What in Hell Is Happening!!?
A Catholic Response to Christian Annihilationism, or Conditional Immortality

Peace and Good in Christ!

I have read extensively on the topic of Annihilationism. It has been a great study, and I respect all the points of the various sides of it. On the Protestant side Edward Fudge’s, “The Fire That Consumes,” is the most developed by far. Modern Catholics like Karl Rahner, Hans Urs Von Balthazar, Pozo’s 1980s masterful work, “Theology of the Beyond,” and the teachings of Popes John Paul II, and Benedict XVI are only now taking up the issue, and are further considering a developed and ever developing traditionalist view. None buy into Conditionalism / Annihilationism. I don’t buy it either. Sorry. I happily remain a progressive traditional Roman Catholic. For me it all boils down to two primary points:

1. It lacks an elegant understanding of the development of doctrine, and the living authority of the laity and leadership of the church to interpret it.
   
   
2. It lacks a developed understanding of Christian anthropology regarding the created immortality and goodness of the human soul.

I include the following as a brief expansion of that explanation:

Christian Annihilationism

I have made some friendships with some wonderful brothers in the past few years. They believe a doctrine called, “Annihilationism,’ or, “Conditional Immortality.” These are sweet brothers with brilliant minds, and devoted hearts. I love and respect them as brothers in Christ. One of them, Edward Fudge, a dear elder in the Lord, has written a thought provoking book on the subject called, “The Fire That Consumes,” that has rekindled the debate in largely Evangelical circles. It is also spreading to Anglican circles. It presents a most eloquent sweeping and compelling case for Conditionalism and Annihilationism from scripture and tradition that is not easily contradicted by the unprepared. I find it the most elegant non-Catholic presentation of the topic using the tools available to the Evangelical. A recent debate with one of these friends has caused me to investigate the teaching more closely as a Catholic lay integrated monastic who loves spirituality and church history.

So, I have read rather extensively about the history and debates about Christian Annihilationism. Sources I found include Scripture, Patristics, the Councils of the Church, Papal statements, Catechisms and the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, both Catholic and Protestant books on the subject within the last fifty to one hundred years, and numerous articles on the internet. It has been most enlightening for one who really has little personal interest in the subject outside of that born of friendship.

Theories of the afterlife and the state of the soul in a heaven or hell are common to most all religions. Hinduism and Buddhism have most graphic depictions of the joys and sufferings of the afterlife that would make the western versions look tame indeed! The entire notion of afterlife, heaven, purgatory, and hell were only slowly unfolding at the time of Jesus and the early church. The Jews began to believe in an after life for the human soul as early as the Psalms, Prophets, Wisdom literature, and then with the Pharisees. Some seem to support Annihilationism, and some do not. The Sadducees still did not accept an afterlife for the human soul even at the time of Christ. The Greeks fully accepted it, as did the Egyptians, and far eastern religions of India.
The early church dealt with two primary teachings regarding hell that were accepted by some, and ultimately rejected by the mainstream. These were the Universalism of Origenists who were early Christian Platonists who taught that after brief or lengthy purging all souls will turn back to God, and Conditionalism/Annihilationism that taught that God annihilates those who do not accept Him out of love. The entire understanding of concept of hell has developed through the ages, and is still doing so.

Briefly, as I understand it the doctrine of Conditionalism/Annihilationism says that immortality of the human soul is not a created gift, but only a redemptive gift for the “saved,” called, “eternal life.” Those who freely choose not to turn to God are therefore annihilated in the fire of God’s love. Hell is eternal, but souls in it are not. The immortality of the human soul is conditional upon God’s grace and redemption in Jesus Christ. Thus, Annihilationism is sometimes called, “Conditional Immortality.”(Only the devil and the beast are accepted as beings that deserve to suffer eternally in hell according to the more explicit language in scripture.) They reason that a God of love will not allow humans to suffer eternally, but will perform a kind of divine “mercy killing” of those who turn away from Him, and have become totally evil to the point of non redeemability. They argue that the orthodox doctrine of immortality of the soul and the eternal suffering in hell for those who freely turn from God is not explicitly found in scripture or early apostolic tradition, was only accepted after the integration of Greek philosophy into Christian theology, and therefore cannot be considered orthodox.

