After much study, it has become my position that Annihilationism, referring to those not found in the Book of Life at the end of all things being destroyed, and ceasing to exist, is a logical position to take, rather than the Orthodox position of ECT (eternal conscious torment).
It was customary for leaders and educators back at the time of the reformation to state plainly their position and be public about it to allow for contradiction, to see if it can be defended. This practice is what led to the 95 theses from Martin Luther. I would stand on the annihilation position, but with a reasonable amount of humility, as I am not seminary trained, nor do I have an advanced degree, and I could most certainly be wrong. I would also not choose to teach it in church, as my church does take the orthodox view, and if ever called to teach, I would operate under parameters we agree on, and would not choose to disagree with the elder-led position. I think that is only fair, and we must respect the umbrella we are under, and have each other’s backs. But I also recognize that healthy disagreement, whether debating free will vs predestination, sprinkled babies or immersed believers, premil or postmil, billions of years or seven days of creation, or any smattering of topics, it is fruitful to disagree, and spar from time to time, so that we may all benefit by staying engaged in the scriptures, seek answers, hone in on truth.
That being said, it is not a salvation issue, and therefore, taking a hard line on it, like I do with Salvation through Christ alone, or the Trinity, is perhaps a bit heavy handed. Nevertheless, despite running in to many Christian brothers who would prefer a more peaceable church journey, I tend to enjoy stirring the pot from time to time, if nothing else, then to at least practice girding up our loins. Iron sharpens iron, after all.
Let’s define the orthodox view:
It would be said by orthodoxy that ECT (Eternal Conscious Torment) Is Clearly Taught in Scripture:
Matthew 25:46 – “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
The Greek word aiōnios (eternal) is used identically for both outcomes: punishment and life. If “eternal life” means unending life with God, “eternal punishment” must likewise mean unending punishment — or else the parallel collapses?
Revelation 14:11 – “The smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night…”
The phrase “forever and ever” (eis aiōnas aiōnōn) is the strongest Greek construction for endless time. The torment described here is conscious and unceasing — “no rest, day or night” — clearly not annihilation, right?
Daniel 12:2 – “…some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.”
“Everlasting contempt” (deraon olam) must persist to be meaningful. You can’t contempt something that doesn’t exist. If God is infinite in holiness, then sin against Him carries infinite weight. The consequence must therefore be proportionally infinite. Temporal sin doesn’t mean the punishment must be short-lived — just as a momentary crime (e.g., murder) can yield a lifelong sentence.
Jesus spoke of hell more than anyone else with words like:
“Where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:48) — drawn from Isaiah 66. This imagery suggests unending decay, not quick destruction. This is graphic and strong language to indicate a ceaseless situation. But this ceaseless torment demands we agree with an automatically immortal soul imbued to everyone.
Let us look at where this idea of an immortal soul comes from. If you lived your whole life without Bugs Bunny cartoon depictions of hell, or any preconceived notions of a devil and a pitchfork and roasting forever, and I handed you a Bible, and you simply read through it, imagine what you’d conclude about the end. Probably that you’d “not perish but have everlasting life.” Probably that some would receive a Second Death at the end.
Where would you point to convince yourself there’s millions of years of burning alive? I’m suggesting that as a layperson, without listening to what all these traditions tell us to think, can easily imagine walking away from the scripture and simply concluding a result as it is written; i.e. obvious death.
So why this axiom that a soul is automatically eternal? This is despite compelling verses such as, “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” – Matthew 10:28.
The answer is, Plato! It was his assertion during a deeply philosophical time, that the soul was an immortal thing. The soul was to him eternal, immaterial, pre-existent, and indestructible by nature. So, by the time the Old Testament was being completed, and long before the New Testament, Plato’s views were already influencing the wider intellectual world — including the Hellenistic Jews and later Greco-Roman converts to Christianity. In ancient Hebrew though (pre-Plato), the soul (nephesh) was not seen as inherently immortal. People lived, died, and went to Sheol —but there was no clear doctrine of ongoing consciousness or immortality. Egyptian and Babylonian beliefs had afterlife ideas, but those were very different — ritual-based, not philosophical, and often only for the elite, rather than a unilateral belief.
