Conditionalism Vs Eternal Torment Vs Universal Reconciliation

Unsealed.org ^ | 11/29/16 | Gary

[amessenger4god]

I hold to a doctrine that many would probably consider to be unorthodox, some would even dare call it heresy (though notable ministries such as GotQuestions say it is a valid scriptural interpretation, though they reject it).  It's called Conditionalism, sometimes Annihilationism, and in a nutshell it is the belief that the unsaved (those who die apart from Christ) do not possess immortality and after a period of punishment proportional to their sins will be utterly destroyed - body and soul.  A chief proof-text is Matthew 10:28:

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Another proof-text is the most famous verse in the Bible, John 3:16, where eternal life is juxtaposed not to eternal torment, but to having perished:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Thirdly is 1 Timothy 6:16 where the Apostle Paul declares that only God is innately immortal:

...who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.

Throughout Church history there have essentially been three views regarding what ultimately happens to the unsaved:

1. Eternal Torment - this is currently the predominant view in Christianity and has been since Augustine published The City of God in 426 AD.  Proponents believe that the unsaved are consigned forever to hell either immediately after death or after the final judgment described in Revelation 20.  There they will be consciously tormented without reprieve for eternity.  A necessary prerequisite to this belief is the platonic theory that souls are innately immortal and indestructible - called Naturalism.  The major force of the argument in favor of this traditional view is two-fold: first, it has been the predominant view for 16 or 17 centuries, and second, the Bible, especially the New Testament, often uses the adjective eternal in describing the punishment of the wicked.

Key verses: Daniel 12:2, Matthew 25:41, Matthew 25:46, Mark 9:43, Luke 16:19-31, Revelation 14:9-11, Revelation 20:10

Problems: First, only three passages explicitly describe ongoing torment in the afterlife (Luke 16:19-31, Revelation 14:9-11, and Revelation 20:10) and the passage in Luke specifically refers to this torment occurring in hades, a place God later destroys (Revelation 20:14).  The passage in Revelation 14 refers only to the smoke of the torment, not the torment itself, an idiom used elsewhere of both Edom (Isaiah 34:9-10) and Babylon (Revelation 19:3) - places that were or will be utterly destroyed, but whose smoke is not literally ascending in perpetuity.  This leaves only the Revelation 20 passage, which deals specifically with the devil, antichrist, and false prophet.  Second, the vast majority of biblical references to the fate of the wicked describe their ultimate condition as death, perishing, destruction, ceasing to be, knowing nothing, being completely consumed, etc.  Third, theologians have had great difficulty reconciling this view with the normative sense of justice going so far as to invent theological concepts not mentioned in the Bible (e.g. Aquinas' "sins against an infinite God deserve infinite recompense"; compare to Job 35:6, Jeremiah 7:19).  Fourth, the anger and wrath of God appear to become co-equal to the love and mercy of God even though the Bible often paints a different picture where love and mercy are superior (Exodus 20:5-6, Psalm 30:5, 1 Corinthians 13:13, 1 John 4:7-11, James 2:13).  Fifth, various biblical distinctions and eschatological images become erased or melded together in seemingly contradictory ways (e.g. "utter darkness" vs "fire", hades vs the lake of fire, eternal separation from God vs God's omnipresence, etc).  Sixth, poses a problem with the substitionary atonement of Christ - namely that the specific substitution on the Cross was death, not eternal torment.

2. Conditionalism - this was the predominant view in the first two centuries after Christ, with the first major detractor being Athenagoras.  Around 200 AD the Eternal Torment view grew in popularity with the rise of Neoplatonism and Conditionalism became increasingly less popular into the 4th century.  The view holds that human immortality (i.e. eternal conscious life) is conditional upon a relationship with God through Jesus Christ.  Without immortality the unsaved are ultimately cut off from the source of life and therefore will at some point cease to exist having been destroyed in hell - what the Bible calls the "lake of fire" or gehenna.

Key verses: Malachi 4:1, Matthew 3:12, Matthew 10:28, John 3:16, Romans 6:23, 2 Thessalonians 1:9, 1 Timothy 6:16, 2 Peter 2:6, Revelation 20:14-15

Problems: First, it must reconcile the eternal nature of the punishment of the unsaved.  Second, Revelation 20:10 appears to plainly describe the devil, antichrist, and false prophet undergoing eternal torment.  Third, if it is the biblical view, why is it presently held by a minority of Christians?

