Paul Derengowski, PhD
Annihilationism is just about as old of a heresy as the age of the Christian church. Some of the early church fathers advocated it, even though it has never held sway or been widely accepted as Christian orthodoxy. Essentially the belief goes something like this: no one or nothing will exist one day, which is especially true of the wicked. Rather than suffer throughout eternity for their impenitence, the wicked will simply cease to exist, and that after a brief stopover in hell where the Almighty will torment them commensurate with whatever wrongdoing they engaged in while alive on earth. As Louis Berkhof wrote,
Annihilationism teaches that man was created immortal, but that the soul, which continues in sin, is by a positive act of God deprived of the gift of immortality, and ultimately destroyed, or (according to some) forever bereaved of consciousness, which is practically equivalent to being reduced to non-existence.1
Close behind Annihilationism, or perhaps in front, given its broader acceptance among Evangelical Christians, today, is Conditional Immortality. It basically teaches the same thing as Annihilationism with the exception that at least some people will be granted immortality, whereas otherwise no one possesses it until God acts in their behalf. Those human beings who fail to inherit immortality will be briefly judged, in hell, and then deprived of their existence. Glenn Peoples, who is a proponent and published apologist of Conditionalism, defines the ideas thus:
Conditional Immortality…is the view that human beings are mortal, that we depend entirely on the grace of God for our existence, that eternal life is made possible only through the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, and that immortality—endless life—is the gift of God that he will bestow upon those who are saved through Christ, at the resurrection of the dead.2
Instead of writing a full-fledged rebuttal here, I am going to use this page to interact with both ideas, with more of my focus on Conditionalism. Most of my input will come through blog articles that I will link here, and will reflect upon what I am reading and hearing, as well including in a book that I will publish later.
To those who wish to rebut, counter, or agree with what I conclude, please feel free to do so. I would only ask that you stick to the subject and leave out any personal attacks. If your response does not show up here on on the blog, it simply means that you would rather sling mud than offer something respectable or intelligent to the exchange.
Solo de gloria