Of course, all of this is decidedly limited by the fact that none but a few mystics have ever seen hell, and come back to tell us about it! All of our theory in Christianity is based on interpretation of scripture and apostolic tradition. For most of us it remains only theory at best. It is a way of affirming God’s love and justice in a way that inspires us to live our lives in the goodness of God and His ways.

There has been much written recently debating Annihilationism, or Conditional Immortality in the Evangelical community. Scriptural proofs, and the definitions of various Hebrew and Greek for words such as, “destroy,” “kill,” “punishment,” and “eternal” are argued both ways. Some scriptures seem to support it, and others do not. The use of literal or metaphorical interpretations of various texts are used to explain their theories. Whichever way one goes is all pretty much a matter of interpretation, and there are brilliant and good people on both sides of the debate. (The same can be said of Christian Universalism and its proofs from scripture and apostolic tradition.)

Ante Nicene Patristics are also rather non conclusive in the absolute sense. Like scripture, they can be interpreted various ways depending on one’s theological perspective. Development, cultural and theological conditioning and intent, and hyperbole must all be taken into account. The early Christian philosopher Tatian is often quoted to support it, but most of his works were destroyed because he was considered unorthodox. Others are mentioned as well (some also seem to support Universalism), but their texts do not really focus on the subject except in passing in reference to the choice between righteousness or sin, heaven or hell. The earliest clear proponent of Annihilationism was Arnobius of Sicca (d 330 AD, CE), who has been rather roundly dismissed by his contemporaries, and subsequent church history. From Tertullian, and Augustine on, the church’s development has generally accepted the traditional belief in the created immortality of the soul either united with, or separated from God depending on it’s own free choice. It is now considered a doctrine of traditional orthodoxy. Again, this was a developing understanding, and is still developing today.

The 2nd Council of Chalcedon (553 AD, or CE) rejected Annihilationism (and Universalism, albeit on separate grounds). Further Councils reaffirmed this rejection. Nor has the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church been supportive of it throughout the ages, though she has rarely had to speak about it explicitly. There has been little written on it in Catholic circles in recent decades on Annihilationism, but much has been written about some expression of Universalism. Today the church simply affirms the created immortality of the soul, and eternal suffering of those who choose to reject God forever by nature of simply being separated from Him.

The Catholic and some non Catholic Christian mystics who have supposedly had visions of hell attest to the eternal suffering of those who have freely chosen eternal separation from God. Of recent significance is Blessed Faustina of The Divine Mercy. How much of the details of these visions are culturally conditioned cannot be known on this side of death. None of these visions are considered divine revelation, but are generally accepted by the church as private revelation of genuinely saintly and mystical souls that is not contradictory to it.

After this study I have reached the following specific conclusions regarding the proofs for Annihilationism:

1. Though the idea of a real heaven, and hell is scriptural and depicts real states of the soul after death, the language of the killing and destruction of the soul in hell is metaphorical, and hyperbole in a use of the parallelism and juxtaposition of life and death for eternal life in Jesus, and the spiritual death that is “the wages of sin.”
   
   
2. The argument that the immortality of the soul in hell is a sole product of the Christian adoption of Platonism and Greek philosophy through Hellenism, and therefore unorthodox, seems weak. This is really one of the key points in treating this subject. The Jews had their own unique Semitic based development of understanding regarding the immortality of the human soul. Plus, they were already largely Hellenized even before the time of Christ, and had integrated some of it into their belief system by the time of later Jewish scripture. Their own understanding of life after death was developing in the centuries prior to the life of Christ, and was still doing so at the time of Christ. The church also integrated and “baptized,” or purified some of Platonism and Greek philosophy to explain Christianity to the western world that spoke the language of philosophy. Mere integration of some Greek philosophy is not enough to reject a belief found in it, unless in conflict with the teachings of Jesus as accepted by the living apostolic authority of the church.
   