Plato was one of the first to systematically argue for the soul’s immortality as a universal, philosophical truth. So no — the idea that the soul can’t die is not original to Hebrew or early biblical theology. It’s more Greek than God-breathed. But before we had Baptists, and Bugs Bunny, and horror movies, we had early church fathers, during the expansion of Christendom throughout the Greek and Roman world, and those steeped in church history are well aware that much of the culture crept in to early Christianity. The prior rituals were gone, and other than love God, love your neighbor, baptize one another, and take communion, there was not much left to take the place of the highly ritualized polytheistic world view. In the same way, philosophy and culture would have been prevalent even among genuine converts, and Greeks would inherently “know” that the soul was immortal before, and then after adopting the scriptures as true.
Origen (3rd c.) and Augustine (4th–5th c.) both inherited strong Platonic influence. They sincerely tried to synthesize Scripture with what they considered the “best” philosophy of the time — and Plato was the gold standard. So when they spoke of immortal souls, they weren’t quoting Scripture — they were echoing a Greek philosophical paradigm. It sounded right to them because it matched both their culture and their education. Origen in his work On First Principles, wrote:
“By an immortal and eternal law of equity and by the control of divine providence the immortal soul is brought to the height of perfection.”
This reflects his belief in the soul’s pre-existence and its journey toward perfection, concepts aligned with Platonic thought.
Augustine (354–430 AD), in The City of God, stated:
“The soul is therefore called immortal, because in a sense, it does not cease to live and to feel; while the body is called mortal because it can be forsaken of all life, and cannot by itself live at all.” Here, Augustine emphasizes the soul’s continuous existence, a view consistent with Platonic philosophy. These perspectives were not directly derived from Scripture but were interpretations influenced by the cultural and philosophical context of their era.
It wasn’t until the 14th Century that Dante’s Inferno depicted hell as a place of eternal, conscious, tailored torments and vivid, poetic visions that cemented the emotional and visual imagination of hell for centuries. It was this work that truly inspired our modern idea of hell, much like Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind modeled our image of aliens that have never been seen. One could not even engage with the specific medium and still hardly get away from it! While Dante certainly drew from Christian theology, much of the imagery is medieval, philosophical, and poetic, not biblical, and used Greco-Roman mythological structure (e.g., Charon, Minos, the underworld’s geography).
As I build the argument, I can rightly surmise that the origins of general beliefs regarding hell were not always based in scripture, but it does not excuse us from having to dismiss the framework applied to it. So what would a concise (but not exhaustive) rebuttal be? Quite simply, the consistent biblical use of terms like “perish,” “destroy,” and “death” rather than “eternal suffering.” The word eternal that is referred to over and over:
Matthew 25:46: “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
-is to say this is an eternal result, a permanent result. It does indeed determine things for all time, but simply indicates that the result is a permanent one. It’s either permanently life or permanently destruction. These are eternal results, meaning they last forever. But nowhere in scripture, except through faith in Jesus Christ, is life itself offered.
The prior discussed notion within orthodox Christianity that the soul cannot be destroyed is being asserted in ECT, but number one, if God created it then of course he can destroy it – “Rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Number two, this automatic right to eternal life is never offered outside of Jesus! It is only congruous with Christ. He is the way and the hope, and the life, whoever believes in Him shall have eternal life, have life and life abundantly – and what is eternal life? It is literally defined for us by our creator as existence with him, and getting to know him:
John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
We literally have the Creator of all things defining eternal life that only He can grant, and it is a perfectly defined truth, and non-existent without Him, in whatever form!
If eternal life is only ever offered to a sheep, as part of the bride of Christ, then what must be the opposite side of that coin? The bible never offers life without Him; quite the opposite, it always offers destruction. And to reiterate the initial point, this resurrection unto damnation, The White Throne Judgment in Revelation is described as the resurrection of those not found in the book of life, who will be cast into hell, explicitly called the second death, again very clear to the layperson.
