We have considered the pros and cons of four alternative views of the destiny of the unsaved. Total annihilation by an act of God seems a more ruthless form of punishment than even endless torment that is self-imposed. The third alternative, limited punishment, in the dual role of vindication of the law and correction of the lawbreaker, makes much more sense, yet still presents problems until we can be sure that the meaning of the words translated eternal, eternity , and so forth, have been unequivocally established one way or the other. In summary, then, it may be said that almost all the arguments against either annihilation or any kind of restoration tend to be vitiated by poor understanding of what is being rejected. First of all, with the exception of the Universalist view, none of those who argue for these other alternatives would question the certainty of punishment for sin.
Judgment leads to condemnation, and the penalty imposed is commensurate with the offense.
Annihilationists like Basil Atkinson simply argue that men suffer for their sins to the point of extinction. By this means hell is made in some ways an even more awful reality than is suggested by everlasting punishment, which is at least a form of personal survival. Those who see the penalty as a sentence to be served out until the last farthing has been paid do not hold, as some critics imply, that the absence of saving faith still makes the position of the condemned quite hopeless. The advocates of limited penalty would not deny that the man condemned to hell dies in unbelief and therefore cannot be saved on the ground of faith. They would argue rather that whereas faith saves from the penalty of sins, these are not saved from the penalty of sins but suffer that penalty themselves.