Basil Atkinson: A Key Figure

for Twentieth-Century
Evangelical Annihilationism
Robert A Peterson
Introduction
I had learnt the doctrine [of conditional immortality] from Basil
Atkinson in (I suppose) about 1934. Hitherto I had held the doctrine
of unending torment, which had been particularly impressed on me
by R A Torrey in What the Bible Teaches. The torments of the lost
had occupied a considerable place in my prayers and I felt deflated
when I first heard their everlastingness questioned. But I was fairly
certain that Basil Atkinson was right.
1
With these words John Wenham credits Basil Atkinson with teaching
him annihilationism, the view that the wicked will eventually be
obliterated. It is likely that Atkinson pointed other Anglican evangelical
scholars in the same direction. This paper will attempt to answer three
questions concerning Atkinson: Who is he? What is his case for
conditionalism? And have others argued in similar fashion?
Born in 1895, Basil Atkinson gained a PhD in 1926 at Magdalene
College, Cambridge. From 1925 to 1960 he served as Under-Librarian in
the University Library there. He became well-known in evangelical circles
as a leader of devotional Bible readings.
2
'An eccentric bachelor academic,
[he] was the main adviser of the Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian
Union during the years when the Inter-Varsity Fellowship was being built
up and conservative Evangelicals were trying to extricate themselves from
liberalism. He was the great pillar of orthodoxy ... '
3
Atkinson's pen was not idle. He wrote The War with Satan (1946), a
commentary on the book of Revelation, Pocket Commentaries on the Bible
I John Wenham 'The Case for Conditional Immortality' Universalism and the Doctrine of
Hell Nigel M de S Cameron ed (Grand Rapids: Baker 1992) p 163
2 Edward Fudge The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of
Final Punishment (Houston: Providential Press 1982) p 407
3 John Wenham 'The Case for Conditional Immortality' Universalism and the Doctrine of
Hell Nigel M de S Cameron ed (Grand Rapids: Baker 1992) pp 162-3 n 3
198
Basil Atkinson: A Key Figure
on Genesis to Numbers (1955-62), and The Times of the Gentiles: A Brief
Commentary on the Book of Daniel ( 1968). He also wrote devotional
books of substance, including Is the Bible True? (1934), Valiant in Fight
(1937), an inspirational review of church history, and The Christians Use
of the Old Testament (1952). An accomplished linguist, he wrote Ancient
lllyrian (1931-2), The Greek Language ( 1932), and A Theology of
Prepositions ( 1945).
The most important of his writings for our present purposes is his
privately published Life and Immortality: An Examination of the Nature
and Meaning of Life and Death as They Are Revealed in the Scriptures
(1969). Wenham calls this book 'the fruit of a lifetime of study' and 'a
remarkable piece of sustained argument' .
4
Peter Toon praises Life and
Immortality and summarizes its contents:
Atkinson used all his linguistic gifts to argue that the Bible clearly
teaches (I) unconscious existence from death to the general
resurrection, (2) the eternal joy of the redeemed in their glorious
resurrection bodies from the resurrection and for ever, and (3) the
annihilation of the ungodly after they have been raised to appear
before the throne of judgement and suitably punished there. And, he
insisted, the Bible does not teach the immortality of the soul.
Atkinson's arguments for the annihilation of the person after the last
judgement are based wholly on biblical exegesis: he refuses to use
any arguments based upon the character of God and upon ideas of
what is just or unjust punishment.
5
Although he was an influential figure in the development of modem
British Evangelicalism, Atkinson 's importance has largely been forgotten.
I propose to evaluate his case for conditionalism, paying special attention
to his arguments based upon emotional appeal, theology, linguistics and
hermeneutics. At the end of each section I will list subsequent
conditionalists who used similar arguments.
Arguments That Appeal to Emotion
Atkinson argued for annihilationism by appealing to the emotions of his
readers. Although these appeals are not his best academic arguments, I
suspect that they exerted a powerful effect on many. I will discuss three
examples of this type of argument.
4 John Wenham The Enigma of Evil: Can We Believe in the Goodness of God? (Zondervan
1985) p 40
5 Peter Toon Heaven and Hell: A Biblical and Theological Overview (New York: Thomas
Nelson 1986) p 177
199
Churchman
The Argument from Silence
First, he employs the argument from silence. In fact, he uses it more than
fifty times in the space of 112 pages of Life and Immortality. I will cite
two examples. He combines the argument from silence with hyperbole
when he comments on 2 Corinthians 5: I:
Now if the apostle had expected to be with Christ in glory in a
disembodied state, could he have passed this expectation entirely
over in a context such as this and fixed his whole hope on his
resurrected body? 'We know that if our earthly house of this
tabernacle be dissolved ... ', why this is exactly the place to say,
' ... we shall be in spirit in the presence of the Lord in heaven.' But he
did not say it. The only reason can be that he knew of no such hope.
6
Secondly, when commenting on Psalm 21 :9 ('Thou shalt make them as
a fiery oven in the time of thine anger' AV) he writes:
Now does being made like a fiery oven mean being preserved and
suffering in fire for ever? How does David go on? 'The Lord shall
swallow them up in his wrath, and the fire shall devour them.' To
swallow up can only be a figure for disappearance and the fire does
to them what fire as we know it always does and what we should
naturally expect it to do. There is no hint anywhere in Scripture that
the eternal fire functions in substantially any other way than the fire
we know, as there must have been to avoid deception, had it been the
case.