3. Universal Reconciliation - probably always held by a minority, and first popularized by Origen who heavily emphasized the "restoration of all things", this view holds that all creatures, humans and demons alike, will ultimately be reconciled to God.  Hell is essentially a purgatory of sorts for the unsaved and through Christ's atonement even unbelievers will eventually be reconciled to God.  This view has often been lumped in with broader Universalism, but in all fairness to proponents of this view, they do not teach that all religions lead to God or that all gods are the same being as is found in what is commonly called Universalism.  Instead, reconciliation with God is only possible through Christ and the Gospel.

Key verses: 1 Timothy 2:4, 1 Timothy 4:10, Colossians 1:20

Problems: First, it is at seeming odds with major themes of the Bible such as the finality of judgment, the utter destruction of the wicked, and the necessity of choosing Christ before death.  Second, there is very little scholarly or historical support for this view and no solid evidence it was ever widely held.  Third, of the three views, it has by far the fewest prima facie verses in its defense.  Fourth, it presents an atonement problem of its own: it holds that the unsaved will effectively pay for their own sins in hell until such time as the punishment is over and they can return to heaven, in which case the blood of Christ was not a propitiation for them, but their corrective punishment was.

What personally convinces me of Conditionalism:

1. It seems to me to be the most holistic and comprehensive view from a scriptural perspective and the only view that can account for every verse regarding the fate of the wicked, including verses such as Matthew 11:22-24, Luke 12:47-48, and Malachi 4:1 that are often ignored.

2. It was the predominant view in the first two centuries, even being held by immediate disciples of John.  See also here.

3. It takes passages describing eternal punishment, eternal fire, and eternal destruction as literally as Eternal Torment proponents take them, but instead of the souls of the wicked being eternal, it is the punishment itself and the fire itself and the destruction itself that is eternal - it can't be undone.

4. It allows for a literal substitutionary atonement.  Jesus' death was a literal substitution for our deserved death.

5. It requires no special pleading regarding the character of God.  Justice is normative, proportional, and non-contradictory.  God's love remains His greatest attribute.

6. It makes better eschatalogical sense and doesn't try to mix contradictory verses.  For example, are the unsaved going to suffer in utter darkness (2 Peter 2:17, Jude 1:13) or in a raging inferno (Matthew 25:41, Revelation 20:15)?  Are the wicked going to experience their torment in God's presence (Revelation 14:10) or away from His presence (2 Thessalonians 1:9)?  Eternal Torment proponents have to reconcile these seemingly irreconcilable verses in strange ways, but Conditionalism offers the most straightforward answer: the wicked are utterly destroyed in eternal fire in the presence of God (thus satisfying all scriptures that refer to fire and also the annihilation of the wicked), which results in complete darkness for them and non-existence - like a dreamless sleep.  This is the only way a being can be truly separated from an omnipresent God ("away from the presence of the Lord").

7. It removes pagan and medieval Roman Catholic influences from the doctrine of hell - specifically aspects of Neoplatonism, Augustinianism (whose founder famously began replacing a literal interpretation of Scripture with allegory), certain arguments from Aquinas, and the extra-biblical imagery from Dante's Inferno.

8. Many scholars argue that in opposition to the platonic thought of Jesus' day, the Bible actually teaches quite emphatically and unequivocally that souls are not innately immortal - only God is immortal.  Immortality is reserved for those who trust in Christ.

9. In contrast to widely held doctrines like Trinitarianism, forgiveness of sins, eternal life, the Incarnation, the virgin birth, the Second Coming, a universal resurrection, and others, the doctrine of Eternal Torment is notably absent from every single ancient Christian creed.  I find it fascinating that such a supposedly key doctrine is found nowhere in doctrinal statements that represent almost the entirety of the early Church even though these statements are not silent on the fact that an eschatological judgment is coming for the unsaved.