   And here’s the real rub: She did reject both the pre-existence, and the ultimate reconciliation of the soul as found in Originism as inconsistent with the apostolic tradition contained within both the leadership and corporate memory of the people of God. Why would she not also reject the eternal existence of the soul in hell as well if that were not consistent with the apostolic tradition of the church? If Originism is A) the pre-existence of the soul), B (the immortality of the soul), + C (the ultimate reconciliation of the soul), why would the Church reject A+ C, and not B, unless B was at least compatible with the apostolic tradition they had received. If none were part of the apostolic tradition, then she would have rejected all. She did not. If the early church believed in Annihilationism, why would she so easily and suddenly change course? Annihilationism does not adequately answer these questions.
   
   
3. Now on to more essential aspects: Annihilationism betrays a weak understanding of developed orthodox Christian anthropology, and the effects of sin on the human soul. As I understand it, Annihilationism concludes that souls in hell have become totally evil; therefore God’s fire simply consumes them as evil by the very nature of the complete transforming goodness of His being. Catholic teaching would maintain that the human soul retains the potential to reflect the image of God even in sin, and in hell. The basic nature of the soul is never defected, only it’s will, though even it never loses the ability to choose God should it choose to do so. This image is obscured by the choice of sin, but the potential is never gone. God will not annihilate a soul that still bears the good ability to at least potentially reflect Himself. That potential is in itself good. Plus, if we accept that souls given to evil become totally depraved, then huge pastoral implications regarding the respect of life and the dignity of the human person arise. (Bonaventure’s analogy of the human soul as a mirror covered by dirt, rather than the Reformer’s analogy of it becoming a pile of dung merely covered by the thin layer of snow through Christ’s atonement is most revealing here.)
   
   
4. Related to human anthropology, there is a tendency to misunderstand the doctrine of human immortality. They are correct in saying that only God’s immortality is self-sufficient. But human immortality is created. It cannot be discredited on account of the doctrine that only God is immortal by self-sufficiency. It is not given to humanity only as a redemptive grace. Immortality need not be only a grace to the human redeemed. It can also be a matter of creation for all human beings. This also has huge pastoral ramifications regarding the respect of human life.
   
   
5. A most important point is that it manifests a weak understanding of the more elegant development of doctrine through the sacred scripture, apostolic tradition, and magisterium of the church. It tends to revert to a most primitive and somewhat clumsy teaching that was not clearly expressed, or accepted, rather than going forward with a clearer teaching that continues to develop in expression to this day. It tries to solve the problem of God’s love and justice with an incomplete set of tools. It tends to miss the richness of the faith. This is really a shame, for it stunts the possibility for authentic growth in the future regarding a full spectrum of other issues as well. For me it is a giant jump backwards rather than forward in the development of Christian doctrine.
   
   
6. As a Catholic I would also add that it suffers from an inability to understand the living authority of the sense of the faithful and the magisterium of apostolic leadership of the church to interpret such development of doctrine based on scripture and tradition as stated by John Henry Newman. As Newman points out, this authority keeps the development of doctrine from ambling rather aimlessly through the uncharted, and sometimes dangerous waters of history, and further dividing the people of God today. Only sacred scripture and apostolic tradition without magisterium is like a stool with only two legs. It cannot stand. It needs at least three legs to sit straight.

While the specific expression of the teaching regarding the profound mysteries of the afterlife regarding heaven, purgatory, and hell continue to develop, I end up agreeing with Pope John Paul II. He said:

“Wednesday 28 July 1999

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

1. God is the infinitely good and merciful Father. But man, called to respond to him freely, can unfortunately choose to reject his love and forgiveness once and for all, thus separating himself for ever from joyful communion with him. It is precisely this tragic situation that Christian doctrine explains when it speaks of eternal damnation or hell. It is not a punishment imposed externally by God but a development of premises already set by people in this life. The very dimension of unhappiness which this obscure condition brings can in a certain way be sensed in the light of some of the terrible experiences we have suffered which, as is commonly said, make life “hell”.
   
