Is Hell Forever? A Conditional Immortality Response
Original text by Millard J. Erickson
With responses from a Conditional Immortality perspective
“[Millard J. Erickson is Research Professor of Theology, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas.]”
“[This is the third and final article in the series, ‘The Destiny of the Unevangelized,’ delivered by the author as the W. H. Griffith Thomas Lectures at Dallas Theological Seminary, February 8–11, 1994.]”
“The view known as annihilationism holds that at some point human beings cease to exist. Annihilationism takes one of three forms.”
“1. Pure mortalism is the idea that human life is inseparably bound up with the human organism. Thus with the death and dissolution of that organism, the person also passes out of existence. This understanding that annihilation applies to all persons is not commonly found within Christian theologies.”
“2. Conditional immortality, a view considerably more common within Christian circles, agrees with the preceding view in that humans are naturally mortal, but this second view disagrees with the first view by saying that humans can, under certain circumstances, become immortal, or as Paul put it, ‘put on immortality’ (1 Cor 15:53–54). The essential point, however, is that human beings are not naturally immortal but must have immortality conferred by God.”
“3. Annihilationism proper says humans are naturally immortal, not mortal. Thus the soul, or more correctly, the person, does not pass out of existence simply because of death; he or she ceases to exist because of God’s action. This action occurs either at death, at the general judgment, or at the end of a period of punishment based on each individual’s guilt.”
Conditional Immortality Response: Erickson’s categorization here requires careful clarification. Most biblical conditionalists prefer the term “conditional immortality” precisely because it accurately describes the biblical teaching that immortality is God’s gift to the redeemed, not an inherent quality of all human souls. Paul explicitly states that God “alone has immortality” (1 Timothy 6:16) and that believers will “put on immortality” at the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:53-54). This is not philosophical speculation but direct biblical teaching.
The traditional view that all humans possess inherent immortality cannot be found explicitly stated anywhere in Scripture. Instead, the Bible consistently presents immortality as something believers seek (Romans 2:7) and receive as a gift through the gospel (2 Timothy 1:10). The third category Erickson describes—that humans are naturally immortal—represents a minority view among conditionalists and should not be confused with biblical conditional immortality. Most biblical conditionalists reject the premise that humans are naturally immortal, noting that Genesis 3:22-24 explicitly shows God preventing Adam and Eve from eating from the tree of life “and living forever” after their sin, demonstrating that perpetual existence was not inherent to their nature but dependent on access to God’s provision.
Arguments Advanced in Favor of Annihilationism
The Issue of Mortality versus Immortality
“One argument, which is both theologically and biblically broad, is to reject the idea that humans are somehow inherently immortal, thus moving the discussion toward the position of conditional immortality. The reason for concern about this, Edward Fudge argues, is that if the natural immortality of the soul is accepted, then the options are reduced to an unacceptable few. He quotes Pusey, who wrote, ‘If man is admitted to be immortal, and punishment is not endless, there is no other conclusion but that he should be restored.’ For those who reject this conclusion and who find either alternative unacceptable, rejection of natural immortality takes on significance.”
“Part of the argument against inherent immortality is that this idea of the soul is of Greek philosophical, rather than biblical, origin. It has found its way into Christian theology at a number of points. Some, especially those of the Reformed tradition, maintain that immortality is part of the image of God in man and God’s life-giving by breathing into man the breath of life.”
Conditional Immortality Response: Erickson correctly represents Fudge’s logical argument but doesn’t engage with its force. The point is not merely about reducing options but about biblical fidelity. If Scripture teaches that humans are naturally mortal (which it does in numerous passages like Romans 6:23, “the wages of sin is death”), then we must accept this regardless of the theological implications. The traditional view creates an artificial dilemma by assuming what it needs to prove—that all humans will exist forever.
The doctrine of the immortal soul is demonstrably absent from the Old Testament and finds its clearest articulation not in Scripture but in Plato’s writings, particularly the Phaedo. Early church fathers like Justin Martyr explicitly rejected the Greek notion of natural immortality, stating in his Dialogue with Trypho that souls are not inherently immortal. The claim that immortality is part of the image of God is pure speculation without biblical support. When God breathed life into Adam, He made him a “living soul” (nephesh), the same term used for animals in Genesis 1:20-21, not an immortal being.
“Critics, however, have claimed increasingly that this doctrine, which has had a rather long and in some periods unchallenged reign in the churches, is not biblical. They say this doctrine is of pagan origin and crept into Christian thinking through Platonic philosophy. When the Bible speaks of immortality, it refers to the future glorified body, rather than the present soul. Thus the basis of confidence in life after death is bodily resurrection, not immortality of the soul.”
“While conceding that the early church fathers such as Origen and Augustine believed in the immortality of the soul, Fudge insists that their view differed from that of the Greek philosophers. Their view was not that the soul was inherently immortal. It had come into being at the creative hand of God. Though it survives death, its future existence also depends on God’s will. Others, however, such as Justin Martyr and Tatian, openly opposed the pagan doctrine of immortality.”
Conditional Immortality Response: Erickson acknowledges the critical point but doesn’t refute it because it cannot be refuted from Scripture. Every use of “immortal” or “immortality” in the New Testament refers either to God or to the future resurrection body of believers, never to the soul or to all humans generally. The terms appear in Romans 2:7; 1 Corinthians 15:42, 50, 53-54; 1 Timothy 1:17; 6:16; and 2 Timothy 1:10—and in every case, they support conditional immortality, not the traditional view.
The fact that early church fathers were divided on this issue, with some explicitly rejecting natural immortality, demonstrates that the traditional view was not universally held in the early church. More importantly, even those who believed in the soul’s survival, like Augustine, often admitted this was based more on philosophical reasoning than clear biblical teaching. We should return to Scripture alone as our authority, not to a tradition influenced by pagan philosophy.
“Fudge maintains that the traditional biblical arguments that man is immortal must be rejected. Immortality, he says, does not follow from the fact that humans have been created in the image of God. This divine image in mankind obviously does not include God’s omnipotence or omniscience, so why should it include immortality? If it did, it was certainly lost in the Fall, since Genesis 5:3 states that Adam ‘became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image.'”
