Annihilation of the reprobate.

[makesends]

I want to hear a description of the several ways people arrive at the conclusion of eventual annihilation of the reprobate.


I want to hear the Reasoning, Use of Scripture, and What is each participant's concept of Annihilation. What does it mean, what does it look like, within eternity, what is its relationship to eternity? —For that matter, what does each mean by, 'eternity'? What really is sin and death? What is existence?

There are a lot of tangents to pursue, and probably most will be consider relevant to the OP (at least by me).

 

[John Bauer]

I want to hear a description of the several ways people arrive at the conclusion of eventual annihilation of the reprobate.

I want to hear the Reasoning, Use of Scripture, and What is each participant's concept of Annihilation. What does it mean, what does it look like, within eternity, what is its relationship to eternity? —For that matter, what does each mean by, 'eternity'? What really is sin and death? What is existence?

There are a lot of tangents to pursue, and probably most will be consider relevant to the OP (at least by me).

You are asking for a lot, because answering all of that would require a post exceeding the character limits set by the CCAM forums—and would take hours to write. Could we bite off smaller morsels? Where would you like to begin? Let's walk through this one step at a time.

Annihilationism, at least in its conditionalist form which I affirm, presents a robust, exegetically defensible, and theologically integrated model consistent with Reformed covenant theology when reexamined apart from Platonizing assumptions. It preserves divine justice, affirms the resurrection, coheres with biblical expressions of judgment, and maintains a high view of Christ’s atoning work—where eternal life is the unique possession of the redeemed, not a shared ontology among the elect and reprobate.

 

[ElectedbyHim]

Personally I never saw annihilation taught in the Bible.

There are many who believe the Bible teaches it.

Just in case some people do not know......


Views of Eternal Punishment

Universalism. The denial of eternal punishment had a strong proponent in Origen (185–c. 254).47 “Origen taught that the threats of eternal punishment were only hortatory.… Origen ‘admits that the grammatical sense of the scriptural terms teaches an everlasting and inextinguishable fire; but considers this an intentional and gracious deceit on the part of God to deter men from sinning.’ ”48 He taught that eventually there would be a universal restoration of everyone, including Satan, sodomites, and all others. Origen appealed to John 17:20–21; 1 Corinthians 15:25; Ephesians 4:13; and Philippians 2:10–11 for support of universalism.

While not explicit in his writings, many sense Karl Barth also taught universalism. C. H. Dodd saw universalism in Romans 11:32, and exclaimed, “In other words, it is the will of God that all mankind shall ultimately be saved.”49 He saw the teaching of universalism in Romans 8:18–23; Ephesians 1:10; 3:6–10; and Colossians 1:20. John A. T. Robinson, the British liberal, said, “Christ … remains on the Cross as long as one sinner remains in hell. This is not speculation: It is a statement grounded in the very necessity of God’s nature. In a universe of love there can be no heaven which tolerates a chamber of horrors, no hell for any which does not at the same time make a hell for God. He cannot endure that—for that would be the final mockery of his nature—and He will not.”50

Unquestionably, some who hold to universalism do so out of emotion rather than Scripture.51 In so doing, they misinterpret Scripture. They cite Philippians 2:9–11, emphasizing since “every knee will bow,” everyone will be saved. But the point is that even in hell, unbelievers will acknowledge Jesus as Lord. In referring to the enemies of the cross, “whose end is destruction” (Phil. 3:19), Universalists also cite 2 Corinthians 5:19, “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself …” This verse does not teach universalism; it simply declares that Christ’s atonement was unlimited, making salvation available for everyone.

Rob Bell questions both the Bible and Christians’ interpretation of the Bible when he says,

“A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better. It’s been clearly communicated to many that this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’ message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear.”52

In making this statement Rob Bell does not appeal to Scripture but “logic” as he sees it. Who or what is the authority? Rob Bell. He further gives his understanding of the gospel: “It begins in the sure and certain truth that we are loved. That in spite of whatever has gone horribly wrong deep in our hearts and has spread to every corner of the world, in spite of our sins, failures, rebellion, and hard hearts, in spite of what has been done to us or what we’ve done, God has made peace with us.”53

The question is how does God make peace with us? God is holy; man is sinful. How can sinful man have fellowship with a holy God? Jesus Christ alone is the mediator between sinful man and a holy God (1 Tim. 2:5). Without His atoning sacrifice through the blood He shed on the cross there is no resolution (Heb. 9:22). He alone provides redemption (Eph. 1:7). Jesus Himself said what would happen to those who refuse Him (Matt. 25:46; John 3:36). Is Jesus’ word reliable? Bell has adopted the liberal view of the nineteenth century.