If this doctrine is so obvious why have Christians largely believed in eternal torment?  Many Christians feel a strong allegiance to whichever view is the majority or "orthodox" view regarding just about every doctrine, but for Believers who want to adhere as closely as possible to what the Bible teaches and believe what the early Church believed, sometimes tradition has to go (Mark 7:7-8).  When considering Christianity at large (including Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy) need I remind you that we Evangelicals hold to a number of minority views already?

- Salvation through faith apart from works
- Dispensationalism
- Pre-tribulational rapture
- No transubstantiation
- No Immaculate Conception, perpetual virginity, or Assumption of Mary
- No praying to Mary or other deceased saints

Dr. David Reagan offers a powerful and concise explanation of Conditionalism as evidenced from the Bible here.

If you're interested in learning more about this topic here are some much more in-depth biblical studies:

Ask a conditionalist (annihilationist)... Edward Fudge responds

The Roots of Opposition to Conditionalism

Hell: Eternal Torment or Complete Annihilation?

[DouglasKC]

Second, Revelation 20:10 appears to plainly describe the devil, antichrist, and false prophet undergoing eternal torment.

Good article. The fact that the earliest Christians believed in Conditionalism should be good enough. Here's how to reconcile Rev 20:10 with this.

Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

The word "Are" is added to he greek text. This is show in the King James (and others) by the italics. However the word that makes the most sense in the context of the beast and false prophet being mortal and dying in the fire is "were". It's just as grammatically correct. So the beast and false prophet WERE thrown into the lake of fire and the devil, a spirit being NOT mortal, will be tormented day and night forever.

[Mr. Douglas]

Again, hell is a made up place. Jesus spoke of Gehenna, a real place with a sordid history, as an allegory for the permanent fate of the lost. He also used the example of weeds being burned UP. i.e. no longer in existence. It’s really very clear when you forget anyone ever told you about an eternal torture in a fiery “hell”.

The word of God is very clear about the fate of the lost human beings. It is even juxtaposed against the fate of the saved in places like John 3:16 and Romans 6:23. The saved receive eternal life. The lost don’t. The lost are destroyed, die, perish, etc. They are like chess pieces permanently removed from the chess board, as happened to Sodom and Gomorra.

[DouglasKC]

also for reference: The Biblical Truth About the Immortal Soul"

[DouglasKC]

Malachi is listed in the article but it's worth it to present it:

Mal 4:1 "For behold, the day is coming, Burning like an oven, And all the proud, yes, all who do wickedly will be stubble. And the day which is coming shall burn them up," Says the LORD of hosts, "That will leave them neither root nor branch.
Mal 4:2 But to you who fear My name The Sun of Righteousness shall arise With healing in His wings; And you shall go out And grow fat like stall-fed calves.
Mal 4:3 You shall trample the wicked, For they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet On the day that I do this," Says the LORD of hosts.

The wicked are burnt up. Stubble. Ashes under the feet. This is what the scripture of the 1st century SAID would happen to the wicked.

[georgiegirl]

This is told by Jesus Himself, talking about a place called Hades where there is torment:

Luk 16:19-31 "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried.

In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire'. But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'

[Mr. Douglas]

Lazarus and the rich man is a parable. It is not about hades. It is not about the eternal fate of the lost. It is about Judah and his five brothers not believing even when Jesus is raised from the dead.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=lazarus+and+the+rich+man+parable

This is a long but effective rundown of the whole thing:
https://bible-truths.com/lazarus.html

Also, Hades is translated, “the grave”. It is not the eternal fate of the lost, but the fate of all men after the body dies. It is thrown into the “lake of fire” and utterly destroyed.

[georgiegirl]

Their souls and ours, however, do live forever. We would have physically lived forever had it not been for Adam's sin.

Just some scriptures to ponder:

Act 24:15: and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

Rev 20:11-15: Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

[Mr. Douglas]

Yes. all are resurrected at the GWTJ. Then the saved go to eternal life and the lost don’t. They go to their eternal punishment, which is death. It is eternal. They stay dead. They are gone and out of the picture. For eternity.

[Mr. Douglas]

“Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.”

The lampstands are the churches and the lake of fire is the second death according to Revelation. Revelation is a vision crammed with symbolism. The second death is as final as can be imagined when you are tossed into the surface of the sun.

[georgiegirl]

Are you a JW?

[johniegrad]

ECT

Electroconvulsive therapy?