“Another argument used to support human immortality is from Jesus’ statement, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ (Matt 22:32). Surely, some say, this must argue for the immortality of at least these three patriarchs. However, the context indicates that Jesus’ point was to prove the resurrection, not immortality. The parallel passage in Luke 20:37 makes clear that Jesus was speaking of the resurrection of those who belong to God, not the immortality of every person.”
“Further, expressions in the Bible such as ‘salvation of the soul’ (e.g., 1 Pet 1:9; cf. Mark 8:35) do not argue for a separate immortal soul. These are merely quotations of passages such as Psalms 16:9–11; 49:15; and 73:24, which speak of the psalmist’s hope for abiding fellowship with God, who will not let His own perish. The word ‘soul,’ for both Old and New Testament writers, is here simply referring to the person, not to some entity within him.”
Conditional Immortality Response: Fudge’s logic regarding the image of God is irrefutable, and Erickson offers no substantive response. The image of God clearly doesn’t include all of God’s attributes—humans are not omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, or self-existent. Why would we arbitrarily select immortality as the one incommunicable attribute that humans somehow share? Furthermore, Genesis 3:22 explicitly states that after the Fall, God expelled humans from Eden specifically to prevent them from eating from the tree of life and living forever. This decisive text shows that perpetual existence was not inherent to human nature but was dependent on access to the tree of life.
Erickson himself acknowledges that the Matthew 22:32 passage proves resurrection, not inherent immortality, which is precisely the conditionalist point. Jesus was refuting the Sadducees who denied resurrection, not addressing the nature of the soul. The patriarchs’ continued existence in some form points forward to their resurrection, not to an inherent inability to cease existing. Moreover, Erickson admits that biblical references to “soul” (nephesh/psyche) typically refer to the whole person, not a separate immortal entity. This is exactly what conditionalists have been arguing—the biblical use of “soul” doesn’t support Greek dualism but rather the Hebrew holistic view of humanity.
“Fudge then develops this view at some length through examining the biblical data from both Testaments. The Hebrew word נֶפֶשׁ is so rich and varied in its meaning that it is rendered in 45 different ways by the translators. The same terms are applied to both humans and animals. The conclusion to be drawn from such data is that the human person is an indivisible whole. When death occurs, it is the death of the soul, the whole person, not simply the death of the body, with the soul somehow surviving.”
“Similarly the word ψυχή usually denotes the life of a person, not some part of the individual. Sometimes the adjectival form of the word refers to the unspiritual or carnal person in contrast to the spiritual person (1 Cor 2:14–16), or the natural body of this life, contrasted with the spiritual body of the life to come (15:44).”
Conditional Immortality Response: Erickson accurately summarizes the biblical data here but doesn’t engage with its implications. If nephesh applies equally to humans and animals, and if animals don’t have immortal souls (which traditionalists admit), then on what basis do we claim humans have immortal souls? The biblical data consistently presents humans as integrated beings, not as immortal souls temporarily housed in bodies. Death affects the whole person. This is why the Bible’s hope is not in the immortality of the soul but in resurrection—God’s act of reconstituting the whole person.
The New Testament usage of psyche continues the Old Testament pattern—it refers to life, not to an immortal component that survives death. Jesus said, “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul [psyche]. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna” (Matthew 10:28). Note that Jesus speaks of the soul being destroyed in hell, not eternally tormented. The traditional view must explain why Jesus used the word “destroy” (apollumi) if He meant “preserve in torment forever.”
Annihilationism and the Idea of “Destruction”
“A second argument used to support the doctrine of annihilation centers around the idea of destruction, together with the concept of its means, namely, the consuming fire. Stott notes that words for ‘destruction’ are often used in relation to the final state of perdition, the most common Greek words being ἀπόλλυμι (‘to destroy’) and ἀπόλεια (‘destruction’). When the verb is active and transitive it means to kill, as in the case of Herod’s attempt to murder the baby Jesus and the plot of the Jewish leaders to have Him executed (Matt 2:13; 12:14). Jesus told His hearers not to be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul (Matt 10:28; cf. James 4:12). If, then, to kill is to deprive the body of life, it would seem that hell is a deprivation of both physical and spiritual life, in other words, an extinction of being.”
“When the verb ἀπόλλυμι is in the middle voice it means to be destroyed and so to perish, whether physically, as by hunger or snake bite (Luke 15:17; 1 Cor 10:9), or eternally in hell (John 3:16; 10:28; 17:12; Rom 2:12; 1 Cor 15:18; 2 Pet 3:9). Just as believers are those being saved, so unbelievers are οἵ ἀπολλύμενοι (‘those who are perishing’). This term occurs in 1 Corinthians 1:18; 2 Corinthians 2:15; 4:3; and 2 Thessalonians 2:10. Jesus said that the broad road leads to destruction (Matt 7:13). Other verses using this verb are Romans 9:22; Philippians 1:28; 3:19; Hebrews 10:39; 2 Peter 3:7; and Revelation 17:8, 11. It would seem strange, then, Stott says, if those who are said to suffer destruction are not actually destroyed. He agrees with Edwards that it is ‘difficult to image a perpetually inconclusive process of perishing.'”
Conditional Immortality Response: Stott’s argument here is compelling and based on straightforward biblical exegesis. The Greek word apollumi and its cognates appear dozens of times in the New Testament concerning final judgment, and they consistently mean “destroy” or “perish” in normal usage. When Jesus warns about God’s ability to “destroy both soul and body in Gehenna” (Matthew 10:28), the natural reading is that God will indeed destroy the whole person. To read this as “God can torment both soul and body forever in Gehenna” requires a complete redefinition of the word “destroy.”
The evidence Stott presents is overwhelming. John 3:16, perhaps the most famous verse in the Bible, contrasts “perish” with “eternal life”—not “eternal conscious torment” with “eternal bliss.” The consistent biblical pattern is life versus death, not eternal happiness versus eternal misery. When Paul says the wicked face “eternal destruction” (2 Thessalonians 1:9), the traditional view must perform interpretive gymnastics to make “destruction” mean its opposite: “preservation in a state of suffering.” Edwards’ observation about the logical impossibility of “perpetually inconclusive perishing” remains unanswered by traditionalists.
