John M. Frame

Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013). In response to the chapter called "Eternal Punishment of Unbelievers (Hell)," pgs. 1081-1083:

Though Frame admits that he is reluctant to write about the topic of hell, unpleasant as it is, he states, "I must teach only what the Bible teaches." This is certainly to be commended; however, the question still remains, what does the Bible teach about hell?

I certainly agree with Frame that all sinners are under the just condemnation of a holy God and in need of a savior. We are saved by faith in the Son of God who died on the cross for us. His death provides atonement for our sins, but the wrath of God remains on those who don't believe in the Son. Frame cites Exodus 15:6-7 to explain the wrath of God, but it also provides important background information about the consuming fire of God:

"Your right hand, Yahweh, is glorious in power. Your right hand, Yahweh, dashes the enemy in pieces. In the greatness of your excellency, you overthrow those who rise up against you. You send out your wrath. It consumes them as stubble."

Frame states that the "OT descriptions of God's wrath mainly concern what happens in this life." The Old Testament speaks of God's enemies being slain, consumed by fire, and put to an end. He is beginning to try to create a contrast between Old and New Testament language of destruction because he believes that the New Testament teaches eternal conscious torment. However, the New Testament uses Old Testament language to describe eschatological judgment. If the Old Testament descriptions are of annihilation, it provides strong support for conditionalism.

He then makes the argument that punishment in this life could never satisfy God's law and cites Hebrews 10:26-27:

"For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and a fierceness of fire which will devour the adversaries."

This sounds awfully familiar to the outcome of God's enemies in the Old Testament. The traditional view does not teach that God's enemies will be consumed and devoured. Instead, it teaches that they will continue burning alive forever. Thus far, no support for the traditional view can be found while much of the language cited provides support for conditionalism.

Conditionalists agree with Frame that the final "punishment is everlasting," but Romans 6:23 explains what the punishment for sin is: "the wages of sin is death." Frame cites Matthew 25:46 to support the eternal aspect of the final judgment:

"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Notice that Jesus contrasts eternal punishment with eternal life. The final punishment doesn't include eternal life. Traditionalists argue that the wicked will be made immortal and granted eternal life to suffer in hell forever. Conditionalists, on the other hand, argue that the wicked will not receive eternal life but perish eternally.

Finally, Frame reveals the real impetus behind his belief in eternal conscious torment: Revelation 14:11. And like most traditionalist treatments on hell, there is no consideration given to the context, genre, or background of the verse. It's just cited as if it came out of a textbook, rather than an apocalyptic book full of Old Testament allusions and symbols.

Frame's only response to annihilationism is that "Scripture suggests the opposite, that not only does the fire continue forever, but the torment of the wicked continues forever as well (Rev. 14:11; 20:10)." This is not a substantial explanation. If we remember that John's vision is of a representation of the final judgment (it's symbolic), then we see that Frame hasn't even started to give a biblical argument for eternal conscious torment because he hasn't tried to interpret any of the symbols. Both passages are describing the final judgment. John interprets the lake of fire in Revelation 20:10 in clear language two times. The lake of fire is the second death (Rev 20:14; 21:8). It means dying a second time, both body and soul (Mat 10:28).

He provides several references in parentheses for support which, when understood in context, provide vivid pictures of annihilation. Mark 9:43 and 48 contain a quote to Isaiah 66:24, a passage indicating that the fires will be inextinguishable, thus burning up the dead bodies completely. Luke 16:22-24 and 28 are not even about hell, but about Hades, the intermediate state, demonstrating the sloppiness of exegesis needed to provide support for the traditional view. Revelation 14:11 and 19:3 both indicate that smoke rises forever. Likewise, the smoke rises forever from Edom which was destroyed by unquenchable fire (Isa 34:8-10). The everlasting smoke symbolizes the remembrance of a judgment which results in complete destruction.

