David Morrill authored an excellent, timely and much-needed essay here in the Theological Journal entitled “The Novel Heresy of Annihilationism.” An extract:

Every generation of the church faces pressure to revise some aspect of the Christian faith. Sometimes these pressures refine our articulation of doctrine; at other times, they tempt us to surrender it. In recent years, one of the most striking examples of this dynamic has been the renewed push for “conditional immortality,” more commonly known as annihilationism—the view that (underpinning the various permutations of the idea) the wicked do not endure conscious, ongoing punishment but are ultimately destroyed or rendered nonexistent.

What is remarkable is not merely that this view has reappeared, but how suddenly it has done so. For nearly two millennia, the broad consensus of the church—East and West, Catholic and Protestant, patristic, medieval, Reformation, and post-Reformation—has affirmed that final judgment involves conscious, enduring punishment for the unrepentant. Yet in the last few decades, amid shifting cultural sensibilities about justice, suffering, and authority, annihilationism has been rebranded, repackaged, and presented as a fresh “rethinking” of hell. 

As the late John MacArthur has observed in his preaching on the doctrine of hell, annihilationism is, historically speaking, a comparatively recent innovation. It is trendy. It did not arise organically from sustained exegetical breakthroughs within the church’s mainstream, but gained traction primarily in the modern era—often alongside broader theological liberalization and the softening of doctrines deemed offensive to contemporary moral intuitions. 

This historical fact does not, by itself, prove annihilationism false. The church can and does correct itself. But it does place the burden of proof squarely on those who would overturn nearly 1,800 years of near-universal teaching. When a doctrine that has long been settled suddenly requires “reconsideration” precisely at the moment it has become culturally uncomfortable, Christians should exercise heightened discernment. We must ask whether what is presented as retrieval is, in fact, revision.

. . . Furthermore, the timing of annihilationism’s resurgence warrants attention. It has gained a foothold precisely when Western culture has grown increasingly uncomfortable with authority, accountability, and divine wrath. When long-settled doctrines are suddenly “reconsidered” in sync with cultural pressures, the church must be especially vigilant. This does not mean Christians should refuse to engage Scripture afresh. It does mean that revisionist claims must be tested rigorously against the whole counsel of God and the witness of the church throughout history. On both counts—biblical and historical—annihilationism fails.