“The biblical imagery of hell is also referred to by annihilationists in support of their view. The most prominent element in this imagery is, of course, fire. This is commonly understood as teaching that those who are lost will be submitted eternally to punishing flame and will never be consumed by it. Jesus used the expression ‘the fire of hell’ (Matt 5:22; 18:9) and spoke of ‘eternal fire’ (18:8; 25:41). The Book of Revelation refers to ‘the lake of fire’ (20:14–15). Stott suggests that fire is associated in people’s minds with ‘conscious torment’ because of their having experienced acute pain from being burned. He maintains, however, that the main function of fire is not to cause pain, but to bring about destruction, as incinerators bear witness.”
“This also fits well with the biblical expression ‘a consuming fire’ and with John the Baptist’s warning of the Judge’s ‘burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire’ (Matt 3:12; cf. Luke 3:17). From this data Stott draws this conclusion: The fire itself is termed ‘eternal’ and ‘unquenchable,’ but it would be very odd if what is thrown into it proves indestructible. Our expectation would be the opposite: it would be consumed for ever, not tormented for ever. Hence it is the smoke (evidence that the fire has done its work) which ‘rises for ever and ever’ (Revelation 14:11; cf. 19:3).”
Conditional Immortality Response: Stott’s observation about the nature of fire is both logical and biblical. Throughout Scripture, fire is primarily an agent of consumption and destruction, not preservation. When Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by fire, they were reduced to ashes, not preserved in a state of burning (2 Peter 2:6; Jude 7). The fire that consumed Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10:2) killed them; it didn’t preserve them in torment. Even in Jesus’ parable of the wheat and tares, the tares are burned up, not burned forever (Matthew 13:30, 40).
“Unquenchable fire” in biblical usage refers to fire that cannot be put out until it has consumed its fuel, not fire that burns forever without consuming. When Jerusalem was threatened with “unquenchable fire” (Jeremiah 17:27), it was fulfilled in the Babylonian destruction—the city burned completely but is not still burning today. Similarly, “eternal fire” describes the fire’s divine origin and irreversible effects, not necessarily its duration. Jude 7 explicitly states that Sodom and Gomorrah serve as an example by “undergoing a punishment of eternal fire,” yet these cities are not still burning.
“Stott responds to four objections to his understanding of the lake of fire. The first is the vivid picture of hell as a place where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched’ (Mark 9:48). He points out that Jesus’ quotation is from the last verse of Isaiah (66:24), which refers to the dead bodies of God’s enemies being consigned to the city’s rubbish dump, to be eaten by maggots and burned. While the apocryphal Judith 16:17 applied this to everlasting pain for the nations hostile to God, Jesus, in quoting this verse from Isaiah, did not mention everlasting pain. The worm will not die and the fire will not be quenched—at least not until their work of destruction is done, Stott says. The worm and the fire are everlasting, not the persons subject to them.”
“A second objection to annihilationism is Jesus’ reference to ‘eternal punishment’ in contrast to ‘eternal life’ in Matthew 25:46. If eternal life means that the righteous shall live forever in conscious bliss in the presence of God, does not the parallelism require that wicked unbelievers will forever experience conscious punishment in hell? Stott replies that this interpretation reads into the text what is not necessarily there. Though Jesus said that both life and punishment will be eternal, He did not, at least in this passage, define the nature of either of these.”
“Elsewhere (John 17:3), He spoke of eternal life as conscious enjoyment of God, but it does not follow, Stott argues, that eternal punishment must be a conscious experience of pain at God’s hand. ‘On the contrary, although declaring both to be eternal, Jesus is contrasting the two destinies: the more unlike they are, the better.’ Pinnock responds in a slightly different way. Like Stott, he says Jesus did not define the nature of either eternal life or eternal punishment in Matthew 25:46. But Pinnock adds that Jesus simply stated that there will be two destinies and leaves it there, so that one is free to interpret this verse as meaning either everlasting conscious torment or irreversible destruction. The text allows both possibilities. All it teaches explicitly, he says, is the finality of the judgment itself, not its nature.”
Conditional Immortality Response: Stott’s analysis of Mark 9:48 and Isaiah 66:24 is precisely correct. Isaiah explicitly describes “dead bodies” (Hebrew: pegerim), not living people in torment. The image is of complete destruction and shame, not eternal conscious torment. The undying worm and unquenchable fire emphasize the certainty and completeness of destruction, not its eternal duration on conscious beings.
Regarding Matthew 25:46, the conditionalist understanding is both linguistically and theologically sound. The Greek word for punishment (kolasis) refers to the punishment itself, not the process of punishing. A punishment can be eternal in its consequences without requiring eternal conscious suffering. Capital punishment, for example, is irreversible and permanent—its effects last forever—though the person executed doesn’t experience ongoing suffering. The parallelism in the verse emphasizes the eternal finality of both destinies, not the experiential quality of both. Death is indeed an eternal punishment when it is the second death from which there is no resurrection. Both Stott and Pinnock make valid points: the verse establishes the eternal finality of both destinies but doesn’t explicitly describe the nature of the punishment.
“A third objection raised against annihilationism is based on the parable, if that is what it was, of the rich man and Lazarus, as found in Luke 16:19–31. Did not the rich man (called Dives, after the Latin word for rich man) declare that he was ‘in agony in this flame’ (vv. 23–24, 28)? However, one must be cautious in interpreting a parable (if it was a parable) that speaks of ‘Abraham’s bosom’ as well as hell fire. Also, since the experiences of the rich man and Lazarus occurred immediately after their death, the most natural interpretation of the passage would be that it refers to the intermediate state between death and resurrection.”