Other verses in Scripture are very clear on this issue too. Paul teaches that sin leads to death and destruction. The language of eschatological perishing and dying is used all over the New Testament. The Old Testament is very clear about the fate of the wicked too. All of that clear teaching can't be reinterpreted based upon the non-exegesis of Revelation. Unfortunately, that's what most defenses of the traditional view amount to.

Robert L. Reymond

A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith: 2nd Edition, 2020. In response to the chapter called "Eternal Punishment Construed as Annihilation," pgs. 1068-1081:

Reymond says in the beginning of this section that John gives us a "graphic representation of hell," but just after that, he quotes Revelation 14:9-11 and states that "eternal conscious torment is [here] said to be the punishment of those who have the mark of the beast." These two statements contradict. John is not giving straightforward, didactic teaching about hell. He's recording a pictorial representation of the final judgment that he sees in a vision, not a vision of hell itself. The Old Testament background, parallel judgment passages, and John's own interpretation of the symbols are keys to understanding what that imagery represents. Reymond completely disregards the context and takes his own interpretation for granted.

Even if we take the passage at face value without interpreting what each symbol represents, Reymond's interpretation of eternal conscious torment still does not follow. John only states that these people will be tormented in fire, won't have any rest for a time, and that the smoke rising from this judgment will last forever. Traditionalist scholar G. K. Beale agrees that an annihilationist reading is possible because "Rev 14:10-11 could indicate a great judgment that will be remembered forever, not one that leads to eternal suffering" (The Book of Revelation, 762). Furthermore, there are conditionalists that do believe that eternal conscious torment is being depicted here that symbolizes annihilation. Either way, Reymond has decided that eternal conscious torment is the correct view ahead of time and skips the necessary exegesis.

This demonstrates a common interpretive problem when it comes to this issue. Revelation may be the hardest book to interpret in the New Testament. It is full of symbolism and Old Testament allusions which are not readily understood by people in a context removed from the original audience. Thus, taking a surface level reading of Revelation 14:9-11 or 20:10, concluding that it teaches eternal conscious torment, and then reading that view back into every other passage about hell is completely backwards and irresponsible hermeneutically.

After that short argument from Revelation, Reymond finishes his very first paragraph by concluding that "it is clear that the divine judgment awaiting evil-doers is certain, just, and eternal." Every conditionalist would agree wholeheartedly with this conclusion, except that Reymond clearly means eternal torment is certain. Not only is this misrepresenting conditionalism as if it denies eternal punishment before he has even explained the position, but it's also presenting that poor exegesis of Revelation as if it's decisive. Reymond has already precluded the possibility of conditionalism with absolutely no biblical support offered. The eisegesis that follows was inevitable from his starting position.

Reymond addresses very few Old Testament passages because of his presupposition of eternal conscious torment. The Old Testament has much to say about the final death and destruction of the wicked, and God putting a final end to evil. However, the few texts cited still provide a vivid picture of annihilation: the fiery destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the destruction of Sihon killing every man, woman, and child, the principle of herem ("devotion") to the Lord for complete destruction, the fact that every evil deed will be judged, and the prophecy that the redeemed will go out in the new heavens and new earth to look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against God which are being eaten by worms and burned up.

That last image comes from Isaiah 66:22-24. The only comment on this passage is a quote from a commentary. It affirms that this passage is indeed about the final state but explains away the obvious conditionalist implications by calling it a "monstrous and inconceivable" picture. Actually, it's very clear. The picture is of dead bodies that were slain, burned up, consumed, and looked on with contempt. It then cites Mark 9:48 as support that this is a picture of eternal torment, but that argument is completely circular. Jesus quotes from this passage in Mark 9:48, not to reinterpret it to mean the exact opposite of what it means in context, but because this passage is an accurate description of Gehenna.