Universalists argue “that the passages describing God’s universal victory over evil demand that there be no evil left in the universe. For example, in the end everyone will bow the knee to Christ (Phil. 2:10); the world will be reconciled to Christ (2 Cor. 5:19); all will be ‘in Christ’ (Eph. 1:10 NKJV); death and sin will be destroyed (1 Cor. 15:26); and everyone will be subject to Christ (v. 15:28). Even though universalism’s interpretation of these texts is incorrect, they do indicate that sin will be completely defeated, which conditionalists insist cannot occur unless all sinners are destroyed.”54

Annihilationism. While annihilationism has traditionally been associated with groups like Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses, more recently some evangelicals have been embracing the doctrine.

John R. W. Stott was perhaps the most prominent proponent of annihilationism. In his debate with liberal David Edwards, Stott declared, “I do not dogmatise about the position to which I have come, I hold it tentatively. But I do plead for frank dialogue among Evangelicals on the basis of Scripture. I also believe that the ultimate annihilation of the wicked should at least be accepted as a legitimate, biblically founded alternative to their eternal, conscious torment.”55

Theologian Clark H. Pinnock argued that Christians who hold to eternal, conscious punishment of the wicked must come to grips with “the moral horror and exegetical flimsiness of the traditional view of hell.”56 He asked, “How can one imagine for a moment that the God who gave his Son to die for sinners because of his great love for them would install a torture chamber somewhere in the new creation in order to subject those who reject him to everlasting pain?”57

Pinnock has concluded, “I believe that a better case can be made for understanding the nature of hell as termination—better biblically, anthropologically, morally, judicially, and metaphysically.”58

The defense for annihilationism is as follows: (1) Arguing from Scripture, proponents claim that God alone possesses immortality (1 Tim. 6:16) and Christ brought life and immortality through the gospel—implying everyone (2 Tim. 1:10). (2) As in Pinnock’s case, defense for annihilationism, “as he admits, [is] driven more by his ‘moral revulsion’ than by exegetical considerations.”59

Edward W. Fudge argues that while the punishment will be eternal, the terms do not explain the nature of “eternal” punishment. He states, “The word punishment does not tell us the nature of the penalty, however, or of what it actually consists … or of what it actually consists. In our own criminal justice system punishment has a wide variety of meanings. It might mean a monetary fine or perhaps a brief time in jail or even a life sentence to prison. The worst punishment of all, however, is capital punishment—although the actual act of execution lasts only a few minutes at most. We do not measure capital punishment by the time required to carry it out but in terms of its lasting consequences.”60
Citing John 3:16, Fudge argues that God so loved the world that He gave His Son so that people would not perish. He concludes that while the separation of the unbeliever is forever, he does not suffer torment forever. Rather, like Sodom and Gomorrah, the unbeliever will be destroyed, separated from God forever. They will cease to exist.61

Annihilationism bases its belief on verses like Matthew 10:28 where Jesus taught “fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Yet a serious problem exists with this view. “There isn’t a single instance in the New Testament where apolummi means annihilation in the strict sense of the word.”62

Salvation without knowing Christ. Can people who have never heard of the name of Christ be saved? Will there be opportunity after death for people to be saved? These are questions people have considered and drawn differing conclusions.

Clark Pinnock believes that people who have never heard of Christ need not be condemned to hell. “Of one thing we can be certain: God will not abandon in hell those who have not known and therefore have not declined His offer of grace. Though He has not told us the nature of His arrangements, we cannot doubt the existence and goodness of them.”63

Donald Bloesch believes that people will have opportunity to be saved after death, even translated from hell to heaven. He affirms that “punishment in hell is both punitive and remedial.… We do not wish to build fences around God’s grace, however, and we do not preclude the possibility that some in hell might finally be translated into heaven. The gates of the holy city are depicted as being open day and night (Isa. 60:11; Rev. 21:25), and this means that access to the throne of grace is possible continuously. The gates of hell are locked but they are locked only from within.… We can affirm salvation on the other side of the grave.”64

John Lawson says, “It is hard to defend the proposition that saving grace in Christ extends to all men without logically being led to extend the operation of grace beyond the life of man in this world.… Those who in this world have lived according to the limited light which was granted to them will find, when they awake in the life to come, that they belong to Christ, even though in this life they were not apparently Christians.”65

Degrees of punishment. While the Scriptures are not lucid on degrees of punishment, there are, nonetheless, Scriptures that infer there are degrees of punishment in hell. The outworking of that is, of course, difficult to understand. Those who have received more knowledge concerning Christ will be responsible for more; those who have received less information will have less onus (Luke 12:47–48). The same thought is expressed in Matthew 10:15 and 11:22. The pagan nations did not have the knowledge of God’s truth and of Christ that the nation Israel had received. Because Judas was a disciple and for that reason received greater information, it would be better had he not been born because of the greater punishment he would receive (Matt. 26:24). It would not be wise, however, to infer from this that people who have never heard the gospel will escape eternal punishment.