7
The words 'as there must have been to avoid deception' constitute
inflammatory language. Unfortunately this is not the only use of such
language in Life and Immortality.
The Use ofEmotively Charged Language
This is the second way in which Atkinson makes emotional appeals to his
readers - by using emotively charged language. He paints eternal
conscious punishment in terrible colours when he comments on the words
in Hannah's song 'the wicked shall be silent in darkness':
This truth leaves no room whatever for the shrieks and groans of the
damned nor for the lurid light of the torturing flames nor the red hot floor
6 Basil Atkinson Life and Immortality: An Examination of the Nature and Meaning of Life
and Death as They Are Revealed in the Scriptures (privately published 1969) p 64. Further
references to this book are given as Life and Immortality.
7 Life and Immortality p 93
200
Basil Atkinson: A Key Figure
of hell, on which we have read of infants crawling. And if ever it could be
conceivably true that they so crawl, would they do it in silence?
8
Atkinson combines inflammatory language with the argument from
silence when he discusses the resurrection of the dead in the gospels:
We now turn to Luke 14:14. Here we find the Lord telling those who
entertain the poor and those who cannot entertain them in return that
it will be recompensed them in the resurrection of the just. Notice
that there is no word about recompense at death. If, as the Lord here
distinctly states, recompense does not come till resurrection, it
follows that the departed, if they are alive, have not got perfect
satisfaction and fulfilment. This is a dangerous and unscriptural
doctrine. But difficulty vanishes if we believe the teaching of
Scripture that the dead are sleeping in their graves.
9
Implying Guilt by Association
Atkinson's third appeal to emotion is to imply guilt by association. This is
rare, but at least once he does so in combination with the argument from
silence. At the end of his remarks on Job 14: 12 he writes:
No hint is given in this passage in Job or anywhere else in Scripture that
the dead are alive in an invisible world. It is a matter of great
thankfulness that most Evangelicals who believe that they are have been
able to resist successfully the errors that arise from such a belief, yet
there is no doubt that it makes easier the road to prayers for the dead, to
spiritualism, to Mariolatry, and saint worship and to purgatory.
10
Evaluation
How are we to assess these arguments that appeal to the readers'
emotions? First, let me state that I have no interest in judging Atkinson's
motives. I do not accuse him of attempting to manipulate his readers.
Rather, I think he was passionate in his commitment to soul-sleep and
annihilationism, and that his passion got the better of him at times.
Moreover, such passionate conviction is not to be despised, because:
'Theology is one of the most human of disciplines. We seek to
communicate the deepest convictions of our hearts.' Therefore 'emotion is
not entirely irrelevant to theological discussion' .
11
8 Life and Immortality p 98
9 Life and Immortality pp 60-61
I 0 Life and Immortality p 39
11 John Frame The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed 1987) pp 289-90
201
Churchman
Notwithstanding, Atkinson's appeals to emotion are what logicians call
irrelevant arguments. These are arguments whose 'premises are logically
irrelevant to, and therefore incapable of establishing the truth of, their
conclusions' (italics in original)Y
The repeated appeal to the argument from silence does not disprove
traditionalism. In fact, this argument is a species of the fallacy of the
argumentum ad ignorantiam. This fallacy 'is committed whenever it is
argued that a proposition is ... false because it has not been proved true'.
13
It is insufficient for Atkinson to point out that many biblical passages do
not mention eternal punishment. Instead, he must answer the arguments
from Scripture put forth by those who espouse eternal punishment. This he
fails to do. His argument, therefore, is not logically persuasive.
Nevertheless, it creates an emotional atmosphere in which the reader is
encouraged to embrace conditionalism.
Arguing by using emotively charged language is likewise unconvincing.
This is a variety of the argumentum ad populum. It is 'the attempt to win
popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feelings and enthusiasms of
the multitude'.
14
Atkinson may succeed in this, but it does not constitute
evidence for annihiliationism or against traditionalism.
The argument for guilt by association in opposing eternal conscious
punishment is easily answered by a counter-argument. Indeed, almost no
evangelical Protestants believe in prayers for the dead, spiritualism,
Mariolatry, saint worship or purgatory. Atkinson 's claim, therefore, that
belief in eternal punishment leads to such abuses is not substantiated by
experience. Instead, it is falsified.
Actually, he weakens his case by appealing so strongly to his readers'
emotions. Those who disagree with him will be put off by such devices.
Any persuaded by these arguments are persuaded for the wrong reasons.
Conviction based chiefly on emotion may not stand the test of logical
argument.
Contemporary annihilationists, such as John Wenham, Edward Fudge
and Clark Pinnock, also make strong appeals to their readers' emotions.
15
12 lrving M Copi Introduction to Logic 2nd ed (New York: Macmillan 1961) p 53
13 Copi pp 57-8
14 Copi p 60
15 See John Wenham 'The Case for Conditional immortality' Universalism and the Doctrine
of Hell Nige1 M deS Cameron ed (Grand Rapids: Baker 1992) pp 187-90; Edward Fudge
The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final
Punishment (Houston: Providential Press 1982) pp 195, 411-22; Clark Pinnock Four
Views on Hell William Crockett ed (Zondervan 1992) pp 163-6.
202
Basil Atkinson: A Key Figure
Arguments Based on Systematic Theology
Atkinson also employs arguments based on systematics. He argues for his
position from the perspectives of the doctrines of Christ and the last
things.
