Implications of Evangelical Conditionalism – Eternal Life Becomes More Meaningful (Vs. The Traditional View)

The reason anyone should adopt evangelical conditionalism is because it is biblical. God’s word must take precedence over other seemingly good arguments for a particular view of hell. ¹ This varies among conditionalists, but if I were to take a different approach and give non-biblical arguments much stronger weight than I do, I would be a universalist. I believe that annihilationism has the strongest biblical case, traditionalism has the strongest historical case (though it is not as unassailable as many think), and universalism wins out in broad theology, philosophy, emotional appeal, etc. What follows is not meant to be strongly persuasive for that reason. If the Bible teaches something besides annihilationism (it doesn’t), then that is what matters.

Nevertheless, there has been popular demand for annihilationists to delve beyond just biblical exegesis and address other questions, such as why this debate even matters. Why should someone care or bother spending considerable time and effort to determine what the Bible teaches about hell?

This isn’t angels dancing on a pin. And it is not the case, though many say otherwise, that hell isn’t important because we are in Christ and not going there anyway. This doctrine matters tremendously.

Some practical implications of the doctrine of hell get discussed fairly frequently, such as how it reflects upon God’s justice and overall character, how eternal torment aids or hinders evangelism, and how the true nature of hell affects the final, eternal state of God’s redeemed creation. ² For a look at the biblical vision of the eternal state and how annihilationism fits into it, see “The Biblical Vision of Eternity“. ³ For a look at a common argument made in favor of the justice of eternal torment, that sin against an infinite God requires infinite (conscious) punishment, see “What Are We to Make of Finite Sins Against an Infinite God?“. Below, I will look at a point that is less commonly cited, but one that does have spiritual and pastoral implications for believers and the hope we have in Christ.

Eternal Conscious Hell Diminishes The Significance of Heavenly Joy

The statement above is bold but true. It also might not be what you are thinking I mean. Because, while the eternal torment of unsaved loved ones would seem to diminish the joy of the saved, that isn’t my focus here. ⁴ This also is a difficulty, albeit a much less intense one, for annihilationists. And the explanations for how this doesn’t ultimately defeat annihilationism could at least potentially be used by traditionalists too. More on this will likely be discussed in the future. Rather, my point is this: if the fate we need to escape is active, horrible suffering beyond all imagination, then there necessarily is less emphasis on and significance to what we have to look forward to in Christ.

Ironically, some traditionalists appeal to the wonder and grandeur of the world to come as an argument against the more literal interpretation that many annihilationists take with the language of death and life, especially “eternal life.” They argue that heaven is not merely conscious existence forever, but is instead something incredibly special. Therefore, “eternal life” must not mean literally living forever but instead means a special quality of life that only some will obtain. This argument is, of course, logically indefensible, and has been addressed elsewhere (see below). ⁵ For more on how taking “eternal life” literally doesn’t in any way diminish the heavenly joy awaiting us, see “The Eternal Joys of the Life to Come Do Note Change the Meaning of Life“. But while the traditional view does not diminish the objective value of the life to come (at least not insofar as it pertains to what I am discussing here), it does diminish the importance of how unimaginably wonderful the world to come will be.

This isn’t something I hear brought up often, but it makes perfect sense when you think about it. If you have two options, then the worse that one option is, the less good the other option has to be in order to be better. We see this in life all the time. ⁶ For example, having money or valuables stolen from you is a terrible thing to happen, but it is far preferable to being killed by an armed robber instead. And for many of us, we can think back to the last time we voted for a political candidate we didn’t really like because the other was much worse.

Here, imagine if you had two possible eternal, conscious fates. The first is being burned alive, with full capacity to feel pain, for ever and ever (as eternal conscious hell has historically been envisioned in Christianity; I will address fireless variations of eternal conscious hell below). The second fate is spending eternity sitting in a concrete room, with free movement within the room, where the temperature is mildly uncomfortable and it is a little smelly because they perpetually forget to take the trash out for two days. Some might argue that even the latter would become extreme mental torture after a while (and remain so for ever and ever). Nevertheless, compared to the actual-traditional view of hell as fiery torture, the latter view is so incredibly better, better beyond all measure, better beyond any conception human beings could ever have, that someone in this situation would go to extraordinary lengths to make sure they ended up in the concrete room instead of being subject to eternal conscious burning.

That seems pretty simple and straightforward, doesn’t it? When the fate of the damned is so incredibly horrible beyond what humans could ever have any real idea of, then escaping that fate is all that matters. The eternal and likewise unimaginable joy of heaven becomes an afterthought.