Ultimately, people will be judged according to their works (Rev. 20:12). There are probably two thoughts connected with this Scripture. Their works are displayed and shown that they are worthy of condemnation, but it may also infer that through their works they will suffer degrees of punishment.

Literal and eternal punishment. This is the belief that “punishment for the wicked is everlasting and that it is punitive, not redemptive.”66 When Jesus used the term gehenna to define hell, “there is an obvious emphasis on the punishment for the wicked after death as being everlasting.”67

Is punishment in hell eternal and everlasting? The term aionion in Matthew 25:46 demands an understanding of unending and everlasting punishment. The same adjective “eternal” defines both punishment and life. If life is eternal, unending, and ongoing, then by nature of the statement punishment must also be. Larry Dixon says, “The everlastingness of the destiny of the wicked (‘the goats’) seems to be equivalent to the everlastingness of the destiny of the righteous (‘the sheep’). To imply that the destiny of the righteous is quantitative and that of the wicked is not, or that ‘eternal life’ indicates possession whereas ‘eternal punishment’ indicates an eternal effect, seems to strain the text.”68 Harry Buis says, “Aionios is used in the New Testament sixty-six times: fifty-one times of the happiness of the righteous, two times of the duration of God in His glory, six other times where there is no doubt as to its meaning being endless, and seven times of the punishment of the wicked.”69

The terminology Jesus used infers hell is a literal fire (cf. Matt. 5:22, 30; 13:29–30). The story of Lazarus and the rich man indicates hell will be a place of torment in fire (Luke 16:23–28).

Hell is further described as a place of darkness (Matt. 25:30). “Darkness” suggests the place of punishment far removed from the Kingdom.”70 Darkness should be understood literally as a place of future punishment.71 The darkness is the opposite of the brilliance of God’s glory in heaven (Rev. 22:5). This is a reminder that hell will be “away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power” (2 Thess. 1:9).
Jesus also taught there would be degrees of punishment in hell according to the knowledge the person had received. The one who knew the master’s will and did not respond would receive greater punishment than the one who did not know it and did not do it (Luke 12:47–48).


47 Larry Dixon, The Other Side of the Good News (Wheaton, Ill: Bridgepoint, 1992), 27–32.
48 Ibid., 29.
49 Quoted, ibid., 43.
50 John A. T. Robinson, Christianity Today, June 13, 1957, 5.
51 Rob Bell, Love Wins (New York: HarperOne, 2011), 107.
52 Ibid.
53 Ibid.
54 Norman Geisler, Sytematic Theology, vol. 4 (Minneapolis, Bethany, 2005), 406–7.
55 John R. W. Stott and David L. Edwards, Evangelical Essentials (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1988), 319–20.
56 Clark Pinnock, “Fire, Then Nothing,” Christianity Today, March 20, 1987, 41.
57 Ibid., 40.
58 Clark Pinnock, “The Conditional View,” Four Views on Hell, ed. William Crockett (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 165.
59 Quoted in Dixon, The Other Side of the Good News, 74–75.
60 Edward William Fudge, “The Case for Creationism,” Four Views on Hell, Crockett, ed., 45.
61 Ibid., 80–82.
62 Robert A. Peterson, “The Case for Traditionalism,” Four Views on Hell, Crockett, ed., 118–20.
63 Ronald Blue, “Untold Billions: Are They Really Lost?”, Bibliotheca Sacra (October–December 1981):343, quoted in Dixon, The Other Side of the Good News, 74–75.
64 Donald Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, 2 vols. (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978), 2:226–27.
65 John Lawson, Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 216.
66 John F. Walvoord, “The Literal View” in Four Views on Hell, Crockett, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 12.
67 Ibid., 20.
68 Dixon, The Other Side Of The Good News, 128.
69 Harry Buis, Doctrine of Eternal Punishment (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1957), 49.
70 Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 757.
71 Hans Conzelmann, “Skotos,” in Kittle and Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 7:439.
Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, ed. Jim Vincent and Allan Sholes, Revised and Expanded (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2014), 399–403.

 

[fastfredy0]

I want to hear a description of the several ways people arrive at the conclusion of eventual annihilation of the reprobate.

I'm not a annihilist so I can't answer.
Aside: I hope I'm wrong, I hope the universalists are right.