We cannot just assert, but must back the assertion with scripture, and of course I’d encourage everyone to examine the truthful scriptures, whether to agree or rip me to shreds. But here are a few verses that touch on this repeated idea of a death:
“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” – John 3:36
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide and broad is the road that leads to destruction and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” – Matthew 7:13-14
There is only one lawgiver and judge, the One [God] who is able to save and destroy. – James 4:12
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing (apollumi); but to those who are being saved, it is the power of God. – 1 Corinthians 1:18
They perish (apollumi) because they refuse to love the truth and be saved. – 2 Thessalonians 2:10b
He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish (apollumi), but everyone to come to repentance. – 2 Peter 3:9
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life, he who believes in me will live even though he dies (apothnesko); 26 and whoever lives and believes in me will never die (apothnesko). Do you believe this?” – John 11:25-26
if he [God] condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; – 2 Peter 2:6
You should know that whoever brings back a sinner from wandering will save that sinner’s soul from death (thanatos). – James 5:20
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction (olethros) from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. – 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9
The first part of this passage shows that God will punish those who reject the gospel and verse 9 reveals exactly what this punishment will be: everlasting destruction. This obviously refers to destruction that lasts forever and not to an endless process of destroying without ever actually destroying, as supporters of eternal torment declare. After all, to perpetually be in the process of destroying without ever actually succeeding isn’t really destruction at all! This would be everlasting torment, which of course is never once described in scripture.
There are many more verses… so many more, and each reiterating this same obvious theme. We read perish, destroy, die, destruction. We read of chaff, and weeds being no more. This particular beaten horse, if it be not dead, is at the very least in immediate danger of expiring, with just a cursory reading through our Bible.
But, the ECT position may say, what if “death” is separation, not cessation?
In the Garden, God told Adam: “In the day you eat of it, you shall surely die.” But Adam didn’t die physically that day. So what happened? He died spiritually — separated from the life of God. This understanding of death as separation is carried into the New Testament: “You were dead in your trespasses and sins…” (Eph. 2:1)
“She who is self-indulgent is dead even while she lives.” (1 Tim. 5:6)
So if “death” means estrangement from the life of God, then the second death could be eternal separation — a living death, conscious and unending. Is “separation” a satisfying interpretation of “death” in Revelation 20:14? Or does it stretch the meaning too far from what the text plainly says?
I do not find this idea of separation while alive, and annihilationism to be mutually exclusive. I think there is great harmony in fact – this spiritual separation leading to an eventual permanent separation in death. The dread of such a solemn fate is taught and pondered and felt, and with it fear and wisdom.
But logically I would push back on someone who uses this as a pillar for their argument and ask this: if God is omnipresent, the creator of both heaven and hell, and his presence and his justice are throughout both, then how else could one actually be separate from God, other than ceasing to exist?
Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there! – Psalm 139:8
If God is omnipresent. and His justice and authority uphold even hell itself, then true separation — not just relational or moral, but actual existential separation — can only mean nonexistence. As long as something exists, it remains upheld by God. So if ‘death’ is complete separation from God, the only coherent way to understand that is annihilation — because anything else still requires divine sustenance, even if it is some form of ordained torture, as it would remain part of His creation.
This reframes the debate:
For the ECT side to say hell is separation from God, they must clarify: separated how? Not spatially — because God is omnipresent. Not ontologically — because nothing can exist apart from Him. So what is left? Relational separation? That feels weak compared to the finality Scripture seems to portray. This is not metaphorical ruin, but ontological finality — God withdrawing the sustaining breath, and the soul collapsing into nothingness.
This could be expanded into an extensive series of articles, or a book, so again, let us not be exhaustive and obnoxious in our detail. But if we truly believe that death is swallowed up in victory, then immortality is something that we must “put on”, immortality being a gift, and again is only every mentioned in synergy with Christ. We shall not perish but have everlasting life.
One final issue, saved for the end, because it is perhaps the only place in the bible where one could fire back at my position with a particularly poignant verse. I speak of course of this:
“If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured out full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the lamb [Jesus]. And the smoke of their torment rises forever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast or his image, or anyone who receives the mark of his name.” – Revelation 14:9-ll
The phrase “forever and ever” (eis aiōnas aiōnōn) is the strongest Greek construction for endless time. Would the ECT Christian not be correct in referring to this?
It would seem to fit the narrative if not for a couple of key points. For starters, this is a book of apocalyptic language, obviously steeped in hyperbole, designed to color the pages in extreme illustrations, and to paint the most vivid depictions. Regardless of your position on interpreting Revelation, it is obviously dripping with descriptions beyond our imaginings, and to have a picture of death overstated here is not out of touch with the surrounding literature. Secondly, these verses have a sister verse in Isaiah:
Edom’s streams will be turned into pitch,
her dust into burning sulfur;
her land will become blazing pitch!