16
Let us examine his arguments.
An Argument from Christology
He makes a case for conditionalism from Christology. Specifically, he
argues that in death 'the Lord Jesus suffered the very punishment due to
sinners'Y What is the nature of this punishment? It 'cannot under any
circumstances be eternal conscious suffering or misery, for he never
suffered this and it is impossible that he could have' .
18
What did he suffer,
then? 'Christ himself slept during his three days in the grave, as do the
majority of his people. (A few will be alive at his corning.)'
19
If we enquire as to the meaning of this sleeping in the grave, Atkinson
explains: 'The soul of Christ, that is himself, the whole Man, was in sh) ol,
that is, the grave, but he was not left there. After three days he rose again.'
20
Does Christ's being in the grave mean that he did not survive death?
Atkinson answers affirmatively when he discusses I Corinthians 15. 'We
may also notice that the whole of the apostle's teaching in this chapter is
based upon the resurrection of Christ and not a word said about, much less
based upon, the survival of Christ between death and resurrection' (italics
in original).
21
In fact, 'we have in history at the centre of our faith an open example
and illustration of the punishment of sin. The Lord Jesus bore our sins in
his own body on the tree (1 Pet 2:24)'. Specifically, the punishment for sin
involves suffering followed by extinction, as Jesus' example demonstrates:
Now at the time of his passion the Lord Jesus underwent a period of
increasing excruciating agony culminating in death. The suffering
16 Atkinson 's main theological argument is based upon anthropology, specifically upon the
immortality of the soul. Like many succeeding annihilationists, he is convinced that
traditionalism is largely attributable to the uncritical assumption by the mainstream of
Christian theology of the pagan belief in the immortality of the soul. I am passing over
this argument because I deem it greatly overrated and have dealt with it in 'A
Traditionalist Response to John Stott's Arguments for Annihilationism' JETS 37/4
December 1994 pp 567-8
17 Life and Immortality p 86
18 Life and Immortality p I 03
19 Life and Immortality p 40
20 Life and Immortality p 57
21 Life and Immortality pp 62-3. This is consistent with Atkinson's anthropological monism;
he denies that human beings have immaterial parts that separate from the body at death.
Instead, the whole person dies.
203
Churchman
lasted some hours. There is no reason why we should not take this as
the model and example of the final punishment of sin.
22
Actually, this punishment precedes the final punishment for sin which is
annihilation, as he goes on to explain: 'Thus the facts of the suffering and
death of Christ Jesus prove conclusively that the punishment of sin is death
in its natural sense of the deprivation oflife.'
23
Atkinson, therefore, holds that nothing of Jesus' humanity survived
death until his resurrection. His human nature experienced death, that is,
the deprivation of life. In other words, Jesus' humanity suffered extinction
in death. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and conclude that he held
that Jesus' deity did not suffer extinction.
He, then, seeks to bolster his case for conditionalism by arguing that Jesus in
his death suffered the pains of hell, namely annihilation. Does Atkinson succeed?
He does not. Instead, his aigUillent from Christology for annihilationism must be
deemed a failure. As I have written elsewhere, this argument fails miserably
because it contradicts Chalcedonian orthodoxy by jeopardizing the inseparability
of Christ's natures in the incarnation. According to this view Christ's natures did
separate because his humanity ceased to exist when he died. Presumably Christ's
resurrection constituted a second incarnation.
24
LeRoy Edwin Froom and Edward Fudge also argue for conditionalism
based on the premise that Christ's humanity was annihilated in death.
25
An Argument from Eschatology
Atkinson employs another argument from systematic theology for
annihilationism, an argument from corporate eschatology. At the very end
of Life and Immortality he appeals to the text most often claimed by
universalists as proof for their position, 1 Corinthians 15:28: 'When he has
done this [when the Father has put everything under the Son], then the Son
himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that
God may be all in all' (NIV). He is not persuaded of universalism by this
text: 'Universalists have looked to this text (for want of a more definite
passage), but it will not sustain their theory.'
26
22 Life and Immortality p I 03
23 Life and Immortality p I 03
24 See my article 'The Hermeneutics of Annihilationism: The Theological Method of
Edward Fudge' Presbyterian 21:1 Spring 1995 pp 25-7, and John W Cooper Body, Soul,
and Life Everlasting (Eerdmans 1989) pp 142-5.
25 LeRoy Edwin Froom The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers (Washington DC: Review
and Herald Publishing Association 1965-6) vol I pp 377-83; Edward Fudge The Fire
That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment
(Houston: Providential Press 1982) pp 228-34
26 Life and Immortality p 112
204
Basil Atkinson: A Key Figure
Rather, he appeals to I Corinthians 15:28 because he regards it as
incompatible with traditionalism:
As long as we hold that the wicked live for ever in conscious misery
in hell and especially if we hold what seems to be the most terrible
aspect of that view, that they continue for ever to sin in hell, this
word of the apostle raises grave difficulties. While sinners live and
continue to sin, how can God be all in all?
27
Although traditionalism cannot accommodate a straightforward reading
of the verse, conditionalism handles it with ease:
But when we come to realize the teaching of the Bible that the devil,
sin, death, wicked men, and all suffering will be exterminated for
ever out of God's creation in the lake of fire, the apostle's statement
lights up with golden glory and it is easy to see that on that great day
and for all the eternity that follows it GOD will be ALL IN ALL.