 

[John Bauer]

A couple of months ago I had a long conversation with ChatGPT about my view. As it usually does (as per my custom instructions), it resisted and challenged my view as inconsistent with Reformed theology, probing what it thought could be weaknesses and exposing hidden assumptions. After a lot of back and forth, I asked it to draft a comprehensive analysis of my view and its consistency with Reformed covenant theology. Here is what it wrote:

---

A Reformed Stance on Conditional Immortality: An Analysis of John Bauer's Proposal (produced by ChatGPT)​

I. Introduction​

John Bauer has advanced a view of final judgment with me that is at once both bold and exegetically serious. His view is influenced by the exegetical scholarship of F. F. Bruce, John R. W. Stott, and Richard Bauckham, as well as Edward W. Fudge, The Fire That Consumes, 3rd edition (2011). He asked me to draft a comprehensive analysis of his view and its consistency with Reformed covenant theology.

Bauer's central claim is that it's possible within a Reformed theological framework to define the first death as a judicial, covenantal separation from God, a spiritual alienation resulting from a fallen Adam's federal headship over the old humanity. This death is forensic and relational, rooted in covenant and reversed only by union with Christ, the true federal head of the new humanity.

In contrast, the second death is a final, metaphysical separation from God, the complete destruction of not only the body but even the soul under divine wrath. In this view, the reprobate are not sustained in eternal conscious torment but are raised unto judgment and then utterly perish, never to exist within the renewed creation. It is in this way an eternal punishment (not an eternal punishing) and serves forever as a display of divine justice.

Bauer insists that his view is not driven by sentimentality or discomfort with the classical doctrine of hell. His view appears to flow from covenant theology, redemptive typology, Christocentric anthropology, and careful exegesis of relevant biblical texts. He further argues that immortality is not ontologically inherent to human beings as such, but is rather a covenantal gift of God in Christ extended only to those in union with him. The reprobate, having no covenantal claim to divine sustaining, are excluded not only from God's favor but from God himself as being and cause.

My initial reaction to Bauer’s formulation was cautious, even resistant. His use of the term "metaphysical separation" raised immediate alarms in a Reformed framework that has traditionally denied the annihilation of the soul and emphasized God’s continuous upholding of all things—including the damned—by his sovereign power. The confessions (especially the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity) consistently affirm eternal conscious torment for the wicked, and historic Reformed theology has uniformly taught the eternal ontological preservation of the reprobate in a state of judicial wrath. From that standpoint, Bauer’s view appeared not only unorthodox but incompatible with core Reformed commitments regarding divine justice, the image of God, and the nature of final judgment.

However, after carefully listening to Bauer’s clarifications in response to my resistance and exploring his theological commitments in greater detail, it has become clear to me that his proposal isn't a careless denial of tradition but a tightly reasoned, covenantally grounded, and exegetically motivated rethinking of the doctrine of hell within a fundamentally Reformed theological method.

II. Theological and Exegetical Reappraisal​

1. Ontological Dependence and Divine Justice

Bauer anticipates the classical objection: "If the wicked are annihilated, how is God's justice displayed eternally?" He answered with precision from Jude 7, noting that Sodom and Gomorrah, although no longer burning, "serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire." The event was terminal but its testimony is eternal. Scripture frequently treats God's completed judgments—flood, exile, destruction—as ongoing testimonies to his righteousness. Therefore, eternal punishment need not entail eternal punishing in order to serve as an everlasting display of divine justice.

This distinction is exegetically valid. Bauer maintains that God’s righteousness is eternal but wrath is not; it belongs to God's temporal dealing with sin. Once judgment is complete, God is glorified by removing all that opposes his holiness, not by sustaining sin and wrath forever in some hidden corner of the renewed creation. Under this view proposed by Bauer, the second death is defined under the triumph of eschatological cleansing, rather than as perpetual incarceration under the traditional view (i.e., death is always defined in Christocentric terms, not anthropocentric terms).

2. The Nature of Christ's Judgment-Bearing

Bauer rightly insists that the resurrection unto life belongs only to those in covenantal union with Christ, whose resurrection is the paradigm of immortality. As 1 Timothy 6:16 says, only God inherently possesses immortality. The reprobate, lacking union with Christ and thus don't inherit incorruptibility, are resurrected not unto life but unto judgment (John 5:29). This resurrection is judicial and transitional, culminating in the second death; the reprobate perish in a fiery destruction of body and soul (Matt 10:28).

Bauer therefore maintains continuity with Christological soteriology: Christ bore God's wrath as substitute, but he was vindicated and raised. The wicked, by contrast, are judged but not vindicated and therefore not raised unto life; instead, their fate is to perish, the eternal punishment of complete destruction. This coheres with a theology of conditional immortality and aligns with Christ's statement, "He who believes in me will never perish" (John 3:16; 11:26).

