Annihilationism bills itself as a superior alternative to what’s unacceptable in the traditional doctrine of hell, viz. hell is sadistic, hell is disproportionate.
For reasons I’ve given elsewhere, I don’t think that survives scrutiny. But now I want to examine annihilationism from another angle.
Annihilationism typically concentrates on the fate of the damned. But that is not the only objection to the traditional doctrine of hell. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that annihilationism does present a superior alternative regarding the fate of the damned. Even if this were the case, that would be insufficient to make it succeed on its own terms. For it overlooks another leading objection to the traditional doctrine of hell.
Objections to hell aren’t confined to the fate of the damned. Objections to hell also concern the fate of survivors. One stock objection to hell is the issue of how the saints in glory can still enjoy heaven when they know their lost loved ones will never share with them the glories of heaven. How can the saints still rejoice in heaven knowing all the while that some of their loved ones are missing out on heaven?
Annihilationism does nothing to address this issue. It has a myopic focus on the fate of the damned to the exclusion of their loved ones. But eternal separation from loved ones cuts both ways.
So annihilationism fails on its own terms. It was put forward as a superior alternative to what is allegedly unacceptable in the traditional doctrine of hell, yet it evades a major objection to the traditional doctrine of hell. Even on its own terms, it only gets the job half done.
It might not solve the problem entirely, but I would much prefer to know that my damned loved ones were out of their misery than to know that they were suffering unending conscious torment. The sadness over being deprived of some good is in no way commensurate with the sadness over the infliction of pain and suffering.
ReplyDeleteIs there any root connection between the Roman doctrine of purgatory and annihilationism?
ReplyDeleteThey sound suspiciously like close cousins, if not twin sisters.
Also, the separation or loss of loved ones argument flies in the face of "and he shall wipe every tear from their eyes."
That seems to me to eliminate any objection to hell on those grounds.
I too agree that pondering the wrath and justice eternally applied to a Christian’s non-saved loved-ones would seem to disallow the unceasing joy of the saved. Yet it appears that missing one’s family for eternity may not be as potent of a pain as eternal justice meted out, still it seems like it would inhibit one’s perpetual happiness; the two notions are distinct but seem to yield the same result, albeit a less potent heartache. Anyone with a family who takes a long business trip can confirm, missing one’s family is hard on one’s emotions.
ReplyDeleteSo I trust God that He will truly remove all my heartache and tears even though I do not know the specific means of relief from such sorrow; nonetheless the person (and work) of Jesus is the reason for all my Heavenly delight.
"Does annihilationism even succeed on its own terms?"
ReplyDeleteIts own terms is divine kindness to the damned, isn't it?
"How can the saints still rejoice in heaven knowing all the while that some of their loved ones are missing out on heaven?"
I think the annihilationist's argument is that annihilation of your loved ones is less painful than knowing that your loved ones are suffering eternal torment.