The New Testament section is hurt by the bad exegesis of the Old Testament. Jesus uses the phrase "unquenchable fire" because the fire can't be put out so that it completely consumes. Reymond acknowledges that the garbage dump theory of Gehenna comes "from late Jewish tradition (David Qimchi, c. A.D. 1200)" and has no support, but he nevertheless wrongly treats that as the primary background over and against the Old Testament. Even if we accepted the garbage dump theory, the garbage would be burned up anyway. It doesn't actually help his case.

Weeping primarily indicates sadness. Gnashing teeth primarily indicates anger. Weeping and gnashing are not said to last eternally and are accurate descriptions of people on death row or being burned alive. He says that a "more bearable" (Mat 10:15) judgment day on an annihilationist view is difficult to comprehend because everyone ends up dead. Being instantly incinerated versus being burned alive for hours clearly represent two different degrees of capital punishment. On the contrary, it is extremely hard to comprehend how the traditional view accounts for different degrees of punishment when one sin merits the same punishment as a billion sins, eternal suffering.

Even if the intermediate state consists of torment, it does not follow that the eternal state consists of eternal torment. Just because the demons expect torment in the future (Mat 8:29), doesn't mean that they expect eternal torment (and so what if they did?). Tartarus in 2 Peter 2:4 does not refer to hell. It is the holding place for angels until the judgment. That is just another factual error from Reymond.

And for some reason, even though Reymond and Vos think the language of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is of annihilation, Vos thinks "that 'annihilation' is an extremely abstract idea, too philosophical, in fact." It's not that complicated. It just means their final death. He also argues that Paul couldn't have been thinking of annihilation because Jesus taught eternal torment in the gospels. This shows the potential danger of arguing based on the analogy of scripture when you fail to interpret other passages properly. It's better to carefully exegete the text before attempting to apply systematic theology to it.

This entire chapter illustrates how a bad starting point, misinterpreting a passage in Revelation, led to systematic misinterpretation of other passages about the final fate of the wicked. It also illustrates that we can't be dogmatic about tradition. We must test all things by the Word of God. Reymond concludes the New Testament section without an in depth treatment of Revelation, but he assures us of his interpretation about the fires of Revelation by stating that "we should understand the realities these biblical passages seek to represent to be more—not less—horrible than their word depictions." However, having a more intolerable, dreadful, and harsh view of hell does not make it correct or more convincing.

Robert A. Morey

Death and the Afterlife (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1984). In response to Chapter 8: Annihilationism, pgs. 199-220:

Morey's arguments are much better suited to argue against Froom and Seventh-Day Adventists. Unfortunately, he doesn't address the kind of exegetical and theological points evangelical conditionalists use to support conditional immortality.

A Brief History

Morey begins by attempting to give a brief history of conditional immortality. He claims that annihilationism "was first advanced by Arnobius" in the fourth century whom he calls a "Christian" in quotes. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes:

"Arnobius is more earnest in his defense of Christianity than correct in his tenets," but "Arnobius is a vigorous apologist for the Christian Faith, defends and expounds its noble monotheism (deus princeps, deus summus), the Divinity of Christ and of the Christian religion, proved by its rapid diffusion, its incredible influence over uncivilized peoples, and its agreement with the views of the best philosophers."

It would be convenient for Morey if Arnobius really were the first proponent of conditionalism several hundred years after the New Testament but that simply isn't true. Arnobius was following a tradition of conditionalists. It appears that all of the Apostolic Fathers and many early Christians were conditionalists, but one example suffices to refute the claim that Arnobius is the first. That Irenaeus (c. A.D. 120-200) is a conditionalist is very clear in multiple places and is widely recognized by traditionalist scholars. Irenaeus in Against Heresies (2.34.3) writes:

"He asked life of You, and You gave him length of days for ever and ever; indicating that it is the Father of all who imparts continuance for ever and ever on those who are saved... If you have not been faithful in that which is little, who will give you that which is great? indicating that those who, in this brief temporal life, have shown themselves ungrateful to Him who bestowed it, shall justly not receive from Him length of days for ever and ever."