And this is evident in much hellfire preaching. For example, when you read Jonathan Edwards’s famous sermon “Sinners In The Hands of an Angry God,” little emphasis at all is put on heaven. ⁷ Jonathan Edwards, “Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God,” [sermon], Enfield, CT, July 8, 1741, https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/edwards_jonathan/Sermons/Sinners.cfm (accessed October 31, 2024). The emphasis is on hell and, therefore, escaping it. The reason that the listener is implored to repent is not to gain something wonderful, but to escape pain. Similarly, the evidence-free mantra that Jesus spoke about hell more than heaven presumes this idea. Escaping hell is what really matters.

Now, it is true that in our time, some traditionalists do soften hell quite a bit, removing fire and active wrath of God. This view, however, is not only much more biblically weak than the already false view of eternal fiery torture in hell, it also is historically novel and not that commonly used in evangelism since it doesn’t give as compelling of a reason to avoid hell. ⁸ For more on the many weaknesses of softened, metaphorical views of hell, see “The Many and Varied Problems with the Modern Metaphorical View of Eternal Conscious Hell“. Whatever the case, the worse the sufferings in eternal conscious hell are, the less it matters how great the fate of the saved will be.

If, however, the alternative fate to eternal life is death, not active suffering, then the focus can be on just what we have to gain with this gift of eternal life. We can think about how, by not dying, we have such amazing things ahead of us, and it will last forever and ever

What About How Terrible Annihilation Is?

One may argue that many annihilationists emphasize that being annihilated, being truly and totally killed once and for all, is a truly horrible fate too. Therefore, doesn’t the same problem exist here?

The same problem does not apply to annihilation. Not only would most (though not all) argue that annihilation is still a much less terrible fate than eternal conscious hell (at least the historical versions), but more importantly, what makes it so terrible is the loss and not the annihilation itself. That is to say, the reason it is so terrible to be killed is specifically because of how good and how much of a blessing life is. How terrible it is to lose something is proportional to how great and valuable the thing that was lost is. ⁹Annihilationists generally acknowledge some level of conscious suffering in the judgment process, ranging from merely the anguish of judgment day to an extended period of torment. However, any such suffering is finite and limited, whereas the eternal wages of sin is death. The death/annihilation is the ultimate punishment for sin.

Let’s revisit the two-fate scenario above. Now, the fates are to either be annihilated, or to spend eternity in the uncomfortable concrete room. While I do believe a majority of people would choose the uncomfortable concrete room over death, not everyone would. A lot of people would reckon that they would go insane if they were immortal in such a state of being.

But now imagine that your option is the divine guillotine or having eternal life in constant, immeasurable happiness. Where the joy will never end because it is sourced in the God who always was and always will be. Where we can’t even envision how wonderful it is, but we know that whatever good things we can imagine in this life – like marrying your true love, or an all you can eat buffet of the world’s best prime rib, fried rice, and Caesar salad – will somehow still not even be as good. The loss of life in the first annihilation scenario would be one level of loss. But having the kind of eternal life that those in Christ will receive as an option, and then losing that, would be as unimaginably great a loss as the unimaginably great gain of having it would be.

The fate we escape, according to annihilationist doctrine, is so horrible only because it is the loss of something so incredibly good. If annihilationism is true, then how great eternal life is makes all the difference in the world.

How This Affects Us

Annihilationism being true, rather than eternal torment, changes our entire focus. How do we evangelize? By reminding people that their sin means they deserve death (same as our sins did). They deserve being eliminated from God’s redeemed creation and missing out on eternal life, but also telling them that instead of this, God has made a way that they can be fixed and be given joy beyond all measure if they will turn to Christ.

Our focus no longer becomes what we are saved *from* but rather, what we are saved for and saved to have. The gospel itself is unchanged in any view of hell, because adherents of all three Christian views of hell can affirm what was preached in 1 Corinthians 15:2-8. But the focus of why it matters becomes the good news, and not the other side of it. 

This is a far more positive message. It is tempered with sobriety, as we must remember that apart from Christ everyone would die and not gain what he has for us. But our emphasis can be about what is to gain and what God has done for us.

Because I am an annihilationist, I can think about eternity with awe and excitement, because my joy is not constantly dampened by thinking about how however long I will be with God and know him and love him is also as long as others will be screaming in pain (and I cannot overemphasize how completely ad-hoc and indefensible the arguments are for any softer, more modern view of eternal conscious hell). ¹⁰ Many traditionalists actually argue in favor of a parallelism between the eternal suffering of the damned with our eternal life in Christ. This is central to the argument for eternal conscious hell from Matthew 25:46, but it also seems to stem from a sort of desire for symmetry beyond just the one passage. For more on this, see “The Gospel of Parallelism Between Heaven and Hell – A Fallacious Basis for Eternal Conscious Hell“. Eternity is a blessing, set on our hearts to strive after (Ecclesiastes 3:11). At least it is when you rethink hell.

Liked it? Take a second to support Rethinking Hell on Patreon!