28
Annihilationism, therefore, unlike traditionalism, demonstrates fidelity
to the Scriptures because it holds to the absolute elimination of evil from
God's new creation. Is Atkinson correct in making this claim? He is not.
As I have argued elsewhere, the key question is what God deems
compatible with his being 'all in all'.
29
And this question is answered
loudly and clearly by the Bible's last three chapters (especially by
Revelation 20:10, 14; 21:8; 22:14-15), where God's final victory does not
involve the eradication of evil beings from his universe. Rather, it means
that he reigns for all eternity over the righteous (on the new earth) and the
wicked (in hell). Subsequent conditionalists, including L E Froom and
John Stott, also argue for annihilationism based on 1 Corinthians 15:28.
30
Arguments Based on Linguistics
As I mentioned earlier, Atkinson was an accomplished linguist who wrote
a Greek grammar. Accordingly, he employed linguistic arguments in
support of annihilationism in Life and Immortality. We will investigate
three.
27 Life and Immortality p 112
28 Life and Immortality p 112
29 'A Traditionalist Response to John Stott's Arguments for Annihilationism' JETS 37/4
December 1994 pp 565-7
30 LeRoy Edwin Froom The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers (Washington DC: Review
and Herald Publishing Association 1965-6) vol I pp 23-5, 269, 301-2, 413-14, 518-19,
and David L Edwards and John Stott Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical
Dialogue (lnterVarsity 1988) p 319
205
Churchman
An Argument Based on Old Testament Precedent
Atkinson is to be commended for his careful work on both the Old and
New Testaments. Life and Immortality is replete with references to Hebrew
and Greek words. Furthermore, he correctly regards the Old Testament as
the most important source for understanding the New. Notwithstanding
these virtues, his work is to be criticized for claiming that the Old
Testament meaning of words and concepts is determinative for
understanding their New Testament counterparts.
Atkinson explicitly enunciates this principle in two places. First, after
discussing the meaning of nefie$ in the Old Testament, he begins to discuss
ljn.Jx-TJ in the New.
When dealing with important Greek words in the New Testament,
especially the great theological terms, we need always to bear in
mind that the Greek words do not bear the particular meanings
which they may have had in heathenism, but always those of their
original Hebrew equivalents in the Old Testament, where the ideas
originated.
31
Later, when writing about the grave, he writes:
The significant original words are sh > ol in Hebrew and haidees in
Greek. As they occur in the Bible they correspond exactly in
meaning. Haidees was the word used in Greek mythology for the
underworld or abode of the dead and it is quite likely as a result of
this that so many have sought to retain this meaning for it in the New
Testament and to transfer the meaning back to Hebrew sh > o/. The
Greek word however in the New Testament is as always governed by
the meaning of the Hebrew in the Old. Both mean the abode of the
dead, but not at all in the sense of heathen mythology.
32
How does Atkinson employ this linguistic principle in his exegesis of
the New Testament? Two examples will show that he uses it to explain
texts which are difficult for conditionalists to handle. First, with regard to
the undying worm and unquenchable fire of Mark 9:43 and 48, he
correctly points out that in this passage Jesus quotes Isaiah 66:24. He then
contends that according to Isaiah: 'In the fire we see eternal destruction
and in the worm the suffering that precedes it.' If one protests that Jesus is
using Isaiah's words to speak of unceasing suffering in hell, Atkinson has a
ready reply. 'Can we extract any other meaning from the evangelist's words
after finding that they are a direct quotation from the prophet without
31 Life and Immortality p 11
32 Life and Immortality pp 42-3
206
Basil Atkinson: A Key Figure
breaking the unity of the Old and New Testaments?'
33
Atkinson's exegesis here is problematic on a number of counts, not the
least of which is his understanding of Isaiah 66:24.
34
But I want to stay
focused on Atkinson's principle that the Old Testament significance of
words is definitive for their counterparts in the New. May we look at a
second example of this principle before evaluating it.
One of the most difficult texts for conditionalist interpreters is
Revelation 20: 10: 'And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the
lake of burning sulphur, where the beast and false prophet had been
thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever' (NIV).
How does Atkinson explain this passage? By twice appealing to his
principle that Old Testament precedent determines the meaning of New
Testament texts:
We have already found the annihilation of the devil foretold in
Ezekiel28:19 and here we see the fulfilment. This lake offire is the
everlasting fire prepared for his destruction (Matt 25:41)... Many
have used this verse and Revelation 14: 10 to sustain the view of
eternal conscious misery for the wicked in hell. This verse is clearly
connected with Revelation 14:10, which gives us the clue to its
interpretation. There we read of the smoke of the torment going up
for ever and ever and we saw from the Old Testament passages on
which the words are based that the torment ends in everlasting
destruction. The meaning here must clearly be the same, or we
should have an intolerable inconsistency. Here it is expressed by the
verb instead of the noun. To be tormented for ever and ever means
the same thing as the smoke going up for ever and ever, that the
torment culminates in everlasting destruction.
35
An evaluation of Atkinson's claim that the meaning of Old Testament
words and concepts is determinative for interpreting their New Testament
counterparts is in order. First, it is important to note that the Bible itself
does not teach this principle. Atkinson assumes that it is self-evident, but
that is not the case.
Second, the Bible sometimes contradicts this principle. I will cite a few
examples. The existence of Old Testament type and New Testament anti-type,
33 Life and Immortality p 11 0
34 See my exposition of this text in Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment
(Presbyterian and Reformed 1995) pp 29-32, where I argue that it teaches eternal
punishment.