3. Redemptive-Historical Typology

Bauer deploys redemptive typology to full theological effect. He draws a distinct parallel between covenantal exile (e.g., cut off from the land) and metaphysical exile (e.g., cut off from all creation). In Scripture, covenantal judgment often takes the form of being cut off, cast out, or destroyed—but these are prototypes. In the consummation of the renewed creation, Bauer argues, there will be no remainder of rebellion (cf. Rev 21:27; Ps 104:35). The unclean are not merely excluded from the city—they are gone entirely. There is no "ghetto" of the damned outside the gates. The second death accomplishes this purging. It is the typological fulfillment of exile, carried to its eschatological conclusion: the complete unmaking of all that is unholy.

4. Confessional Boundaries and Theological Method

Bauer candidly acknowledges that his view is not in line with the traditional confessions. But he doesn't treat the confessions as disposable; rather, he treats them as subordinate to scripture. He affirms the Three Forms of Unity but takes exception to the phrase in Belgic Confession, Article 37, where the wicked are said to "become immortal"—a claim he argues has no scriptural warrant at any rate.

Importantly, Bauer is not abandoning Reformed theology but engaging in intra-Reformed reformation. He is preserving Reformed categories—covenantal federalism, redemptive typology, Christocentric soteriology—while proposing a revision on the fate of the wicked. His method is thoroughly Reformed, but he comes to a slightly but substantively different conclusion.

III. Conclusion​

Bauer has articulated a Reformed conditionalist eschatology in which:

• the first death is covenantal, forensic, and spiritual, inherited through Adam.
  
  ​
• the second death is metaphysical, eschatological, and terminal—complete destruction under divine wrath.
  
  ​
• immortality is not inherent to humanity but conferred only through union with Christ.
  
  ​
• divine justice is eternal punishment, not ongoing punishment.
  
  ​
• hell is not an obscure corner of perpetual agony but a final, terrifying execution—public, judicial, and irreversible.
  
  ​
• Christ's cosmic triumph is total: all evil is purged; no trace of sin remains in the renewed creation.

While this view is incompatible with classical Reformed confessions as they stand, it is not incompatible with scripture or Reformed hermeneutic principles or theological methods. It maintains fidelity to scripture, redemptive history, federal headship, and the supremacy of Christ and his eschatological triumph. It challenges the tradition without abandoning its commitments. It reclaims neglected texts and offers a serious account of divine wrath without eternal metaphysical dualism.

Bauer' work deserves a place in the broader Reformed theological conversation, not as a settled doctrine but as a serious proposal worthy of discussion, critique, and refinement. His voice stands in continuity with such exegetical scholars as John R. W. Stott, but he adds a distinctly covenantal and supralapsarian lens. Whether or not anyone agrees with his conclusions, his theological rigor demands attention.

 

[makesends]

You are asking for a lot, because answering all of that would require a post exceeding the character limits set by the CCAM forums—and would take hours to write. Could we bite off smaller morsels? Where would you like to begin? Let's walk through this one step at a time.

Annihilationism, at least in its conditionalist form which I affirm, presents a robust, exegetically defensible, and theologically integrated model consistent with Reformed covenant theology when reexamined apart from Platonizing assumptions. It preserves divine justice, affirms the resurrection, coheres with biblical expressions of judgment, and maintains a high view of Christ’s atoning work—where eternal life is the unique possession of the redeemed, not a shared ontology among the elect and reprobate.

Lol, even an answer to what you said there could go past the limit and take hours! Ok. Let me ask, 1) what is meant by the "Conditionalist form of Annihilationism"?

And, B) is "eternal life" as you see it, ontologically the same as what I might call "eternal death"? I don't see eternal life being related to the eternal existence of the reprobate. I'm not at all sure what sort of nature or substance one can attribute to eternity. Most any way I look at it sounds like building a block stack on thick carpet, except I am relatively sure that eternity is entirely God's bailiwick, and for us to find out. Oh, and I don't think of it as time at all. But if it IS time, then what WE call time is just a silly representation of it.

 

[John Bauer]

What is meant by the "conditionalist form" of annihilationism?

The term typically refers to the conditional immortality view of final punishment (commonly called conditionalism). This position affirms that only the redeemed, united to Christ, will receive immortality; the wicked will ultimately perish and cease to exist. While often grouped under the broader label annihilationism, conditionalism is distinct in its theological emphasis.

Under the annihilationist umbrella are three basic models, all agreeing that the reprobate will ultimately cease to exist but differing in what that "ceasing" signifies. Cessation emphasizes judgment (what is done to the wicked). Exile emphasizes destiny (comprehensive eschatological exile). Conditionalism emphasizes anthropology (only the redeemed live forevermore).