“Stott, in fact, believes this is when the lost come to the horrible realization of their fate. And such an interpretation, he says, is surely not incompatible with annihilation. Similarly, since the ‘torment’ mentioned in Revelation 14:10 will be experienced ‘in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb,’ that seems to refer to the moment of judgment, not to the eternal state. The smoke, symbolizing the completed burning, and not the torment, will be forever.”
Conditional Immortality Response: The traditionalist reliance on the parable of the rich man and Lazarus reveals the weakness of their position. First, parables are not meant to provide detailed theological descriptions of the afterlife but to make moral points—in this case, about the dangers of wealth and ignoring the poor. Second, the parable uses imagery familiar to Jesus’ audience from intertestamental literature, not necessarily endorsing its literal accuracy. Third, and most importantly, the setting is explicitly the intermediate state before resurrection and final judgment, not the eternal state.
Stott’s observation about Revelation 14:10 is crucial. The torment occurs “in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb,” which cannot describe the eternal state, as traditionalists themselves often argue that hell is characterized by separation from God’s presence. This must refer to the judgment scene itself. The smoke that rises forever is reminiscent of the destruction of Edom in Isaiah 34:9-10, where smoke rising forever symbolizes complete and irreversible destruction, not ongoing conscious torment.
Annihilationism and Justice
“A fourth objection against annihilationism is the concept of justice, the belief that God will judge people ‘according to their deeds,’ as stated in such passages as Revelation 20:12. This implies that each person’s penalty will be commensurate with the evil he or she did. This principle was of course followed in the Jewish law courts, in which the lex talionis limited punishments to retributions corresponding to the offenses.”
“However, Stott argues that if eternal conscious torment is administered as punishment for sins done in time, is there not a serious disproportion between the wrongdoing and the penalty? Is not God guilty of the same sort of inequity that His law prohibited? While not minimizing the seriousness of sin as rebellion against the Creator, Stott wonders if ‘eternal conscious torment’ is compatible with divine justice as revealed in the Bible. The only possible exception to this, Stott says, would be if somehow one’s impenitence also continues throughout eternity.”
“Pinnock also argues this point. This would be infinite punishment for finite sin, for a finite being cannot commit an infinite sin, even if it is against an infinite Being. The major point, however, as he sees it, is that such unending torture of the wicked would serve no conceivable purpose of God except sheer vengeance and vindictiveness. It would spell endless and total unredemptive suffering, punishment for its own sake.”
“There is no question here of reformation or reeducation of the wicked. There could never be any resulting good beyond the suffering itself. He cites with approval Hans Küng’s observation that (quite apart from the point that a merciless God contradicts Jesus’ teachings about the Father) this concept is strangely out of harmony with present-day practice. In education and in criminology in many states, retributive punishments without an opportunity for probation are being abandoned. It is thus most inappropriate, and to most persons it is monstrous, that God should administer not only lifelong but also eternal punishment of body and soul.”
Conditional Immortality Response: The principle of proportionate justice actually supports conditional immortality better than eternal conscious torment. Conditionalists fully affirm that God will judge according to deeds—this is why Jesus speaks of some receiving many stripes and others few (Luke 12:47-48). The duration and intensity of suffering before final destruction can vary according to the severity of one’s sins. But infinite conscious torment for finite sins violates the very principle of proportionate justice that Erickson invokes. Under the law of Moses, even the worst criminals faced execution, not perpetual torture.
Stott and Pinnock raise fundamental moral objections that traditionalists have never adequately answered. The disproportion between temporal sins and eternal conscious torment is infinite. Even granting sin’s seriousness as rebellion against an infinite God doesn’t resolve this problem, because the sin itself remains finite in its expression and duration. The notion that sinners continue sinning in hell, thus justifying eternal punishment, is pure speculation without biblical support and creates a logical problem: why would God sustain in existence beings whose only purpose is to sin and suffer?
Pinnock identifies the crucial theological problem: eternal conscious torment serves no redemptive purpose. Throughout Scripture, God’s punishments serve purposes: correction, deterrence, vindication of justice, or removal of evil. Eternal conscious torment serves none of these. It doesn’t reform the sinner, doesn’t protect the righteous, and doesn’t vindicate justice (which requires proportionality). It would be punishment purely for punishment’s sake, which contradicts God’s character as revealed in Scripture.
“Stott also argues for his view on the basis of verses that have traditionally been used as the basis for universalism. These include John 12:32; 1 Corinthians 15:28; Ephesians 1:10; Philippians 2:10–11; Colossians 1:20. He is not led to universalism because of these verses, but he raises the question of how the impenitents’ eternal existence in hell could be reconciled with the biblical teaching of God’s apparent reconciling of all things to Himself in His final victory over evil. How can God in any meaningful sense be said to be all things to all people if a certain number of people continue in rebellion against Him and under His judgment? Stott feels that ‘it would be easier to hold together the awful reality of hell and universal reign of God if hell means destruction and the impenitent are no more.'”
“Pinnock presents at least two more reasons for his belief in annihilationism. One is the doctrine of God. A God who would torment even the rebellious eternally is cruel and merciless. How can one worship and imitate such a Being? Further, everlasting suffering, especially if linked to soteriological predestination, according to which God predestined persons to that fate, raises the apologetic task connected with the problem of evil to an impossible and hopeless level.”
“Pinnock also argues that a metaphysical problem is involved in the teaching of eternal conscious torment. An unending hell involves a similarly unending cosmological dualism. Heaven and hell just go on existing together forever. Pinnock feels that it would make better sense metaphysically, as well as biblically, morally, and justice-wise, if hell meant destruction and the wicked simply were no more. Otherwise, the ‘disloyal opposition would eternally exist alongside God in a corner of unredeemed reality in the new creation.'”
Conditional Immortality Response: Stott raises an important biblical tension that conditional immortality resolves while eternal conscious torment cannot. Scripture clearly teaches that God will be “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), that every knee will bow (Philippians 2:10-11), and that God will reconcile all things to Himself (Colossians 1:20). If billions of souls remain in eternal conscious rebellion and torment, God’s victory is incomplete and His purposes are eternally frustrated. But if the wicked are ultimately destroyed after appropriate punishment, then God’s victory is complete: evil is eliminated, not eternally preserved in a torture chamber.