35 Life and Immortality pp lll-112
207
Churchman
and of sensus plenior, prove the principle false.
36
One of the most
sustained uses of Old Testament texts is that found in the Epistle to the
Hebrews. Would anyone claim that the way the writer to the Hebrews uses
the Old Testament consistently verifies Atkinson's principle? On the
contrary, Hebrews frequently expands the meanings of Old Testament
concepts when it regards them as earthly precursors of heavenly realities.
Edward Fudge is one conditionalist who argues along very similar lines
to Atkinson, and in my estimation equally unconvincingly.
37
An Argument Concerning the Meaning of r . c : ~
It is common for contemporary annihilationists to claim that used in
biblical passages concerning judgement alwvwc; refers to eternal results
rather than eternal existence.
38
That is, eternal punishment means that the
wicked suffer extermination with no possibility of remedy, their
destruction is once and for all time. This argument can be traced back to
Atkinson, although the source may be earlier still.
39
Atkinson expounds the theory behind this meaning for alwvwc; in his
comments on Matthew 25:46:
'And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the
righteous into life eternal.' Many have relied on this phrase to
support the idea of the everlasting conscious suffering of the wicked,
reading it as if it said, 'everlasting punishing'. This is not the
meaning of the word. When the adjective aionios meaning
'everlasting' is used in Greek with nouns of action it has reference to
the result of the action, not the process. Thus the phrase 'everlasting
punishment' is comparable to 'everlasting redemption' and
'everlasting salvation', both Scriptural phrases. No one supposes that
36 See McCartney and Clayton Let the Reader Understand: A Guide to Interpreting and
Applying the Bible (BridgePoint 1994) pp 153-60.
37 See Edward Fudge The Fire That Consumes. A Biblical and Historical Study of the
Doctrine of Final Punishment (Houston: Providential Press 1982) pp 295-301 and my
critique 'The Hermeneutics of Annihilationism: The Theological Method of Edward
Fudge' Presbyterian 21: I Spring 1995 pp 18-22 especially pp 20-21.
38 LeRoy Edwin Froom The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers (Washington DC: Review
and Herald Publishing Association 1965-6) vol I pp 224, 288-91, 294-5, 441-3; Fudge
pp 44-50
39 Already in 1941 Harold E Guillebaud taught the same thing in The Righteous Judge
pp 7-11: 'The sense of permanence is an essential part of the meaning of"eternal", as
much in its application to judgement and punishment as in its other uses. But the
permanence seems to be attached to the results of the acts or processes themselves.' Since
Atkinson wrote the foreword to Guillebaud's book (p iii), I do not know if one of them
taught it to the other, or if one or both of them learned it from an earlier source. Fudge
(p 48 n 31) traces this argument back to Petavel (1892).
208
Basil Atkinson: A Key Figure
we are being redeemed or being saved forever. We were redeemed
and saved once for all by Christ with eternal results. In the same way
the lost will not be passing through a process of punishment for ever
but will be punished once and for all with eternal results. On the
other hand the noun 'life' is not a noun of action, but a noun
expressing a state. Thus the life itself is eternal. (italics in original)
40
Atkinson applies this principle at appropriate places in Life and
Immortality. So, for example:
The apostle Jude tells us (Jude 7) that the fire which destroyed
Sodom and Gomorrha [sic] was eternal fire. It soon burnt itself out,
but it was everlasting in accomplishing a destruction from which the
cities have never recovered nor ever will. It was everlasting in its
results. Such will be the fire that destroys the wicked. (italics in
original)
41
Guillebaud, Atkinson, Froom and Fudge form a chorus and sing this
argument in unison.
42
How are we to respond to their claims? A full
answer lies beyond the scope of this paper; here I will make only a few
points. First, none of these writers cites a single authority on linguistics for
his argument. In fact, none of them even defines 'noun of action'. I
suspect that 'noun of action' is a category contrived for the sake of this
argument. Until I see some solid linguistic work supporting it, I will regard
the argument as unproved.
Second, Atkinson creates a false disjunction when he asserts that
'eternal' used with nouns of action refers to the result of the action, not the
action itself. Atkinson correctly says that Scripture speaks of 'everlasting
redemption' and 'everlasting salvation'; these expressions occur in
Hebrews 9:12 and 5:9 respectively. He errs, however, when he says: 'No
one supposes that we are being redeemed or being saved forever. We were
redeemed and saved once for all by Christ with eternal results.'
43
Although
it is true that Jesus saves once for all, this does not preclude his also saving
as a process. This latter idea is taught in Hebrews 7: 'Because Jesus lives
for ever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save
completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives
to intercede for them' (vv 24-5 NIV).
40 Life and Immortality p I 0 I
41 Life and Immortality p I 07
42 Guillebaud The Righteous Judge pp 7-11; LeRoy Edwin Froom The Conditionalist Faith
of Our Fathers (Washington DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association 1965-6)
vol I pp 441-2; Edward Fudge The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study
of the Doctrine of Final Punishment (Houston: Providential Press 1982) pp 44-8
43 Life and Immortality p I 0 I
209
Churchman
I conclude that Atkinson's argument based on the word 'eternal' used
with nouns of action suffers from a lack of linguistic research and appears
to be supported by a selective use of the evidence.