These are not mutually exclusive; some views (e.g., Stott, Fudge) may blend two or all three together (as I do). I recognize the term annihilationism and interact with people on that subject, but I prefer the Christocentric term conditional immortality in my supralapsarian framework.

Is eternal life ontologically the same as eternal death?

In a way, yeah, it is. Eternal life is defined covenantally in Christological terms (John 17:3), but then eternal death is, too, come to think of it (apophatically; Col 3:4). The eternal life enjoyed by those to whom God grants immortality is certainly everlasting, but it's also much more. However, the eternal death of those who are cut off from all creation is simply permanent metaphysical exile. The wicked are "excluded not only from God's favor but from God himself as being and cause," as said above.

I have noticed something interesting in my reading of scripture: Those united to Christ who die are said to sleep, while those alienated from Christ who die are said to perish. To me, that indicates a stark eschatological difference: The redeemed face a resurrection unto life, so there is more to come (thus they sleep), while the damned face a resurrection unto judgment, after which there is nothing more (thus they perish).

I'm not at all sure what sort of nature or substance one can attribute to eternity.

Me neither.

"We are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet been revealed. We know that whenever it is revealed we will be like him, because we will see him just as he is" (1 John 3:2).

Most any way I look at it sounds like building a block stack on thick carpet, except I am relatively sure that eternity is entirely God's bailiwick,

I mean, those look like English words, but ...

 

[Hazelelponi]

Dear @John Bauer

First, I want to thank you for your thoughtful engagement and clarity throughout this conversation. I appreciate your willingness to explore these matters with such theological precision and reverence for Scripture.

As I reflect on the different frameworks being proposed, I find myself wondering whether there may be more than two categories under consideration—perhaps three distinct groups are being represented in biblical teaching.

The first group would be the elect—those united to Christ, given the gift of eternal life and communion with God.

The second would be those who, though fallen, lived what the world might call “normal” lives—people who were not regenerate but also not actively opposing the truth. Perhaps they lived and died without ever hearing or understanding the gospel. While not righteous before God, they do not appear to have aligned themselves with Satanic rebellion either.

The third category, however, seems sharply distinct from the second: those aligned directly with Satan and his purposes—whether angelic or human. This would include Satan and his fallen angels, of course, but also false prophets, antichrists, tyrants like Hitler or Pol Pot, and others who not only rejected God's authority but sought to usurp it, destroy human life, or proclaim a rivalry. This category, it seems, receives the most explicit warnings from Christ concerning eternal, conscious torment. Their judgment appears not only judicial but exemplary—serving as a kind of final cosmic witness to God's justice.

I understand from your framing that you see the second death as a terminal, metaphysical exile. But I wonder—do you see any room within your view for this third group to undergo a qualitatively distinct punishment? In other words, do you believe Scripture leaves open the possibility that some reprobate (particularly those acting as agents of Satan) are consciously, actively judged in a more enduring way?

Jesus’ own teachings seem to intensify the warnings already present in Second Temple Judaism—many of which pointed toward conscious punishment and Gehenna imagery. Even texts like Jude 13 and Revelation 14:10–11 give the sense of torment that continues “day and night,” especially for those who actively opposed the Lamb.

I'm not trying to press for tradition’s sake—I'm just genuinely interested in whether you see this category distinction as biblically warranted, or whether it introduces anthropological or eschatological inconsistencies into the conditionalist framework.

Would you say the second death is equally terminal for both those who passively rejected the truth and those who violently opposed it?

I remain grateful for your insights, and I look forward to your thoughts as time allows.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Oh, and I don't think of it as time at all. But if it IS time, then what WE call time is just a silly representation of it.

I think eternity is the literal absence of time. An eternal "present" that's always present. It sounds nonsensical but it would be the equivalent of bowing on your face before God (as in prayer) in worship and not knowing whether 10,000 years have past or 5 minutes when you get up.

That's just my own thoughts though.

 

[makesends]

The term typically refers to the conditional immortality view of final punishment (commonly called conditionalism). This position affirms that only the redeemed, united to Christ, will receive immortality; the wicked will ultimately perish and cease to exist. While often grouped under the broader label annihilationism, conditionalism is distinct in its theological emphasis.

Under the annihilationist umbrella are three basic models, all agreeing that the reprobate will ultimately cease to exist but differing in what that "ceasing" signifies. Cessation emphasizes judgment (what is done to the wicked). Exile emphasizes destiny (comprehensive eschatological exile). Conditionalism emphasizes anthropology (only the redeemed live forevermore).