Morey's historical argument thus falls flat. It was not a later, biblically illiterate Christian who first taught conditionalism as Morey portrays it, but a stream of Christians from the earliest times after the New Testament.

Morey repeats the often made claim that the Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 553) condemned conditionalism as heresy. He provides no quote but is most likely referring to anathematism IX which says, "If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema." However, this is a condemnation against Origen's universalism, and says nothing contrary to conditionalism. On the annihilation view, the punishment is eternal and no restoration will ever take place.

I agree with Morey that the traditional view of hell is widespread after Augustine, but as traditionalist scholar Graham Keith notes, "a century or so after Constantine [the 5th century] we have a surprising amount of evidence indicating widespread denial of eternal [conscious] punishment within the church" (Patristic Views on Hell―Part 1). Even at so late a date, ECT was still widely denied in the church.

I also agree with Morey that a theologian believing in soul sleep does not imply that they believe in annihilationism. He claims that many annihilationists argue that soul sleep implies annihilationism citing Froom as an example, but I've never heard that claim before. Annihilationism is about the final state and doesn't commit one to soul sleep which is about the intermediate state.

Although conditionalism is held by several cult groups today, Seventh-Day Adventists are an example of a Christian denomination that holds to conditionalism. Morey claims that the publishing of The Fire That Consumes by Edward Fudge was done with the hope to "introduce Adventist theology into evangelical circles" almost conspiratorially. But the question of conditional immortality is quite apart from other Seventh-Day Adventist doctrines. Even if that was the intention, conditionalism is held by many evangelicals across different denominations.

He ends the first section by claiming that annihilationism is on the rise because of liberalism and "is regrettably the result of a weak view of Scripture which has been developing in certain evangelical circles over the last 25 years." But that is incredibly uncharitable to those who are committed to biblical inerrancy and believe the Bible teaches conditional immortality. It also poisons the well by painting conditionalism as the liberal view before addressing even a single biblical text. A doctrine being taught widely in the church makes it traditional, not biblical! It has to come from the Bible to properly be described as biblical.

A Theological Analysis

For some strange reason, Morey equates conditional immortality with materialism. He claims that "both deny that man has an immaterial soul and that man’s soul or spirit survives the death of the body," but this is certainly false. As far as the first claim, some conditionalists are anthropological physicalists while others are dualists. Christian physicalism is not materialism because it affirms the existence of God and other spiritual realities. It just denies that man's soul is an immaterial substance. For the second claim, while evangelical conditionalism teaches that God will "destroy both soul and body in Gehenna" (Mat 10:28), it affirms that everyone's soul survives death until the general resurrection and final judgment.

Morey continues to present annihilationism as a cultic view stating that "we must point out that it is generally in connection with cultic or neo-cultic organizations that this belief is found." If conditionalism is such a plainly unbiblical belief, we wouldn't need all the inaccurate historical and theological priming against it.

Contra Froom's introduction, conditionalism is attested early, is not a form of materialism, was not condemed as heretical by the Second Council of Constantinople, is not an inherently cultic or liberal belief, has no inherent connection to other Seventh-Day Adventist beliefs, and has strong biblical arguments for it that need to be addressed.

Morey raises and responds to twelve conditionalist arguments in the next section which primarily come from Froom's The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers (1965). I have not read that work, but I am not impressed by it based on Morey's relaying. Edward Fudge's The Fire that Consumes (1982) is barely addressed, but I think it is a much stronger presentation of conditionalism.

Argument 1

Morey responds to the claim that conditionalist arguments have been ignored and adds the gripe that the label "traditionalism" implies that ECT is only held because of tradition and not the Bible. While not an argument for conditionalism, I definitely agree that conditionalist arguments have not been given substantial responses and that the traditional view is predominantly held because of tradition. Morey mentions "Bartlett, Boettner, Grant, A. Hodge, Hovey, Landis, Stuart, Martin, etc." as writers who have responded to conditionalism. I have not read all of them, but older writers such as Herman Bavinck are primarily responding to liberal and emotional arguments. Many modern traditionalists such as Morey or Robert L. Reymond continue to argue against many of the same bad arguments instead of addressing robust evangelical proponents of conditionalism such as Edward Fudge. Mischaracterizations and sloppiness abound in traditionalist works.

