By conditionalist doctrine, I mean the belief that hell is the destruction of those souls that go there, rather than the everlasting torment or eventual purification of said souls.

Jesus himself said that there is eternal life and eternal punishment according to Mathew 25:46 >"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." John the Revelator, reinforced that by saying that the wicked have no rest day or night in the lake burning with sulfur and brimstone. >"He also will drink the wine of God's wrath... and the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night..." (Revelation 14:10-11) Jesus said God will destroy both the body and the soul in the lake of fire, he has not specified whether the destruction is eternal but then the verses above confirm that eternal punishment will be executed on sinners. How do Annihilationists respond?

John Stott argued against the eternal punishment of unbelievers whereas J I Packer argued for the view that Jesus Christ warned of the eternal punishment of those who reject himself and his gospel. What is the current view of Reformed Baptist Protestantism on this matter ?

One of the early collections of Rabbinic Law and Doctrine is contained in the Babylon Talmudic. I presume it’s fairly safe to say that it is a good source to indicate what the Rabbis at the time of Christ may have been thinking. Of course Rabbinic thinking is considered irrelevant by Christians with respect to what is true when not in-line with scripture. However from the standpoint of understanding the context of the gospels it has some value. This makes the reference below, from it to Dan 12:2, describing the eternal blessing of the resurrected, as well as the eternal contempt of the wicked also resurrected, as opposed to an odd theory of a temporal punishment for some not that wicked and not that good. This third class seems to be an invention of them outside of the scripture but does make the conclusion of the ‘non-temporal’ nature of the wicked souls subjection to contempt iron clad. Are there any references or parables of Christ in the gospels that indicate a familiarity with the Rabbinic view of the dual resurrection of both the wicked and the righteous? Is there anything rejected or accepted in them by the Lord? Talmudic Tractate Rosh haShanah > It is taught in a baraita: Beit Shammai say: There will be three > groups of people on the great Day of Judgment at the end of days: One > of wholly righteous people, one of wholly wicked people, and one of > middling people. Wholly righteous people will immediately be written > and sealed for eternal life. Wholly wicked people will immediately be > written and sealed for Gehenna, as it is stated: “And many of those > who sleep in the dust of the earth shall wake, some to eternal life > and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2). Middling > people will descend to Gehenna to be cleansed and to achieve atonement > for their sins Daniel 12:2 ESV > 2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to **everlasting life**, and some to shame and **everlasting contempt**

Over the years I have often heard sermons in which it is claimed that Jesus taught more about hell than heaven. I have always believed it because I never had the inclination to check up on those making that claim, I just assumed it was true, because why would someone make such a claim if it weren't true? However, I have found an article entitled "[Did Jesus speak more about Hell than about Heaven?](https://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2015/01/did-jesus-speak-more-about-hell-than-about-heaven/) " where that claim is challenged and in what I have seen so far it may very well not be true. I wonder if there is anyone else on this group that has already done a study on the veracity of this claim. Here is a [list of the actual verses](http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/files/2015/01/jesus-heaven-hell.pdf ) used by the author.

Using natural reason it seems necessary to conclude that hell is a less evil fate than annihilation. If we recognize that evil is a lack of good, and existence is a good, then we can conclude that *existing*, while lacking all other goods (i.e., existing in hell), must be less evil than not existing at all (and thus having no goods). Hence, one concludes that hell is a kind of mercy. Because God loves the damned, too, He keeps them in existence for their own good, rather than annihilating them. Even though they have to undergo almost all evil, they are still spared from not existing at all. But this doesn't seem to accord with Jesus' words in Mt. 26:24 , where He says "woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born." Jesus seems to be saying here that Judas would be better off if he had never existed at all, rather than to suffer in hell. That is, not existing (and therefore having no other goods) is better than lacking all goods but existence. This question has bugged me for a long time, because I don't think there is an error in the reasoning or in the premises to arrive at the initial conclusion, and in fact Boethius seems to imply something similar when he writes about wicked men being owed punishment as a matter of justice, and that not to punish them would be to harm them even more. I want to know if any reputable Catholic theologians have discussed this specific idea in light of Mt. 26:24 . This is about this one specific idea and how it relates to this one specific verse, not the problem of evil generally. The best I have been able to determine for myself, unsatisfactory as it is, is that Our Lord was speaking hyperbolically here.

We know that God is love and He is merciful. However, the idea of eternal torment seems too horrifying and doesn't seem to be in parallel with the nature of God. My argument is that, if God were capable of annihilating the soul, He would have done it long ago. Annihilating Adam and Eve would stop all these countless people going to Hell. It is not just at all if God allowed only a few to enter Heaven and the majority suffer eternal torment. **Why can't God simply make us all vanish? Maybe because God is not able to!** Perhaps this is the reason why God had to sacrifice His one and only Son for us, who was flogged, tortured, mocked, crucified and died, only with the hope of saving some souls. Moreover, the idea of annihilation seems appealing as it gives hope to the unsaved souls. However, I still have trouble with this theology because I can't find any reference from the Bible that God can annihilate the soul. **According to Annihilationism, what is the Biblical basis that God can annihilate the soul? Which verses do they use and what is their interpretation?**

The [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism#1900s_onwards) regarding Annihilationism states: "Annihilationism seems to be gaining as a legitimate minority opinion within modern, conservative Protestant theology since the 1960s, and particularly since the 1980s." This sentence condenses a lot of information. What does it mean exactly? How small or big is this minority? Does it look different in progressive theologies (whatever that would be)?