These are not mutually exclusive; some views (e.g., Stott, Fudge) may blend two or all three together (as I do). I recognize the term annihilationism and interact with people on that subject, but I prefer the Christocentric term conditional immortality in my supralapsarian framework.



In a way, yeah, it is. Eternal life is defined covenantally in Christological terms (John 17:3), but then eternal death is, too, come to think of it (apophatically; Col 3:4). The eternal life enjoyed by those to whom God grants immortality is certainly everlasting, but it's also much more. However, the eternal death of those who are cut off from all creation is simply permanent metaphysical exile. The wicked are "excluded not only from God's favor but from God himself as being and cause," as said above.

I like that. It has a certain balance that suits me, concerning the complete absence of God in their existence. Otherwise, I have to think that in some way, God still upholds their existence —were time passage still a consideration.

I have noticed something interesting in my reading of scripture: Those united to Christ who die are said to sleep, while those alienated from Christ who die are said to perish. To me, that indicates a stark eschatological difference: The redeemed face a resurrection unto life, so there is more to come (thus they sleep), while the damned face a resurrection unto judgment, after which there is nothing more (thus they perish).




Me neither.

"We are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet been revealed. We know that whenever it is revealed we will be like him, because we will see him just as he is" (1 John 3:2).




I mean, those look like English words, but ...

To me, all the replies so far seem to me to be time-based; not saying that their point-of-view is temporal as such, as we understand this life, but, perhaps sequence-of-events based. Since the Bible usually speaks in that manner, which I usually take to be anthropomorphic, I can't exactly fault people for doing so, too. But, really, what does eternity mean? What is forever —Infinite time?

One problem/ tendency/ habit I have is to notice patterns and coincidences in what I read. Maybe what we call, for example, "pearl", in Heaven is the real thing, and our silly version of it is just a poor copy. So with time, not so much done away with, but swallowed up in reality, as we will see when we get there? I can't help but think there is something to that notion.

You may recall a thread on the language in heaven. In antithesis to eternal punishment meaning a passage of time, I like to think of the possibility that the reprobate must endure infinite punishment. But I doubt very much that there is any passage of time in the LOF. Would you call it Annihilationism if I suggested that the "forever" or "eternal" for the punishment of the reprobate, is a matter of what we might now call, "intensity"? And there is no point —if I am right about the intensity, asking what comes after that intensity is accomplished is necessarily a bogus question— there IS no "after".

I've speculated on this quite a long time, and so far, know of no reason why it should not be, that eternal fact be, instead of infinite passage of time, intensity of fact. It would answer @ Hazelelponi's objection as to the difference of punishment for this person as opposed to that person. God's use of temporal language in descriptions of the eternal being, in part, because from our POV this is future, and after this life, and partly because he condescends to speak to us in our way of thinking.

I think eternity is the literal absence of time. An eternal "present" that's always present. It sounds nonsensical but it would be the equivalent of bowing on your face before God (as in prayer) in worship and not knowing whether 10,000 years have past or 5 minutes when you get up.

That's just my own thoughts though.

Right. Well, from God's point of view, maybe —the eternal being solid fact which the temporal only weakly represents— the temporal therefore being the absence of the eternal (in some way).

But that brings me to the idea of "the order of things" there being so different from temporal —for example, God's nature being such that for him to think is to do, to speak is to create, to love is to inhabit, to decree is not just to predestine but rather also to be immanent 'in'—and so on— so different, I say, that what we once would have thought of as 'the accumulated results of time passage' are instead 'intensity of fact'.

 

[makesends]

I'm not a annihilist so I can't answer.
Aside: I hope I'm wrong, I hope the universalists are right.

I don't. To me, if God has a reason to create people for his use of them, and then to utterly dispose of them like a disgusting soiled glove, he is to be admired, praised and glorified for doing so. He is every bit that much above us, that we are barely worms, by comparison.

 

[fastfredy0]

To me, if God has a reason to create people for his use of them, and then to utterly dispose of them like a disgusting soiled glove, he is to be admired, praised and glorified for doing so. He is every bit that much above us, that we are barely worms, by comparison.

Complete agreement. God is perfect and He has ordained all things perfectly. But, one can play the game and pretend one is in charge and if I was in charge I'd prefer no one go to hell. Again, I agree that whatever God decides is best by definition.

Similarly, I could wish my son to have a healthy baby and God might decide to have it still born. His way is best, but I can still wish.

 

[John Bauer]

Short answer​

First, I want to thank you for your thoughtful engagement and clarity throughout this conversation. I appreciate your willingness to explore these matters with such theological precision and reverence for scripture.

I appreciate the warm sentiment. Thank you.