An Argument for a Special Meaning of K E L
Although Atkinson usually handles the Bible responsibly, he occasionally
engages in arbitrary exegesis. His treatment of 'the weeping and gnashing
of teeth' in Matthew 24:51 is an example:
Four times in the Gospel of Matthew we are told that on the day of
judgement there will be 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' (Matt 8:12;
22: 13; 24:51; 25:30). The first, second and fourth of these passages
speak of 'the outer darkness' and continue immediately,
'there (Greek etei) will be weeping and gnashing of teeth'. Those
who believe in the eternal conscious existence of the lost believe that
this weeping will be heard for ever in the outer darkness, which they
rightly identify with hell. If however we look at the third passage
(Matt 24:51), we shall see that no place is mentioned. 'There' means
'on that occasion'. It is at the throne of judgement, as the real nature
of the wicked is revealed to them in all hideousness, in despair and
misery because of what they have lost and missed, as they hear the
sentence, perhaps through the temporary suffering, which, as we
shall see, precedes their destruction, that the weeping and gnashing
of teeth are heard.
44
On the contrary, the expression 'EKEL ~ T T X L o KAau9J..LO<; Kai o
[3pvyJ..LO<; Twv bMvnuv' ('there there will be weeping and gnashing of
teeth') is exactly the same in the four texts cited above. And according to
Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker (2) (p 239) EKEL is an adverb of place in its
every occurrence in the New Testament. In fact, Atkinson's rendering of
EKEL in Matthew 24:51 as 'on that occasion', in an attempt to avoid the
idea of hell as a place, is arbitrary and unsupported by any lexicon. I know
of no conditionalist who followed him in this.
Arguments Based on Hermeneutics
A Literal Hermeneutic Is To Be Preferred
On the first page of the introduction to Life and Immortality, and
frequently thereafter, Atkinson shows his preference for a literal
hermeneutic. 'In the book I seek to prove that throughout the Bible the
terms "life" and "death" are used and to be understood in their natural,
44 Life and Immortality p I 00
210
Basil Atkinson: A Key Figure
normal and elemental meaning. '
45
Repeatedly Atkinson expresses his
preference for words' 'simple ordinary meaning ... the literal simple
meaning', 'the natural and ordinary meaning', the 'simple sense and
natural meaning', and 'their natural meaning' .
46
Atkinson charges those who depart from the simple sense with 'making
of Scripture an unintelligible Chinese puzzle'. Instead, he asks: 'Is it not
better and easier and safer and happier to believe God's Word exactly as it
stands?'
47
At times he rejects his opponents' views because they are not
stated in plain language in Scripture. For example, he studies the common
sense of 'death' in the Bible and finds it to mean cessation of existence.
He insists, therefore, that it is a simple matter to understand the biblical
expression 'the second death'. Since words carry their ordinary meaning,
'the second death' also indicates termination of existence:
Unless therefore the Bible gives us a definition of the second death
in which it shows the term to have a special meaning, we surely have
no right to read into the word anything different from its natural and
ordinary meaning ... The lake of fire is ... defined as the second
death.
48
However Atkinson follows his own principles of exegesis inconsistently.
His interpretation of numerous texts which are difficult for annihilationism
to accommodate is hardly natural and ordinary. A few examples will
suffice.
He claims that, although many have understood the lake of fire to mean
eternal conscious punishment, 'an intelligent, even a quick reading of
Revelation 20:14 and 21:8 will show us that ... the lake of fire is there
defined as the second death. The punishment of sin is thus cessation of
life.'
49
On the contrary, when I apply an ordinary hermeneutic to Revelation
20: 10 where we read 'the devil. .. was thrown into the lake of burning
sulphur. .. ' and 'will be tormented day and night for ever and ever', I
conclude that the devil 's punishment in hell will never end. And when I
read four verses later of wicked human beings being 'thrown into the lake
of fire', I understand, unless the plain and simple sense deceives me, that
humans too will suffer in hell endlessly.
45 Life and Immortality p iii
46 Life and Immortality pp 3 7, 84, 90, 99
47 Life and Immortality pp 30, 40
48 Life and Immortality p 83
49 Life and Immortality p 83
211
Churchman
Indeed, Atkinson's exegesis of disputed texts is often not literal. Another
example is his treatment of the fire and smoke of Revelation 14:10-11.
There we read concerning the idolater of the last days: 'He will be
tormented with burning sulphur in the presence of the holy angels and of
the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever.'
How does Atkinson understand the fire and the smoke? He fails to
comment on the burning sulphur of Revelation 14: 10 in Life and
Immortality, but he does interpret it in his commentary on Revelation, The
War with Satan:
'He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone ... ' This will happen
on the day of judgement at the end of the world. But what does it
mean? Later in the Book we are told of a lake of fire and brimstone,
but it is a picture of something. It is a picture of the second death ...
But this does seem to mean that those who worship the beast will on
the day of judgement be consumed in flames or placed alive in
flames in order to perish.
50
So, according to Atkinson, the burning sulphur of Revelation 14:10 will
consume the wicked so that they exist no more. How, then, are we to
understand the smoke of their torment that 'rises for ever and ever'?
Atkinson answers in Life and Immortality:
We notice that the smoke of the torment goes up for ever and ever.