Pinnock’s argument about the doctrine of God touches on a crucial pastoral and evangelistic issue. The traditional doctrine of eternal conscious torment has driven countless people away from Christianity, not because they reject the concept of judgment, but because they cannot reconcile infinite torture with a God of love. When combined with certain views of predestination, it presents God as creating billions of beings specifically for eternal torture. This is not the God revealed in Jesus Christ, who wept over Jerusalem and died for His enemies.
The metaphysical argument deserves serious consideration. The traditional view requires us to believe that sin, evil, and suffering will exist eternally in God’s creation. This contradicts the biblical vision of God’s complete victory over evil. How can we say that death is the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Corinthians 15:26) if spiritual death continues forever in hell? How can God make all things new (Revelation 21:5) if the old reality of sin and suffering persists eternally? Conditional immortality offers a coherent solution: evil is finally and completely eliminated, not eternally quarantined.
An Evaluation of Annihilationism
The Philosophical Basis of Annihilationism
“It is necessary first to examine the philosophical concept present within the usual form of annihilationism. As stated earlier, annihilationists contend that the idea that the human soul is immortal, and hence cannot cease to be, or cannot be destroyed, even by God Himself, does not derive from biblical sources, but from Greek philosophy, especially Plato. This argument is built on two false assumptions. One is that similarity of two ideas demonstrates a common origin or cause, or that one of these originates from or is caused by the other. The other assumption is the claim that a causal explanation of something adequately accounts for it, or settles the question of its truth.”
“These two assumptions must now be scrutinized. The overall difficulty with this argument is the lack of specificity and precision in the description of the Greek view. Greek thought had a variety of concepts on any given issue, rather than one monolithic idea. In Platonism, the view most frequently cited, the idea of immortality is related to the concept of the preexistence of the soul. Thus the soul is eternal or immortal in both directions, past and future, having neither beginning nor end. However, this is not true of the Christian view of man. What is usually described as the doctrine of immortality in Christian theology is that the soul is immortal into the future but not into the past. It will never cease to be at any point in the future, but came into existence at some point in the past.”
“Also the Greeks viewed the soul as having natural or inherent immortality. The biblical view, on the other hand, is of a derived or dependent, and contingent or conditional, immortality. A person’s ability to survive forever derives from God. The soul was potentially immortal when created, but it could have become truly immortal only if the requisite conditions were fulfilled, in other words, if the first parents of the human race had obeyed God’s command completely. Therefore a causal connection between Greek philosophy and the Bible on the subject of immortality has not been established. There simply must be more specific resemblance to establish any sort of derivation or common origin of the Christian view from the ‘Greek’ view.”
Conditional Immortality Response: Erickson’s attempt to dismiss the Greek philosophical influence on the traditional doctrine fails on multiple levels. First, the historical evidence for Platonic influence on Christian theology is not based merely on “similarity” but on documented transmission through specific church fathers who explicitly drew from Greek philosophy. Augustine himself acknowledged his debt to Platonism. Second, Erickson creates a straw man by suggesting conditionalists claim that showing Greek influence “settles the question of its truth.” The point is not that Greek origin automatically makes something false, but that doctrines derived from Greek philosophy rather than Scripture should not be binding on Christians.
Erickson’s attempted distinction between Greek and Christian views of immortality misses the fundamental point. Yes, Christians rejected the pre-existence of souls, but they retained the Greek philosophical assumption that souls are naturally indestructible once created. This is precisely what cannot be demonstrated from Scripture. The modification of Platonic doctrine doesn’t make it biblical. Remarkably, Erickson here actually makes the conditionalist case while trying to refute it! He admits that any immortality humans possess is “derived,” “dependent,” “contingent,” and “conditional.” This is exactly what conditional immortalists argue! If immortality is conditional, then those who don’t meet the conditions don’t receive immortality. The Bible clearly states the condition: faith in Christ (John 3:16).
Theological Issues and Annihilationism
“God’s love. The Scriptures often refer to God’s love. But what is its nature? As Pinnock, Stott, and others depict it, His love seems to be a sentimentalized version, in which God would not do anything to cause pain, displeasure, or discomfort to anyone. Thus endless suffering would be incompatible with divine love.”
“Is this really the picture of God’s love given in Scripture? May it not be that God chooses some actions that cause pain to some persons for the sake of a higher good, namely, the greater joy or welfare of the whole of humanity, or more significantly, the good of the whole of reality, especially, the glory of God Himself?”
Conditional Immortality Response: Erickson misrepresents the conditionalist position as “sentimentalized.” Conditionalists fully affirm God’s justice and the reality of punishment. The issue is not whether God will punish sin—He will—but whether that punishment consists of eternal conscious torment or ultimate destruction. The Bible presents God’s love and justice working together: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Love offers salvation; justice requires that those who reject it perish.
Erickson’s utilitarian argument fails to justify eternal conscious torment. What “higher good” is served by keeping billions of souls in eternal agony? How does perpetual torture contribute to “the greater joy or welfare of the whole of humanity”? And most importantly, how does eternal conscious torment glorify God? Scripture says God is glorified when His enemies are defeated and destroyed (Exodus 15:1-18), not when they are preserved in eternal rebellion and suffering.
“God’s will. Annihilationists also seem to have a truncated understanding of God’s will. Pinnock complains that if God does not want anyone to perish, then the idea of eternal conscious suffering for anyone is incredible. One must ask, however, whether there may not be more than one sense of God’s will. Are there not situations in Scripture in which God willed to permit persons to do what He really did not wish or did not like? A clear case is Jesus’ statement in Matthew 19:8 about divorce in the Old Testament era. God’s ‘wish’ and God’s ‘will’ are to be distinguished.”
“Certainly all moral beings periodically make decisions contrary to their wishes. People choose to do things that they do not really like and choose not to do things that they would very much like to do. This distinction, however, does not seem to be part of Pinnock’s thinking. If God wants something to happen, and has the power to bring it about, then, Pinnock says, it must surely occur.”