   In a theological sense however, hell is something else: it is the ultimate consequence of sin itself, which turns against the person who committed it. It is the state of those who definitively reject the Father’s mercy, even at the last moment of their life.
   
   
2. To describe this reality Sacred Scripture uses a symbolical language which will gradually be explained. In the Old Testament the condition of the dead had not yet been fully disclosed by Revelation. Moreover it was thought that the dead were amassed in Sheol, a land of darkness (cf. Ez 28:8; 31:14; Jb 10:21f.; 38:17; Ps 30:10; 88:7, 13), a pit from which one cannot reascend (cf. Jb 7:9), a place in which it is impossible to praise God (cf. Is 38:18; Ps 6:6).
   
   The New Testament sheds new light on the condition of the dead, proclaiming above all that Christ by his Resurrection conquered death and extended his liberating power to the kingdom of the dead.
   
   Redemption nevertheless remains an offer of salvation which it is up to people to accept freely. This is why they will all be judged “by what they [have done]” (Rv 20:13). By using images, the New Testament presents the place destined for evildoers as a fiery furnace, where people will “weep and gnash their teeth” (Mt 13:42; cf. 25:30, 41), or like Gehenna with its “unquenchable fire” (Mk 9:43). All this is narrated in the parable of the rich man, which explains that hell is a place of eternal suffering, with no possibility of return, nor of the alleviation of pain (cf. Lk 16:19-31).
   
   The Book of Revelation also figuratively portrays in a “pool of fire” those who exclude themselves from the book of life, thus meeting with a “second death” (Rv 20:13f.). Whoever continues to be closed to the Gospel is therefore preparing for “eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might” (2 Thes 1:9).
   
   
3. The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the truths of faith on this subject: “To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called ‘hell’” (n. 1033).
   
   "Eternal damnation”, therefore, is not attributed to God's initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person and confirmed with death that seals his choice forever. God’s judgment ratifies this state.
   
   
4. Christian faith teaches that in taking the risk of saying “yes” or “no”, which marks the human creature’s freedom, some have already said no. They are the spiritual creatures that rebelled against God’s love and are called demons (cf. Fourth Lateran Council, DS 800-801). What happened to them is a warning to us: it is a continuous call to avoid the tragedy which leads to sin and to conform our life to that of Jesus who lived his life with a “yes” to God.

Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it. The thought of hell — and even less the improper use of biblical images — must not create anxiety or despair, but is a necessary and healthy reminder of freedom within the proclamation that the risen Jesus has conquered Satan, giving us the Spirit of God who makes us cry “Abba, Father!” (Rm 8:15; Gal 4:6).

This prospect, rich in hope, prevails in Christian proclamation. It is effectively reflected in the liturgical tradition of the Church, as the words of the Roman Canon attest: “Father, accept this offering from your whole family ... save us from final damnation, and count us among those you have chosen”.”

- Pope John Paul II

Though there are other developing theological expressions the Eschaton afoot in Catholic circles today, this seems a most balanced and reasonable modern statement that is at once rooted in scripture and apostolic tradition, and sensitive to the issues that have arisen in a more modern pastoral application of the consideration of the nature of hell, and the souls found in that state. I accept it.

For myself personally, one of the last key questions I asked God in prayer before becoming a “ Christian” was whether a good and loving God could send anyone to hell for eternity? The answer I got as a locution, or still small voice was, “I do not send anyone to hell who does not want to go there.” It is a matter of choice. That was really all I needed to know as a follower of Jesus. This seems to transcend our limited notions of Christian Annihilationism, Universalism, or even of the Traditional views. The teaching of the Catholic Church affirms that locutionary answer. I find great clarity and comfort in it.