This is the second good reason why the torment here cannot be
eternal suffering in hell. The ascent of the smoke shows that the
stroke of judgement is over. .. The torment is the suffering that like
that of the Lord Jesus had its climax in death. The ascent of the
smoke for ever and ever proves the judgement to be eternal
destruction. (italics in original)5
1
Atkinson, therefore, teaches that Revelation 14: 10-11 means that the
wicked will be annihilated by the burning sulphur and that consequently
the smoke bearing witness to that annihilation will rise for ever. Is this
straightforward interpretation of the imagery? Hardly. If, as Atkinson
insists, the fire is to be taken in its ordinary sense denoting consumption,
then what are we to label the sense given to the smoke? Surely not
ordinary. How can smoke continue to rise after the fire's fuel is consumed?
Does not the imagery convey the idea of everlasting burning witnessed to
by the ever rising smoke? Indeed, the popular dictum, 'where there's
smoke, there's fire', holds true here. John uses an earthly picture of a fire
burning and giving off smoke to describe the torments of hell as
50 Basil Atkinson The War with Satan (London: Protestant Truth Society 1940) p 124
51 Life and Immortality p I 08
212
Basil Atkinson: A Key Figure
everlasting. Atkinson's interpretation, although followed by succeeding
conditionalists, must be labelled as an evasion of the text and not a literal
exegesis.
52
Critique
The fundamental problem with Atkinson's advocacy of an 'ordinary'
hermeneutic is that he never defines his terms, he never says what he
means by 'literal' interpretation. Vern Poythress has helpfully explored
some of the problems arising from a lack of precise definition of literal
interpretation.
53
If by 'literal' Atkinson means grammatical historical
interpretation, then he does not consistently employ the hermeneutic that
he espouses. In fact, he is especially guilty of departing from his
hermeneutic when he deals with the texts upon which the traditional
doctrine of hell has been based.
This raises issues of the interrelation of exegesis and systematic
theology that go beyond the purposes of this paper. I will say only that
Atkinson 's example confirms the theses of McCartney and Clayton that:
'A person's systematic theology forms the grid for his or her interpretation
of biblical texts ... ' and that one reason why someone chooses a particular
method of interpretation is 'its fruitfulness and the degree to which it
produces results in harmony with previous results'.
54
Appeal to the An alogia Fidei
At least since the time of Augustine, Christian theologians have appealed
to the analogia fidei when interpreting Scripture.
55
This is the idea,
grounded in a commitment to the Bible's doctrinal unity, that the teaching
of any passage must be understood in the light of the teaching of all of
Scripture. Atkinson makes frequent appeal to the analogy of faith in Life
and Immortality.
The background for this appeal is his dedication to the authority of the
Scriptures, as enunciated on the first page of his book:
We shall not turn to human speculation or wishful thinking nor to
doctrines held on the authority of any church, however ancient or
52 See Edward Fudge The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the
Doctrine of Final Punishment (Houston: Providential Press 1982) pp 298-9; John Stott
Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue (lnterVarsity 1988) p 318.
53 'What Is Literal Interpretation?' Understanding Dispensationalists (Zondervan 1987)
pp 78-86
54 McCartney and Clayton Let the Reader Understand: A Guide to Interpreting and
Applying the Bible (BridgePoint 1994) p 66
55 On Christian Doctrine 3:2
213
Churchman
widespread they may be. The true believer will not be satisfied to
take his faith or doctrine from any other source but God's Word. 5
6
Atkinson is to be commended for this, as well as for his express
commitment to the coherence of biblical teaching. 'No one who believes
that the Scriptures are God's Word written can believe that they can be
inconsistent with themselves.' 5
7
How does Atkinson employ the analogia fidei? In part he uses it to
handle passages which he finds difficult to integrate with his theological
commitment to soul sleep and annihilationism. We shall examine three
examples.
In his study of the words'>a/ Atkinson considers Job 21:13 'a neutral
reference', that is, one which could be taken to fit his theology or to
contradict it. I think that s' > 61 in this verse means 'the grave' and therefore
fits his view, but that is beside the point. We are interested in Atkinson's
methodology, in his reasons for reaching his conclusions. Here is his
explanation:
In Job 21:13 there is what we might call a neutral reference. In
isolation sh>ol might here be a lower world of ghosts or shades. We
have however noted several passages in which sh > ol could not have
this meaning, but must mean the grave. This shows how hasty
conclusions from isolated texts can lead into error. All that Scripture
says on a given subject must be taken together and compared. 5
8
Atkinson's explanation contains both truth and error. It is true that
theologians must take into account 'all that Scripture says on a given
subject'. It is false, however, to deduce from this the principle that biblical
words must always have the same meaning, or that the full teaching on a
particular subject is given in every place. The first error, to think that
words always have the same sense, is the prescriptive fallacy. The second,
to insist that each occurrence of a concept carries the sum of the Bible's
teachings on that subject, is an example of the linguistic fallacy of
illegitimate totality transfer put to the service of theology.
59
I cite a second instance of Atkinson 's abuse of the analogy of faith.
When he approaches the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, he admits:
'We now reach the strongest figurative language about the grave (haidees)
to be found in the whole Bible.' How, then, will he handle the difficulties
56 Life and Immortality p I
57 Life and Immortality p I
58 Life and Immortality p 45
59 See SilvaBiblical Words pp 25-7.
214
Basil Atkinson: A Key Figure
this parable poses for his theology? In two ways. First, by misrepresenting
his opponents, claiming they take the parable literally. Second, by
appealing to the rule of faith:
Many have seen in this parable a literal description of the world to
come and have rushed to the conclusion that it teaches the survival
of the 'soul' or spirit after death, forgetting that if it does so it
contradicts the consistent teaching of all the rest of Scripture.
