc., is not meant to be merciful. It has a clear retributionist element to it, so I don't think annihilationists help their cause by leading off -- as C. Pinnock does in Four Views -- with lengthy discourses about the injustice of eternal punishment.
Nor do I think proponents of the traditional view advance their case by saying, "Hitler deserves more than being annihilated so therefore everyone not a Christian must suffer for eternity." Certainly various schools of Christian and Jewish thought have envisioned an afterlife for the wicked that dishes out proportional punishments.
Such considerations are, at best, secondary to the Biblical data itself.
LAYMAN SAID:
ReplyDelete"Certainly various schools of Christian and Jewish thought have envisioned an afterlife for the wicked that dishes out proportional punishments."
I think there's an exegetical argument for that distinction. And that's the a fortiori argument in Hebrews concerning "how much more" (or worse) will be the punishment which NT apostates face compared to OT apostates. This implies degrees of punishment in hell. And there are other passages of Scripture that make the same point.
Does it follow that there must be propotional rewards given in Heaven if there are degrees of punishment in Hell?
ReplyDeleteIt does not necessarily follow from that proposition, but other scriptures seem to suggest there may be different rewards in heaven, though of course salvation itself is not a result of any works.
ReplyDeleteWhether that’s intuitively plausible isn’t self-evident. After all, many unbelievers fear death because they fear oblivion. They fear death precisely because they don’t think anything lies on the other side of the grave. So it isn’t obvious that they view a disagreeable afterlife as worse than no afterlife at all.
ReplyDeleteAs an atheist, that has certainly been my experience. I've had a few minor surgeries. Recovering from them has been the most pain I've felt, but the worst part of the pain was always the fear that the surgeons had perhaps made a mistake which could lead to death.
If I ended up sitting next to Dives and had an annihilation button, I honestly don't think I'd ever push it.
My own annihilationist views don't step as much from a "kindler, gentler" emotional viewpoint, but rather from books like Malachi that talk about the wicked being "completely destroyed", with "not a root or branch remaining." It's hard to read eternal, conscience torment out of that. Plus where is eternal hell in any of Paul's writings?
ReplyDeleteIts a struggle of mine, but I like to read different perspectives on it.
"Its a struggle of mine" -Rob
ReplyDeleteThere is the truth of our Lord saying to Judas, "You would better off, never being born."
Judas, if totally destroyed, would not be any longer, and he would surely be no worse off, really. He does have to suffer a bit, but at least he lived.
How do you see it?
Aren't discussions of what eternal perdition entails relevant to our understanding of the nature of God?
ReplyDeleteWe can imagine various degrees of unhappiness (everything from boredom to fatigue to sorrow to outright physical and spiritual agony that only Clive Barker might conceive of).
Depending on what the sins of the damned were and what punishments they received, will this not color our very notions of what it means to be Just?
James said:
ReplyDeleteDepending on what the sins of the damned were and what punishments they received, will this not color our very notions of what it means to be Just?
Yes, we will glorify God for his perfect justice.
I meant in THIS life, Patrick.
ReplyDeleteHow can we treat others "justly" if we have no idea what the parameters are for us to do so?
Should we model our treatment of others on the way God treats them or not? After all, if He's "perfect Justice", I'd think we should try to emulate that, no?
DONSANDS - regarding Judas, I see your point, and yet maybe Christ was just offering that Judas, having followed the Master for so long, listening to all his teachings and seeing all of the miraculous evidence of Christ's messianic nature, still would turn to betray him. In that situation, to see all that Judas had seen and still betray the Savior, it would have been better never to have been born. Just my $.02
ReplyDelete"For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”"
ReplyDeleteSeems Judas would be better off today, if he had never been born, because he betrayed the Messiah, the Son of Man, and Son of God.
Seems kind of simple to me. Not sure what you mean Rob.
ROB SAID:
ReplyDelete"My own annihilationist views don't step as much from a 'kindler, gentler' emotional viewpoint, but rather from books like Malachi that talk about the wicked being 'completely destroyed', with 'not a root or branch remaining.' It's hard to read eternal, conscience torment out of that."
Of course, that's a metaphor. You have to consider the intended scope of the metaphor.
"Plus where is eternal hell in any of Paul's writings?"
For an exegetical discussion of Paul's view, see:
http://www.djmoo.com/articles/paulonhell.pdf
James said...
ReplyDelete"How can we treat others "justly" if we have no idea what the parameters are for us to do so?"
By following his commands.
"Should we model our treatment of others on the way God treats them or not? After all, if He's 'perfect Justice', I'd think we should try to emulate that, no?"
No, God has different responsibilities than we do.
VYTAUTAS SAID:
ReplyDelete"Does it follow that there must be propotional rewards given in Heaven if there are degrees of punishment in Hell?"
That doesn't follow of necessity, although that's a possibility–subject to divine discretion.