To summarize: For me my problem with Annihilationism all boils down to two primary points:

1. It lacks an elegant understanding of the development of doctrine, and the living authority of the laity and leadership of the church to interpret that development.
   
   
2. It lacks a developed understanding of Christian anthropology in the created immortality and goodness of the human soul.

The topic of Eschatology and the Afterlife specifically regarding the nature of heaven, purgatory, and hell, and the state of souls in them is not a closed book. There will be further development in our understanding and explanation of it as it is pastorally applied to the questions that face the church in specific times and cultures in our journey towards eternity through history. The topic of the nature of hell as it relates to a just and infinitely loving God continues to be considered in modern spirituality. It is pastorally important as it effects how we live for God, humanity, and creation while here on earth. The development today is towards the life giving love of God for all.

So it seems to me that, though well intentioned by its supporters, Annihilationism is a rather giant and clumsy step backwards in the process of development. It seems to me that we could better put our time and energy into other more timely and constructive issues such as a vibrant spiritual life through lectio, oratio, meditation, and contemplative prayer, the gospel of life and social justice, and interfaith cooperation and dialogue in an increasingly divided political and religious world seem to be much more relevant topics to be in bringing the gospel of Jesus to our modern times. But since the subject of Conditional Immortality and Annihilationism has recently resurfaced in Evangelical circles, it will probably spill over a bit into Catholic circles, so it is good that Catholics have some reasonable answer ready as well.

Having said that, I am also grateful for the contemporary Conditionalists and Annihilationists for reminding us that healthy Christian doctrine did not just drop down from heaven in complete form, but develops through the ages as we encounter different challenges and questions regarding the Christian faith. I am most grateful for being a part of that rich development in a church that allows for healthy theological speculation, while providing a safe spiritual home with the God given authority to help us when we venture too far afield. It encourages us to fly high, but also provides a safety net when we fall into error.

But I cannot help but notice that contemporary Annihilationism is a predominantly non Catholic phenomenon that does not enjoy a rich understanding of either doctrinal development or church authority. These two points seem key to me. I believe that the theory itself suffers from, and to some extent is the result of that impoverishment. It is a “fall” from high theological flying. I hope that its proponents will find the safety net of the church to soften the fall, and lovingly restore them to fuller theological health.

I am not a scholar, but I hope that this little treatment will encourage real Catholic scholars to take up this subject if, and when it resurfaces in their circles. My guess is that it will.

I would like to end on a personal note. In my discussions about this I have been called “unorthodox,” “unloving,” “unbelieving of a loving God,” and not understanding the message of Jesus because of my Catholic view. I have simply noted that Conditionalism/ Annihilationism is considered “heretical” by the pronouncements of the Church. It is really important to remember that most people on all sides of this discussion are genuine and sincere followers of Jesus Christ. They love Him with their whole mind and heart and soul. Most are truly brilliant. The use of extreme language by anyone is unhelpful. For my part I apologize for having used any language that is hurtful.

I also think it important to remember the limitations of theology, though it is not unimportant. True theology must be based on mysticism, or it is theorizing about a God it does not know. Proverbially, without prayer it might help us to know about God, but it doesn’t help us to really know God. Even with the heights of mystical union with God through Jesus we still “see through a glass dimly” as long as we remain on this side of death. We simply cannot state these specific positions absolutely, much less judge others by them.

Lastly, I remember sharing some issues with a wise and saintly spiritual director. As I spoke he simply closed his eyes and prayed silently for a very long time. When he answered, it was pierced to the real spiritual point that was life effective. I would strongly encourage anyone involved in such dialogue to approach it prayerfully on the mystical level first. Only then will our theology amount to a hill of beans in God’s eyes, or in pastoral practicality in the Church. As Aquinas said at the end of his life regarding The Summa: Burn it. It is only so much straw. Theology without deep prayer and mystical union with God through Jesus is only straw. It can become a most sophisticated distraction. With prayer and mystical union it can become a real aid in knowing God better. That is its real intent.

John Michael Talbot