It is common practice among heretics to meddle with history. When Scripture fails to support their view, they point to some Church "Father" or other who did. Thus, they claim, "the early Church believed...". Catholics are particularly adept at this tactic. Knowing that most Christians don't study history, they have almost free reign with regard to it. With little competent resistance, they brag of the "unanimous assent of the Fathers", knowing full well they don't actually have it, yet claiming they do nonetheless. Apparently, no one believed anything apart from Roman Catholic doctrines until Luther raised his demonic head.
It doesn't take much digging to show that this is false, and when you do so, suddenly the entire conversation shifts. It turns out, when your argument stands or falls on the non-existence of a "Protestant" view in the early Church, Catholics lose every time, and not only because the Bible itself is notably not a Roman Catholic book.
But it's not hard to see why, though totally invalid, the historical argument has such appeal. Although Scripture is the ultimate source of Christian truth, it can be reasonably assumed it would take less than a few centuries to find truth within it. Thus, if a view is relatively new, it can be reasonably assumed those who hold it, at best, are mistaken. Thus, "you're out of step with history" can be seen as almost synonymous with "you're out of step with the Bible".
Being an imperfect human being, even I am occasionally tempted to use such an argument, and I confess to having caved to such temptation. In particular, while I firmly believe the Bible teaches an everlasting Hell, in which the impenitent are tormented day and night, with no rest, forever and ever, I was quite surprised to find that a significant number of Christians do not. Annihilationism, it turns out, is not a view limited to cults, such as The Watchtower. Rather, there are some very faithful and intelligent Christians who nevertheless believe the torment faced by the impenitent has an expiration date. And because it does not affect any Gospel truth, it is entirely possible for a true Christian to believe this.
In the past, I had assumed this view was a recent invention. Officially, it seems it only appears within the aforementioned cults. Unofficially, it's obvious that this is the nicer view, and we live in an era in which facts are often replaced with our feelings. Annihilationism, therefore, had such a strong smell of Modernism that the buzz saw used to manufacture it was likely still spinning. So I began to research, and dialogue with Annihilationists. A key similarity emerged among them: Not one of them knew of any historical writing that spoke of such a view. Not even the author who so arrogantly asserted that if, having spoken with him, I was not a convinced Annihilationist, then I could not be a sincere person.
Thus, I became hardened in my conclusion that Annihilationism was a recent invention. How could it not be? Scripture clearly teaches Hell. I could find no historical reference to Annihilationism. Annihilationists, no matter how often I asked, never provided me with a historical basis for their view. Very few of them could even get past the argument that Hell puts people off Christianity, and so we should cease to preach it for sake of winning souls to Christ.
Thus, I got lazy. Though normally I would not stray too far from Scripture, and certainly wouldn't swap it out for the historical argument, I played the hypocrite, and simply resorted to pointing out that no one in history believed anything other than the traditional view of Hell: That it is an everlasting place of torment for sinners who refused God's gift of grace.
Had I continued in this folly, I have no doubt I would eventually have gotten into a debate I couldn't win. Much like Catholics, who quickly go sheepish when it turns out many people held to a symbolic view of the Eucharist before Luther, whereas the literal view became canon in the 1200s, I would have been humiliated by the existence of historical writings that do teach Annihilationism.
Arnobius of Sicca is a particularly prominent example, as it seems no one disagrees that he was an Annihilationist. This is likely due to his writing that "For they are cast in, and being annihilated, pass away vainly in everlasting destruction. For theirs is an intermediate state, as has been learned from Christ’s teaching; and they are such that they may on the one hand perish if they have not known God, and on the other be delivered from death if they have given heed to His threats and proffered favours. And to make manifest what is unknown, this is man’s real death, this which leaves nothing behind. For that which is seen by the eyes is only a separation of soul from body, not the last end— annihilation." (1).
As Arnobius passed into glory in 330 A.D., this statement alone shows that a competent defence of Annihilationism existed fairly early in Church history. This is not a belief he inherited from the Jehovah's Witnesses, as such a cult would not exist for well over a thousand years. Neither is it an example of some fragile Liberal who believes God is unjust in punishing even the most grotesque of sins. This is a fiery, and more importantly early defender of the Christian faith, explaining to pagans what he believed to be a flaw in the natural immortality of the soul. Citing the teachings of Christ, Arnobius believed the impenitent will meet a complete end, and that a man's "real death" is that which leaves nothing behind.
But as is the common strategy of the Catholic, Anobius' relative obscurity, as well as the fact he never achieved the rank of "Saint" by Catholic reckoning, may be used as an escape route. This is not possible, however, when we discover that St. Irenaeus also seems to have been an Annihilationist. He wrote "For life does not arise from us, nor from our own nature; but it is bestowed according to the grace of God. And therefore he who shall preserve the life bestowed upon him, and give thanks to Him who imparted it, shall receive also length of days for ever and ever. But he who shall reject it, and prove himself ungrateful to his Maker, inasmuch as he has been created, and has not recognised Him who bestowed [the gift upon him], deprives himself of [the privilege of] continuance for ever and ever. And, for this reason, the Lord declared to those who showed themselves ungrateful towards Him: If you have not been faithful in that which is little, who will give you that which is great? indicating that those who, in this brief temporal life, have shown themselves ungrateful to Him who bestowed it, shall justly not receive from Him length of days for ever and ever." (2).
Now, I'm not going to continue showing that Annihilationism has some basis in history, as that is not the goal of this article. Neither am I going to suddenly confess Annihilationism because it has a stronger presence in the early Church than I had previously believed. This would commit the identical fallacy I am attempting to refute. My point with this entire article is to show the frailty of the historical argument. It doesn't work, because at the end of the day, history shows what people believed, but it does not tell us whether they were right to believe it. Scripture alone can do that.
Now, if the historical argument cannot help us settle a debate as uncontroversial as Hell, why are Catholics so confident it will show theirs to be the one true Church established by Christ? There is nothing unique to the Roman Catholic Church that fares so well as Annihilationism when it comes to the historical argument. But when it comes to Scripture, Roman Catholic teaching fails spectacularly.
As Roman Catholicism is a belief system, devoid of body or soul, a time will come when it will be annihilated. But as Scripture says, Catholics won't be, for "...many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt." (Daniel 12:2). The question then becomes which side of that you want to wake up to: Everlasting life, or everlasting shame and contempt? The good news is, the God you already believe in has made the way for the former. The bad news is the Roman Catholic Church teaches another way. A different way. A way that, according to Scripture, is so contrary to the true way that one who teaches it must be considered anathema (Galatians 1:8). Thus, the shame and contempt is a very real possibility for those who follow Rome to the grave. Choose wisely.
References
1. Arnobius of Sicca, The Seven Books of Arnobius Against the Heathen (link)
2. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 34 (link)