It will not be quenched night and day;
its smoke will rise forever. – Isaiah 34:9-10
As we can plainly see, there are terrific parallels in language between the two verses. Do we get the impression that the kingdom of Edom will burn forever and ever? Of course! But the rest of the chapter renders this interpretation impossible. It shows us an Edom that becomes a desert, that is filled with wild animals, where the people are “totally destroyed” and slaughtered. So how can the burning day and night forever mean what it is saying? Let’s view the terminology in parallel:
her dust [will be turned] into burning sulfur – He will be tormented with burning sulfur
its smoke will rise forever – the smoke of their torment rises forever
It will not be quenched night and day – There is no rest day or night
Our conclusion must be that just as the rest of the Isaiah passage renders the literal interpretation moot, so it is with the rest of the Revelation passage, as the Lord follows through with His plans for total redemption, and a new heaven and earth. Night and day in this context must obviously mean that it will burn continuously until the utter destruction of the place is carried out in accordance with the will of God. Then we see the ensuing result, a desert fit only for animals, and a destroyed people. In the same manner, so also will the continual burning of the lost be, until they are destroyed; not tortured endlessly in some non-stop incomplete destruction process never to be fully carried out.
With this thought we come to the final crux of the issue at hand – What possible good would it do for redeemed and new world to have a large corner of it designated for endless torture? We imagine the mothers of unsaved children enjoying heaven knowing their kids are roasting in hell the entire time. Are their memories wiped, or can we be honest with ourselves, and say that logically we can all reconcile the justice of God’s wrath without the need for endless torture? We allow for hierarchy in hell, and degrees of punishment, the regret and pain of outer darkness, and gnashing of teeth, of course. But at a certain point it starts to become a warped version of justice, imagining 100,000 years of torment and death because you spent 60 years on earth being selfish. Or how about 1 million years? At what point does it become cruel that the person was ever made? Is this the character of God? Hasn’t this notion always struck caring Christians as a bit maladroit? Does speak well to the character of God, where we all celebrate the redemption of mankind, as millions of people scream in agony forever? Hitler might deserve it, granted, but at some point I’m going to be wishing that the old agnostic lady who made me cookies down the street would be let off the hook.
Bottom line is, when we read the bible without the shackles of cultural dogma, where in the word would we point to convince ourselves there’s millions of years of burning alive?
If I had only the Bible and no cultural baggage — what would I conclude? From the Old Testament:
“The soul that sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:4)
“They shall be as though they had never been” (Obadiah 1:16)
“The wicked are like chaff that the wind drives away” (Psalm 1:4)
From the Gospels and Epistles:
Repeated language: perish, destroy, burned like branches, die, second death.
Jesus warns of Gehenna — a valley of destruction, not eternal torture chambers.
John 3:16 again: the contrast is perishing vs. everlasting life.
From Revelation:
Even the Lake of Fire is explicitly called “the second death” (Rev. 20:14).
No verse shows unending screams — it shows final judgment, then new creation.
So what would I conclude?
Life is offered through Christ. Death — real, irreversible death — awaits those who reject Him.
Do you think the Church is ready to claim this? Or will tradition hold it back?
I imagine the church would remain rigid, unable to differentiate between gentler matters such as this, and serious matters, such as a watered down gospel, or justifying sin. They will see any attempt at weakening orthodoxy as an assault on the whole. Christians will not abide countering any part of their beloved Confessions of Faith, which of course are lovely, wonderful guardrails and tools for discipling. But they are not scripture, and conversation about any tenants of them can cause defensiveness. Because in their view:
If this piece of doctrine is reconsidered, what’s next?
Is this the beginning of compromise?
Are we letting culture soften us?
Are we undermining the urgency of evangelism?
But I am not trying to attack orthodoxy, within which I am firmly ensconced for the most part. I am simply examining scripture for truth and a cohesive understanding of the Word. Could it be possible that automatic immortality is and was always pagan? If the wages of sin is death — why are we describing it as unending life in torment? And that’s a question that deserves to be heard without suspicion about my motives. There is nothing wrong with earnest study between brothers in Christ, and even if I’m totally wrong, it is worth it to present the argument precisely so it can be refuted. In debates I have been called gross, heretic, stupid, and Satan, by well-meaning Christians who believe so strongly against me that I am a rude offense to them, but we should not be scared to engage if our goals are to seek truth, and simply talk about what the scripture says. And if we part loving brothers in Christ who happen to disagree about something, then we are blessed to have been challenged, and sharpened, and to have sought truth in fellowship together.