I've come across a passage that seems to support the idea that Hell is total annihilation. The verbiage "eternal destruction" in the English translation seems to denote that the individual is destroyed and thus ceases to exist. However, given the prevalence of the view that human souls in Hell suffer eternal conscious torment, I would assume there is some explanation for this passage that resolves the apparent conflict between this passage and that doctrine. Here is the text: > They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might. > > 2 Thessalonians 1:9

What do Lutherans teach regarding Second Death (the ultimate fate of the Unjust as described by the book Revelations)? Are Lutherans Annihilationists? Do they believe in a traditional hell of eternal torture? Or something else?

The word aphanizō (ἀφανίζω) means: “to remove out of sight, **cause to disappear**;, pass. to disappear, **vanish**, Jas. 4:14; by impl. to destroy, consume, so that nothing shall be left visible, Mt. 6:19, 20; met. to spoil, deform, disfigure, Mt. 6:16; to perish, Acts 13:41*” Source: https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/aphanizo **Q: How/why do Annihilationists hold to their view on Hell when the passages on Hell never use the word aphanizō??**

Matthew 10:28 > \`And be not afraid of those killing the body, and are not able to kill the soul, but fear rather Him who is able both **soul** and body to **destroy in gehenna**. (YLT) > And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to **destroy** both **soul** and body **in hell** (Gr ***Gehenna***). (NASB) According to Annihilationists: - What is a soul (ψυχὴν - psychēn)? - What is to destroy (ἀπολέσαι - apolesai)? - What is gehenna (γεέννῃ - geennē)? - As a whole, what does it mean for a soul (psychēn) to be destroyed (apolesai) in gehenna (geennē)? _____ Link to opposite side: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89614/50422 _____ Mirror question on BHSE: [What exactly does it mean for a soul to be destroyed in gehenna? Matthew 10:28](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/74414/38524)

There have been a flurry of questions lately regarding the interpretation of Matthew 10:28 from various theological positions, primarily from those who do and who do not believe in eternal conscious torment. See here , here , here , and here to start and just follow the bunny trails of answers, comments, and chats if you dare. Matthew 10:28 says: > And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. We are told not to fear man because he can only kill the body. The "him" which we are to fear is God because He can destroy both body and soul. If I have understood them properly, annihilationists understand this to be referring to the ability of God to render both the body and the soul of a person (including all of whatever that means) non-existent. In other words there is no *eternal* destruction process but every aspect of what made that person a person is utterly obliterated at some point in time. Additionally, this non-existence is total, final, and permanent with perhaps even the erasure of that individual from even the "memory" of God. It is allowed that such a one might experience varying levels of pain and conscious torment at the moment of destruction (however long that moment may last) but it is transitory in nature and comes to a definitive irreversible end. I remember reading in C.S. Lewis (*and I frustratingly cannot find the reference, so please help if you can with an edit*) that "it makes no sense to talk about the benefit or detriment of non-existence." Presumably this is because every alleged benefit or detriment which might be attributed to existence is unavailable to them...because they don't exist. For the annihilationist reading Matthew 10:28, what fear is there to hold regarding the possibility of non-existence? Put another way, what is to be feared about the removal of all benefit and detriment related to existence? Or is it the destruction process itself that is to be feared rather than the end result of that process wherein fear also ceases as a benefit or detriment?

In Matthew 26:24 Jesus says > The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. Also in Mark 14:21 it is repeated > The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born. These statements seem to indicate that, for at least one man, there is something worse than the non-existence of remaining unborn. What do those who hold to a doctrine of ultimate annihilation for the un-redeemed make of these verses: In what way is eventual non-existence worse than mere non-existence?

Matthew 18:8: >8 And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. Mark 9:43: >43 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. Isaiah 66:24 >24 “And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.” Matthew 25:41 >41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. All of these verses pretty clearly indicate an "unquenchable fire" or an "eternal fire". So what do annihilationists make of these passages?

Annihilationists and universalists argue that the Greek word translated "eternal" (aionion/aionios) is more appropriately translated "eon-like", and thus New Testament terms like "eternal fire/punishment" (in e.g. Matt 18:8, 25:46) should be interpreted to mean long lasting but still finite fire and punishment. Given that argument, do annihilationists and universalists have any New Testament basis for believing that "eternal life" is really eternal and not merely long lasting?

What is the biblical basis for saying that unsaved souls are completely destroyed? **Related Questions:** The following link covers the basis for saying that the unsaved are eternally punished, but not for the opposing claim that unsaved souls are destroyed: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/968/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-the-eternal-existence-of-the-lost-in-hell The following is also similar but asks why God didnt annihilate Adam and Eve (and hence eliminate future souls) when Adam fell: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/32806/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-saying-that-god-can-annihilate-human-souls

It is probably impossible to determine what his view was for certain, but what evidence is there that he believed eternal conscious torment, annihilationism, or universalism? Evidence ranging from his words, to what his opponents, or even to the Christian school of thought he grew up in said is welcomed.

Christians believe God created the universe from nothing. Do any believe he can reverse this process, effectively annihilating his creation, or some portion of his creation?

I have a question regarding the topic of hell. How can anyone claim that there isn't a hell when Jesus clearly states that there is? Also, the Bible speaks of fire, screaming, and other horrific descriptions. Please explain how one can cease to exist when the Bible clearly states that people go to hell. In other words, what is the biblical basis for annihilationism ?