So, while responses do exist, there are few serious responses. There are even prominent traditionalists who agree with that assessment. James White for example agrees that most proponents of ECT are following it because of tradition and not because of any firm biblical understanding, though he does believe the Bible teaches it (Is the Punishment of Hell Temporary or Eternal?).

Arguments 2, 3, and 12

These are against soul sleep. I don't believe in soul sleep, so I agree with Morey here, but it's irrelevant to the issue at hand. Morey does have a common modern misunderstanding about the final state though. Unbelievers do not go straight to hell when they die. They go to hades (the grave). This is known as the intermediate state. It is only after the general resurrection of all that they face the final judgment and are sent to Gehenna. This again has support from traditionalists. James White says, "It seems rather obvious to me that hell is the final state. You go to Hades, and then death and Hades are cast into the Lake of Fire, the Book of Revelation, at the end" (Francis' Empty Hell, Brandan's Empty Bible, 6:48).

Morey assumes (as does Froom it seems) that the intermediate state must be exactly like the eternal state, but that is a faulty assumption. The intermediate state is like a holding cell until the resurrection, judgment, and final damnation to Gehenna. There is no reason to conflate the two when the Bible does not. The intermediate state could consist of the worst torment imaginable, but that would not change the fact that the wicked will face the second death on judgment day.

Argument 4

The conditionalist argument given is that Sheol and Hades both mean grave, so there is no intermediate state but instead immediate death. This is a really bad argument. Morey rightly rejects it, but for the wrong reason. Hades really is the grave contrary to what Morey says, but at the end of the age, Hades will give up the dead so that they can be judged: "Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them. They were judged, each one according to his works" (Rev 20:13).

Argument 5

The most common terms for the fate of the wicked are "destroyed," "consumed", "perish," etc., which must "mean that they pass into nonexistence." Annihilation does not mean nonexistent, but killed, destroyed, unalived. The given answer to this argument is that apollumi doesn't actually mean destroyed, but "ruin, loss... of well-being." There is a good reason Bible translations don't translate it that way. When people are "apollumi-ed," they are killed, destroyed, and lose their life. When objects are "apollumi-ed," they are ruined or lost. Check out Mark Corbett's video Apollumi: The Word that Tells Us What Happens to People in Hell (Annihilation or Eternal Torment?) to see every use of the word apollumi in the New Testament and uses outside the New Testament.

Argument 6

Eternal life means living forever. Only the righteous get eternal life. Therefore, only the righteous will live forever. This is a super simple and effective argument. His response is that eternal life actually means "a quality of divine life." It's obvious that he isn't taking the language in a natural way. Of course, eternal life has a positive quality or connotation to it, but the phrase eternal life does mean living forever. Just as the Israelites looked to the raised serpent to save their lives temporarily (Jn 3:14-15), we look to Jesus to save our lives eternally (Jn 3:16). This isn't complicated or cryptic language.

Argument 7

1 Timothy 6:16 says that only God has immortality, so man is not immortal. I agree with Morey's response that this means that only God has absolute immortality. However, I disagree that the unrighteous will be granted immortality. Post-fall humans are mortal, and eternal life and immortality are a gift for the righteous at the resurrection (1 Cor 15). The burden of proof is on Morey to show that the unrighteous will be granted eternal life and immortality too.