Conditional Immortality Response: Erickson’s distinction between God’s “wish” and “will” actually supports conditional immortality. Yes, God permits things He doesn’t desire, including sin and its consequences. But notice that in the divorce example, God permitted something less than ideal (divorce) to prevent something worse (hardness of heart leading to abuse). He didn’t create an eternal institution of divorce. Similarly, God permits the ultimate consequence of sin—death—but this doesn’t mean He perpetuates sin and suffering eternally.
Erickson misrepresents Pinnock’s argument. The issue isn’t about God getting everything He wants in a simplistic sense. The issue is that eternal conscious torment would mean God actively sustains the existence of beings for the sole purpose of tormenting them forever. This isn’t about God merely permitting something He doesn’t like; it’s about God actively perpetuating it for eternity. There’s a vast difference between God allowing people to choose destruction and God keeping people alive forever specifically to torture them.
“God’s justice. As already noted, annihilationists argue against eternal conscious suffering on the basis that it is a punishment grossly disproportionate to the offense. How can a just God punish eternally or for an infinite period of time someone who has committed only a finite sin? How can a finite person be guilty of an infinite wrong?”
“These questions, however, assume that God and man are basically equal partners, and therefore are able to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement between them. In such a situation, the human might protest against what is to him a disagreeable outcome. Here, however, one person is finite and owes everything to God, the infinite Person, including even life itself. To fail, then, to honor God, obey Him, and accept what He says is indeed an infinite act of ingratitude and of rejection.”
“Some contend that no sin or combination of sins could be infinite. What must be measured, however, is the effect, which may seem out of all proportion to the act. Thus one person might make just a tiny pinprick in the body of another, so slight as to be scarcely noticeable. Yet if it is made in a crucial spot or with a contaminated instrument, the effects may prove fatal. The act is then an absolute one, slight though it seems. Annihilationists, in protesting what they see as the injustice of everlasting suffering as punishment, assume that sin does not have a great effect on God, and so it should not be punished infinitely. But this overlooks the full extent of sin’s effect on a perfectly holy God, for whom sin must be exceedingly offensive, since it is a contradiction of His very nature.”
Conditional Immortality Response: Erickson’s argument here proves too much. If sinning against an infinite God makes the sin infinite and deserving of infinite punishment, then why doesn’t obeying an infinite God make the obedience infinite and deserving of infinite reward? Why don’t the smallest acts of kindness merit eternal bliss? The traditional argument is philosophically inconsistent. Moreover, the Bible never makes this philosophical argument about “infinite sin.” Instead, Scripture consistently presents death as sin’s penalty (Romans 6:23), established from the very beginning (Genesis 2:17).
Erickson’s pinprick analogy actually undermines his argument. In his example, the pinprick causes death, not eternal conscious suffering. The fatal effect is cessation of life, not perpetual agony. This perfectly illustrates the conditionalist position: sin has a fatal effect—it brings death. The seriousness of sin is not minimized by conditional immortality; rather, it’s properly understood. Sin is so serious that it results in the ultimate consequence: complete destruction of the sinner. The traditional view, by keeping sinners alive forever, actually minimizes sin’s consequence by denying the death that God said would result from it.
“Annihilationists also assume that punishment in hell is something God administers by His own deliberate, voluntary, and vindictive action, when He really would not need to do so. May it not be, however, that it is primarily the human person who chooses the eternal punishment, or at least chooses the action that leads to that punishment? Indeed, this is the very point C. S. Lewis proposed as a possibility.”
“He wrote that what is most characteristic of hell is not physical flame and attendant suffering. Instead what really makes it hell is the absence of God, with the consequent loneliness, anguish, and longing (whereas God’s presence is what makes heaven heaven). Thus sin is a human being saying, ‘God, go away and leave me alone,’ and hell is God finally saying, in effect, ‘All right, you shall have what you wish.’ In the final analysis it is not God who sends individuals to hell, but those persons themselves.”
“May it not be that for persons to be what they are, so that salvation may be what it is, they must be so constituted as to have the potential of living forever? Perhaps this is one of those necessary matters, such as God’s incapability of making triangles without three sides or circles in which all points on the circumference are not equidistant from the center of the circle.”
Conditional Immortality Response: The C.S. Lewis quote actually supports conditional immortality better than eternal conscious torment. If hell is truly separation from God, and God is the source of all life and existence (Acts 17:28), then complete separation from God would result in non-existence, not eternal conscious existence in torment. One cannot be utterly separated from the God “in whom we live and move and have our being” and yet continue to exist. Furthermore, if sinners are saying “leave me alone” and God grants their wish, why would He force them to exist forever against their will? True respect for human choice would allow them the consequence they’ve chosen: separation from the source of life, resulting in death.
Erickson’s appeal to logical necessity is pure speculation without any biblical support. Where does Scripture say that humans must have “the potential of living forever” for salvation to be meaningful? The Bible presents salvation as rescue from death (John 5:24), not from eternal conscious torment. The meaningful choice is between life and death, existence and non-existence, not between two forms of eternal existence. The geometric analogies are irrelevant; God’s inability to create logical contradictions doesn’t mean He must keep the wicked alive forever to torment them.
“Of course Pinnock objects to this and similar attempts to minimize in some fashion the severity of hell. One may ask, however, why hell must be understood in the most offensive way possible. It almost seems as if annihilationists are stating the eternal punishment option as unfavorably as possible in order to give rhetorical appeal to their alternate view. This seems, however, to be a less than ideal way of handling a difference. (One of Socrates’ opponents or dialogue partners once complained that Socrates stated the opponent’s view in the worst possible way.) If true, that is a serious charge, since it suggests an attempt to gain an unfair advantage.”
“The doctrine of eternal punishment is not well accepted in American society. The idea of individual responsibility is not popular. Though individuals take unwise actions, they are not regarded as having contributed to the outcome of those actions. To suggest that the agent of the action is responsible may seem cold or hardhearted. Reality, as God defines it, is not that way, however. Certain actions bear certain consequences, and justice means that those consequences have to be experienced. God provides for the removal of those eternal consequences for those who repent and accept His provision—and that is grace. Justice, however, does not require that He cancel the inevitable results for those who continue to live independently of Him.”