Do you see any room within your view for this third group to undergo a qualitatively distinct punishment? In other words, do you believe scripture leaves open the possibility that some reprobate—particularly those acting as agents of Satan—are consciously, actively judged in a more enduring way?

Not in a more enduring way so much as a more intensive way.

I'm just genuinely interested in whether you see this category distinction as biblically warranted, or whether it introduces anthropological or eschatological inconsistencies into the conditionalist framework.

1. Yes.

2. No.

Would you say the second death is equally terminal for both those who passively rejected the truth and those who violently opposed it?

Yes.

Longer answer​

Hello, @Hazelelponi.

I think you're right that scripture distinguishes between those who passively reject the truth and those who actively advance Satan's cause. Christ's own warnings show there are degrees of guilt and corresponding degrees of judgment (Matt 11:22-24; Luke 12:47-48; James 3:1). False prophets and tyrants aren't in the same moral category as the ignorant and indifferent.

In my framework, the difference is in how severe the judgment is, not what kind of creature the third category captures or how long they endure. (There is only one kind of human being.) Greater guilt means greater condemnation in the process of judgment—"many stripes" rather than "few"—but the end is the same for all outside of Christ: the second death. Scripture defines this as the destruction of both body and soul (Matt 10:28), being utterly and permanently cut off from the only source of being.

Because man is a psychosomatic unity in covenantal subsistence, there is no ontological substrate that can survive apart from God. Whether passive rejecters or active rebels, the wicked do not receive immortality. They are raised unto judgment, endure excruciatingly painful suffering according to their works, and finally perish.

The "day and night" torment in Revelation 14:10-11 should be read through the lens of apocalyptic imagery and prophetic precedent (Isa 34:9–10). It depicts judgment in its maximal severity, especially for those aligned with the Beast, but it's about the certainty and finality of the sentence, not the eternal extension of conscious suffering. Jude 1:7 reinforces this: Sodom's "eternal fire" is eternal in effect, not an ongoing conflagration.

So, yes, scripture warrants a qualitative distinction in culpability. But, no, it does not teach two different modes of reprobate subsistence. God's justice is displayed both in the degrees of judicial severity and in the finality of the sentence. In the end, nothing opposed to him survives the eschaton.

Note: I say "subsistence" because I don't think "existence" applies to mankind. God is necessary being. Mankind is contingent becoming; being is something we have, not something we are. This is subsistence and it's covenantally mediated. In the second death, that covenantal mediation is severed, our subsistence ends, and with it our share in being.

 

[makesends]

Short answer​

I appreciate the warm sentiment. Thank you.




Not in a more enduring way so much as a more intensive way.




1. Yes.

2. No.




Yes.

Longer answer​

Hello, @Hazelelponi.

I think you're right that scripture distinguishes between those who passively reject the truth and those who actively advance Satan's cause. Christ's own warnings show there are degrees of guilt and corresponding degrees of judgment (Matt 11:22-24; Luke 12:47-48; James 3:1). False prophets and tyrants aren't in the same moral category as the ignorant and indifferent.

In my framework, the difference is in how severe the judgment is, not what kind of creature the third category captures or how long they endure. (There is only one kind of human being.) Greater guilt means greater condemnation in the process of judgment—"many stripes" rather than "few"—but the end is the same for all outside of Christ: the second death. Scripture defines this as the destruction of both body and soul (Matt 10:28), being utterly and permanently cut off from the only source of being.

Because man is a psychosomatic unity in covenantal subsistence, there is no ontological substrate that can survive apart from God. Whether passive rejecters or active rebels, the wicked do not receive immortality. They are raised unto judgment, endure excruciatingly painful suffering according to their works, and finally perish.

The "day and night" torment in Revelation 14:10-11 should be read through the lens of apocalyptic imagery and prophetic precedent (Isa 34:9–10). It depicts judgment in its maximal severity, especially for those aligned with the Beast, but it's about the certainty and finality of the sentence, not the eternal extension of conscious suffering. Jude 1:7 reinforces this: Sodom's "eternal fire" is eternal in effect, not an ongoing conflagration.

So, yes, scripture warrants a qualitative distinction in culpability. But, no, it does not teach two different modes of reprobate subsistence. God's justice is displayed both in the degrees of judicial severity and in the finality of the sentence. In the end, nothing opposed to him survives the eschaton.

Note: I say "subsistence" because I don't think "existence" applies to mankind. God is necessary being. Mankind is contingent becoming; being is something we have, not something we are. This is subsistence and it's covenantally mediated. In the second death, that covenantal mediation is severed, our subsistence ends, and with it our share in being.

On the one hand, you describe their punishment/suffering as not a time-dependent thing, then you turn around and describe it as at some point, being over and done with. I find myself agreeing and then wondering why you must assume annihilation.