Argument 8

He presents the argument that Gehenna is a garbage dump whose fire and worms will go out after the trash is consumed. However, the first claim that Gehenna was a garbage dump comes from Rabbi David Kimhi around A.D. 1200. This mistake doesn't help his case though. The context for Gehenna in Jeremiah 7 indicates that the fire and worms will burn up and consume dead bodies. Gehenna is prophesied to be called the Valley of Slaughter because God is going to slay His enemies there. But even if a dump were the background, of course the garbage would be burned up and the garbage would still represent corpses which couldn't feel torment regardless.

Argument 9

I don't argue that olam, aion, and aionios mean something other than eternal, but eternal undeniably can refer to something either eternal in process or eternal in result when referring to certain nouns. Examples: Eternal salvation means something is eternally saved. If something is eternally saved, it is either being saved forever or is forever saved. Eternal destruction means something is eternally destroyed. If something is eternally destroyed, it is either being destroyed forever or is forever destroyed. Eternal judgment means something is eternally judged. If something is eternally judged, it is either being judged forever or forever judged. If something is eternally punished, it is either being punished forever or forever punished. This is not controversial and can be found in standard Greek lexicons and confirmed by linguistics.

Argument 10

It is very obvious from the biblical account that the soul is not preexistent. It is clear but less obvious that the soul is not necessarily immortal. The reason it is valid to claim that the traditional view is influenced by Plato's philosophy is that the very first proponents of ECT, Tertullian and Athenagoras of Athens, both cite Plato extensively in the context of their belief in the intrinsic immortality of the soul, an idea central to Plato's philosophy and absent from the Bible.

Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul: "[Socrates], in the face of death itself, asserts the immortality of the soul by a strong assumption" (1), an account which comes from Plato. Side note, "the operation of death is plain and obvious: it is the separation of body and soul" (51). Many conditionalists agree with this statement; however, there is a difference between the operation or technical details of death, separation of body and soul, and the definition of death, the loss of bodily life, which is often missed by modern traditionalists.

Athenagoras of Athens, A Plea for the Christians: He expounds much on the philosophers including "Plato and Aristotle — not that I am about to go through all that the philosophers have said about God..." (6). He holds that "God has not made us as sheep or beasts of burden, a mere by-work, and that we should perish [apollumi] and be annihilated [aphanizo]" (31), explicitly contradicting John 3:16, Acts 13:40-41, 2 Peter 2:12-13 and many other texts. About the resurrection he writes, "for nothing hinders, according to Pythagoras and Plato, that when the dissolution of bodies takes place, they should, from the very same elements of which they were constructed at first, be constructed again" (36). Influence from Plato is very clear.

Morey admits that "the orthodox have always viewed life in this world or in the next as a gift of God," which logically entails that the traditional view holds that God grants the gift of immortality to sinners at the final judgment. A radical claim that is not supported in this section.

Argument 11

The conditionalist argument given is that all Jewish and early patristic writings support conditionalism. I agree that this claim is overstated. While the vast majority of early Jewish writings support conditionalism, ECT is occasionally found in some later Jewish writings. And while all the Apostolic Fathers appear to support conditionalism, ECT would enter the church a little over a century later from theologians in the late second century like Athenagoras of Athens (A.D. 133-190) and Tertullian (A.D. 160-240).

Conclusion

He believes to "have covered all the arguments for conditionalism and annihilationism... to be found in the literature on this subject." One of the most obvious arguments is that Christ died for sins. He was our substitute on the cross bearing the punishment we deserve. The punishment Christ suffered was a brutal, painful death. Therefore, the punishment for those not saved by Christ is a brutal, painful death: "For the wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23). It is clear from this simple argument that Morey has not comprehensively responded to conditionalist arguments.

Though there were problems with Morey's responses, a big issue was that the arguments for conditionalism were just bad. They barely addressed Scripture at all. Responding to Edward Fudge would have been much more fruitful and exegetically focused. Also understanding that annihilationism is only about the final fate of the wicked would help further the discussion. Conditionalists hold different views on the anthropology of man, the intermediate state and other issues, but these are distinct from the doctrine of hell.