Conditional Immortality Response: This is a remarkable accusation. Conditionalists aren’t “stating the eternal punishment option as unfavorably as possible”—they’re simply stating what traditionalists actually teach: that God will torment the majority of humanity in fire forever. If this sounds offensive, perhaps that’s because it is offensive. The traditional doctrine, stated plainly, is morally repugnant to most people’s God-given moral intuitions. Rather than accusing conditionalists of unfair representation, traditionalists should consider why their doctrine sounds so horrible when stated clearly.
Conditionalists fully affirm individual responsibility and the justice of God’s judgment. The issue is not whether there are eternal consequences for rejecting God—there are. The issue is the nature of those consequences. The Bible consistently presents the consequence as death, destruction, and perishing—all eternal in their effect. Erickson’s appeal to cultural rejection of responsibility is a red herring. Many who reject eternal conscious torment do so not because they reject judgment, but because they take seriously what the Bible actually says about that judgment. The “inevitable result” of living independently from the source of life is death, not eternal conscious torment.
Other Aspects of Annihilationism
“As already noted, both Pinnock and Stott have appealed to Bible passages that are generally used by universalists. They feel, for example, that these verses speak of God’s victory over all things, of His reconciling all things to Himself. Yet universalists contend that this is not accomplished without the actual restoration of everything, which would preclude the disposal of anyone, as in annihilation. According to annihilationists, eternal punishment would seem to be a matter of God’s giving up on some of His children as incorrigible. They say this would certainly not be the triumph of love. However, it would be the surrender of God’s love to the fact of failure.”
“The same problem applies to the question of God’s love and justice. Pinnock has argued that such precludes endless punishment. For a universalist such as Nels Ferré, however, the problem is not solved quite so easily. In his thinking, God’s love and justice preclude annihilationism. He argues for universal salvation and against annihilation, using terminology and arguments strikingly similar to those of Pinnock. (Actually, to avoid an anachronism, one should say instead that Pinnock’s arguments resemble Ferré’s.) Ferré contends that if God gives eternal life to some or most, He would then be unjust in allowing or causing some persons to pass out of existence. That would be a failure of sovereign love. Ferré would probably suggest that an expedient such as annihilation is a case of ‘taking the hell out of hell.’ Thus on both these points the annihilationists may be dealing with a two-edged sword.”
Conditional Immortality Response: Erickson’s argument here backfires spectacularly. If annihilation represents God “giving up” on some as incorrigible, what does eternal conscious torment represent? At least annihilation ends the rebellion and removes evil from God’s creation. Eternal conscious torment means God perpetually sustains rebels in existence to suffer forever, with no hope of redemption or end to their rebellion. Which view better represents God’s victory? The universalist texts make better sense under conditional immortality than eternal torment: God truly reconciles all things to Himself by either redeeming or removing all that opposes Him. Evil is conquered, not preserved in an eternal torture chamber.
The fact that universalists critique both positions doesn’t invalidate conditional immortality. Each view must stand or fall on its biblical merits. However, conditional immortality occupies the biblical middle ground between two extremes. Unlike universalism, it takes seriously the biblical warnings about judgment and the fate of the wicked. Unlike eternal conscious torment, it takes seriously the biblical language of death and destruction. The charge of “taking the hell out of hell” is empty rhetoric. Conditionalists affirm the reality of hell; they simply believe it results in what the Bible says it results in: death, not eternal life in misery.
Biblical Evidence against Annihilationism
“The significant passage in support of eternal conscious punishment is Matthew 25:41–46. The usual argument is that just as Jesus was promising believers everlasting life, unending bliss with Him, He was also threatening unbelievers with everlasting punishment. In an extensive argument Fudge attempts to show that when applied to nouns that speak of a resulting condition (such as punishment), αἰώνιος does not denote eternity as it does when modifying nouns that refer to activities (such as punishing). Yet he does not discuss the matter of parallelism in verse 46, namely, that if in the one case (life) the adjective αἰώνιον means eternal, it must also mean eternal in the other phrase (punishment). The parallelism requires that if life for believers is of everlasting duration, punishment for unbelievers must be also.”
“Perhaps most impressive, because of its source, is this statement by John A. T. Robinson, a universalist: The genuine universalist will base nothing on the fact (which is a fact) that the New Testament word for eternal (aionios) does not necessarily mean everlasting, but enduring only for an indefinitely long period. For he can apply this signification to ‘eternal punishment’ in Matt 25:46 only if he is willing to give exactly the same sense to ‘eternal life’ in the same verse. As F. D. Maurice said many years ago now, writing to F. J. A. Hort: ‘I did not see how aionios could mean one thing when it was joined with kolasis and another when it was joined with zoe’ (quoted, J. O. F. Murray, The Goodness and Severity of God, p. 195). To admit that the two phrases are not parallel is at once to treat them with unequal seriousness. And that a true universalism must refuse to do.”
Conditional Immortality Response: Erickson misrepresents Fudge’s careful analysis. Fudge does address the parallelism, noting that both destinies are indeed eternal in their duration and finality. The question is not whether the punishment is eternal, but what the punishment consists of. An executed criminal has received a punishment that is eternal in its consequences—they never return to life—though they don’t experience ongoing suffering. The parallelism in Matthew 25:46 emphasizes the irreversibility and permanence of both destinies, not necessarily the conscious experience of both. “Eternal punishment” can mean a punishment that is eternal in its effect (death from which there is no return) just as “eternal redemption” (Hebrews 9:12) means a redemption that is eternal in its effect, not an ongoing process of being redeemed.
Robinson’s quote actually supports the conditionalist interpretation when properly understood. Conditionalists agree that “eternal” means the same thing in both phrases—it refers to the age to come and the permanence of both destinies. The difference lies not in the meaning of “eternal” but in the nature of “life” versus “punishment.” Eternal life is ongoing conscious existence in God’s presence. Eternal punishment is the eternal consequence of divine judgment—death from which there is no resurrection. Both are equally eternal, equally serious, and equally final.
