Hard looks cut in both directions. If they (the students or faculty) think Tyndale’s confession teaches anti-annihilationism, then the ‘integration of faith and learning’ will require that they take a hard look at this idea that Scripture teaches annihilationism.

For my part, I’ve never been convinced by the biblical data re: annihilationism. As Dr. Franks rightly notes, the ‘is separated from’ relation requires that each of the relata exists. This stands to reason. If A is separated from B, then A stands in the ‘is separated from’ relation from B. In which case, A has the relational property ‘being separated from B’. However, it is reasonable to suppose that no object can have a property without existing. Hence, the separated exist; that is, they aren’t non-existent.

As is correspondence to biblical concepts, even if non-biblical terminology is preferred, as it is here in the case of “separation.” (Note: the NIV translators indefensibly insert “and shut out” in 2 Thess 1:9).

But the corollary of life is not separation. It’s death—understood as cessation, and future privation of life; even forever. This has high conceptual integration (or coherence) with life.

And death is often the biblical concept in this context, rendered also in terms of perishing, and being destroyed.

So although annihilationism might be seen as incompatible with the wording of the SoF, it does seem to pass some even more important tests.

Thanks for the comment. First, the scenario you present isn’t all that challenging since students aren’t required to endorse Tyndale’s Statement of Faith. 🙂 So, let’s recast it as a faculty member since we are required to do so.

If a faculty member accepts annihilationism and agrees that Tyndale’s Statement of Faith rejects it, then you’re exactly right that they’d have to take a “hard look” at the statement. A concern for conceptual integration would seem to give them only two options: 1) reconsider their commitment to annihilationism or 2) reject Tyndale’s statement of faith (they could then either look for employment elsewhere or attempt to have the statement changed). That’s the real point of my post, we should be considered about conceptual integration as well as personal integration, but conceptual integration done well requires we see what follows from beliefs we accept or reject.

My 2c.