However, if we study the parable in detail, we shall see that it is
utterly impossible to regard it as literal teaching about the world to
come.
60
Of course the parable does not offer literal teaching about the world to
come. It offers parabolic teaching about it! And that teaching contradicts
Atkinson's commitment to soul sleep. Consequently, he resorts to forced
explanations. His interpretation, for example, of the fire mentioned in the
parable as signifying 'the loss of life' is unconvincing, when the parable
connects the fire with 'agony' (v 24).
I offer a third instance of Atkinson's abuse of the analogia fidei. Jesus'
words to the dying thief, 'Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with
me in Paradise' (Luke 23:43 AV), constitute a challenge to the doctrine of
soul sleep. Atkinson admits this:
As they [the words] stand they strongly imply, if they do not require,
the survival both of the Lord Jesus and of the thief in a disembodied
state after their death and their presence together in Paradise on that
day, and in this sense they are very often taken, with every excuse in
the case of those who do not know the original, although they
contradict everything that the Bible has to say elsewhere on the
subject.
61
At the end of the quotation Atkinson offers his two solutions to the
problem this passage poses for his theology. He appeals to the analogia
fidei to insist that Luke 23 cannot mean what many have assumed.
Because the Bible's teachings cohere, and because Atkinson has
established that the Bible teaches soul sleep, this passage cannot possibly
teach the survival of souls in an intermediate state. There is no
intermediate state. No text, therefore, can contradict 'everything that the
Bible has to say elsewhere on the subject'.
Atkinson's second solution to the problem posed by Jesus' words to the
dying thief is to appeal to the Greek:
60 Life and Immortality p 49
61 Life and Immortality p 74
215
Churchman
When however we look into the original we find that, although the
words can quite well be translated as they are in our version [the
AV], they can be translated even more agreeably to the Greek,
'Verily, I say unto thee today, Thou shalt be with me in Paradise'.
62
I suspect that this punctuation fits far 'more agreeably' with Atkinson's
theology than it does with the Greek. Indeed, I have not been able to find a
single translation that follows this punctuation.
63
Evaluation
We studied two hermeneutical arguments that Atkinson used to make his
case for conditional immortality and annihilationism. His contention that a
literal hermeneutic is preferable was examined and found to be naive. In
practice much of his exegesis is not 'ordinary'. Rather, he seems to use
various methods of interpreting texts that he finds difficult to correlate
with his theology.
I also criticized Atkinson's appeal to the analogia fidei to handle texts
that he could not easily integrate with his beliefs. The difficulty does not
lie with Atkinson 's appeal to the rule of faith. All conservative theologians
do so. The problem lies with his timing for making such an appeal. He
invokes the analogy of faith before he treats difficult texts, thereby
prejudicing his exegesis. Instead, we should honestly grapple with biblical
passages, being open to God's changing our theologies. Only after
exploring the options should we appeal to the analogia fidei. That is, such
an appeal must not keep us from honest exegetical investigation, but must
rather follow that pursuit.
Conclusion
I have briefly surveyed Basil Atkinson's career and exmained his case for
conditionalism. I admitted that his arguments appealing to emotion
influenced many, but these arguments considered rationally are fallacious
and therefore lack cogency.
His arguments from systematic theology fare no better. His argument
from Christology, where he contends that Christ was annihilated on the
cross, contradicts Chalcedonian orthodoxy because it implies that our
Lord's natures were separated at death.
A second theological argument, this time from eschatology, also proved
62 Life and Immortality p 74
63 I thank Alan Gomes of Talbot School of Theology for pointing out that the Jehovah's
Witnesses' interlinear, The Emphatic Diglott, contains this punctuation.
216
Basil Atkinson: A Key Figure
unconvincing. Although conditionalism claims to be better able to
accommodate 1 Corinthians 15:28 than traditionalism, the claim is not
substantiated because it founders on the last two chapters of the Bible.
There the end indeed involves God's being 'all in all'. This, however, does
not consist of evil beings' banishment into non-existence, but their
banishment from the new heavens and new earth.
Neither were Atkinson's arguments based on linguistics compelling. His
claim that the meaning of Old Testament concepts is determinative for
their New Testament counterparts is itself not biblical, but instead runs
counter to the way the New Testament sometimes treats the Old. The
argument that atwvLOc; used with nouns of action refers to the results of
the action, not its process, is contrived. It constitutes special pleading to
avoid the symmetry between eternal life and eternal punishment in texts
such as Matthew 25:46. The same is true of his claim that K ~ means 'on
that occasion' in Matthew 24:51. This claim is arbitrary, and therefore not
persuasive.
Finally, I critiqued Atkinson's hermeneutical arguments. His claim that
he follows a 'literal' hermeneutic was marred by a lack of definition of
terms and, more importantly, by his inconsistency in applying his 'natural'
hermeneutic to difficult texts. He uses the analogia fidei as a device to
correlate problem passages with his theology. The result is a tortured
exegesis of these passages.
I rejoice in the overall godly influence that Basil Atkinson exerted on his
disciples. He showed them that one could think and be an evangelical
Christian. His exemplary life and solid writings strengthened them in their
faith. The one serious exception is his case for conditionalism. I lament
that, with all the good, this too was bequeathed to his theological heirs.
ROBERT A PETERSON is Professor of Systematic Theology at Covenant
Theological Seminary, St Louis, Missouri.
217