“Another issue in this passage may provide some guidance. The place to which the ‘goats’ are consigned in the judgment of the sheep and goats is ‘the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels’ (v. 41). Revelation gives more information on this future condition of the devil. The beast and the false prophet will be ‘thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone’ (19:20). Then the devil will be cast into the same lake (20:10), and they ‘will be tormented day and night forever and ever’ (v. 10). Then verse 15 states that ‘if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.’ While these verses only say explicitly that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented forever and ever, no statement suggests that the persons whose names are not written in the book of life have any different fate in the lake of fire. This supports the view that the punishment spoken of in Matthew 25:41, 46 is also everlasting in nature.”
“Is this fire everlasting, however? According to Revelation 14:11 the smoke from this fire of torment of the beast and the false prophet will be forever. Fudge and others contend that the smoke, not the punishment, is everlasting. However, how there can be smoke without something being burned? If these bodies are burned up, consumed, destroyed, how can there still be smoke? What would produce smoke, unless something was burning? For that matter, why would the lake of fire continue to exist, with nothing left to burn?”
Conditional Immortality Response: This argument from Revelation requires careful examination. First, the highly symbolic nature of Revelation demands cautious interpretation. The beast and false prophet are not necessarily individual persons but may represent systems or institutions of evil. Second, even if we accept that these specific entities are tormented forever, it doesn’t follow that all humans thrown into the lake of fire share the same fate. The text explicitly states different outcomes for different groups throughout Revelation. Third, Revelation 20:14 states that “Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death.” Abstract concepts like Death and Hades cannot experience conscious torment, suggesting the lake of fire represents complete destruction.
Erickson’s objection about smoke reveals a failure to understand biblical imagery. The “smoke rising forever” is a biblical idiom for complete and irreversible destruction, borrowed from Isaiah 34:10’s description of Edom’s destruction: “Its smoke will rise forever.” Edom is not still burning today; the imagery communicates total devastation. Similarly, Genesis 19:28 describes smoke rising from Sodom and Gomorrah after their destruction—the smoke was evidence that destruction had occurred, not that it was ongoing. The smoke is a memorial to judgment completed, not evidence of judgment continuing.
“Another point needing evaluation is Stott’s contention that the contrast between life and punishment requires maximum difference. That means that if the former is eternal, the latter is not. One must ask, however, whether this is really so. On what evidence is that contention based? And if it is valid, what does it really require? It would seem that the greater contrast would be between the eternality of ‘life’ and the eternality of ‘punishment.’ Overall, this argument for annihilationism is not overly impressive.”
“Pinnock’s argument from metaphysical dualism is not impressive either. He argues, as noted earlier, that hell cannot be eternal because that would require an ongoing dualism in which opposition to God would exist forever alongside God. However, this dualism as such is not ultimate; it is a derived dualism in which continuation of evil depends on Him. Yet its continuation is not a true dualism in the sense of being an active opposition. It presents no challenge or threat to God. It has been brought into complete and permanent subjugation. Thus equilibrium has been attained or achieved in the universe. This would seem, therefore, not to be a genuine tension for theology.”
Conditional Immortality Response: Erickson misunderstands Stott’s argument about contrast. Stott isn’t arguing that maximum contrast requires one to be eternal and the other not. Rather, he’s pointing out that life and death are already maximum contrasts—existence versus non-existence. The Bible consistently presents this as the fundamental choice: life or death (Deuteronomy 30:19), not two different qualities of eternal life. The greater contrast is indeed between eternal life and eternal death (the second death that lasts forever), not between eternal bliss and eternal misery.
Erickson’s response to Pinnock’s metaphysical argument is theologically troubling. He admits that under the traditional view, evil continues to exist eternally as a “derived dualism” dependent on God. This makes God the eternal sustainer of evil! Even if evil is “subjugated,” it still exists, and God must actively maintain its existence. How is this compatible with biblical promises that God will be “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), that there will be no more curse (Revelation 22:3), and that former things will pass away (Revelation 21:4)? The traditional view requires evil, sin, and rebellion to exist eternally in God’s creation, even if subjugated. This is not the biblical vision of God’s complete victory over evil, but rather an eternal stalemate where evil is contained but never eliminated.
“Luke 16:19–31, on the rich man and Lazarus, is frequently presented in arguing against annihilation. Actually, its application is somewhat narrower. This story actually refutes only the idea that unbelieving humans cease to exist at death. There is no explicit basis for believing in a later annihilation. In fact the opposite would seem to be the case.”
“The idea of the wicked being obliterated rather than suffering endlessly will continue to appeal to sensitive Christians. Yet emotion cannot be the primary consideration in settling theological issues. In this case the biblical and theological data weigh strongly on the side of eternal conscious punishment of the wicked.”
Conditional Immortality Response: Erickson’s use of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is problematic on multiple levels. First, he assumes it should be taken as literal theological instruction about the afterlife rather than as a parable using familiar imagery to make a moral point. Second, even if taken literally, it explicitly depicts the intermediate state (the rich man’s brothers are still alive), not the final state after resurrection and judgment. Third, nothing in the parable suggests this intermediate state continues forever. Many conditionalists accept conscious existence in the intermediate state while maintaining that final punishment after the resurrection and judgment is destruction.
Erickson’s concluding dismissal of conditional immortality as an emotional preference is both condescending and false. The case for conditional immortality is based on careful biblical exegesis, not emotion. It takes seriously the hundreds of biblical texts that speak of the wicked perishing, being destroyed, dying, being consumed, and ceasing to exist. It harmonizes with the biblical teaching that God alone has immortality and that eternal life is a gift to believers. It aligns with the biblical vision of God’s complete victory over evil. The traditional view, by contrast, must redefine biblical terms, import Greek philosophy, and create theological problems about God’s character and purposes. The biblical and theological data actually weigh strongly in favor of conditional immortality, which is why increasing numbers of biblical scholars and theologians are embracing it.
© 2010 – 2025, Matthew. All rights reserved.