[Mr. Douglas]

No, I’m not JW nor am I SDA.

This is not directed at you, but to ask that question because I believe in CI is a bit like asking a believer in ECT if he is a muslim.

i.e. many of our beliefs do agree with some of the beliefs of other religions, though we may differ from those religions vehemently on other issues.

I used to believe in ECT until I studied it. I find that is the case with a lot of people on a lot of issues. We tend to believe what a “mature” Christian teaches us because they’ve been one longer, or they taught it to us as a child. But often it turns out they learned the same way. And so the circle goes.

Thing is, once one really reads the actual words in the scriptures involving the fate of the lost, it becomes more and more clear. Further, as one reads scripture and prays, one gets more of an understanding of the personality of God. The more I’ve done that, the more the “death” scenario matches His personality in scripture and the less the “ECT” scenario fits.

You’ve heard people say that the bible says that money is the root of all evil, even though most of us know that it is the LOVE of money that is the problem rather than money itself. Well, a similar thing is going on with eternity. It talks of eternal fires, unquenchable fires, worms that don’t die, etc. That is discussing something other than the person affected by it. The method and place may be eternal and the fate of the person may be eternal, but the person is described as destroyed, death etc. over and over in the bible. What kills them may go on but they are, in fact, dead.

Even the scripture about weeping and gnashing of teeth is often twisted. First, gnashing of teeth is a common phrase in the bible. It always means anger. Second, people say that that condition is eternal, but the bible never places a time frame on it. It is purely inferred and, in my opinion, incorrectly so.

I could go on and on. Go to youtube and watch Ed Fudges video (over an hour long) about the fire that consumes or read the book. Check out Rethinkinghell.com. There are some excellent resources there.

The bottom line is that once one comes to the CI position, the whole motivation thing changes. You are Christ’s because you DESIRE to be, not because you are trying to get out of hell. The latter goes against His teaching about salvation.

[georgiegirl]

One of my favorite verses that Jesus speaks is John 5:39-40: "You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about Me, yet you refuse to come to Me to have life".

I say lets you and I come to HIM with all our heart, soul, and mind and leave it to Him to unfold His Word to us in His perfect time. His Word is awesome, and it's wonderful that we both love Him so.

[Mr. Douglas]

I completely agree. I was listening again on my way to work and noticed the Shield is of faith, and the sword is the word of God. The former is a defensive weapon and the latter, offensive.

I listen to the bible roughly 90 minutes every day on my commute. Listening brings a different perspective than reading, but both are valuable.

[angryoldfatman]

Jesus’s disciples understood Greek mythology, Greek being the dominant language spoken in non-Roman lands.

Hades was strictly a place in Greek mythology where the dead went after life. It also involved torment for wrongdoers. Think King Tantalus, for example.

This plus the synthesis of Greek philosophy and scriptural doctrine by the early Church (Plato in particular - ever wonder why angels are always depicted as females? Plato said the immortal soul was female) is what Christianity latched onto with regard to the afterlife.

This also contradicts all Hebrew scripture including the Torah and Tanakh, which Jesus preached from.

[georgiegirl]

That's a wonderful way to study the Bible, I need to make a plan for listening through the Bible too.

What has helped me these past few years, is reading the Bible through the year. I start with Genesis in January and finish in Revelation by end of December. And then start all over again. My favorite order to read it is the "historical" which is the way it was written. Some of my Bibles are in the traditional Hebrew order, and I follow this yearly plan:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9sWnQ8rt7s8TnNON3FrQXBxdlE/view?ths=true

[georgiegirl]

The belief in Resurrection precedes the early church, the Pharisees believed in it, while the Sadducees did not. Jesus demonstrated with His own life, death, and life again that He was, is THE Resurrection.

As far as female angels go, all references in the Bible, Old and New Testament, are male angels-- warriors and messengers. (Gabriel, Michael as examples). Christianity did not latch onto Greek philosophy of the afterlife, Christianity believed and believes in the Resurrected One.

[angryoldfatman]

The belief in Resurrection precedes the early church, the Pharisees believed in it, while the Sadducees did not. Jesus demonstrated with His own life, death, and life again that He was, is THE Resurrection.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

While all of that is true, it is a non sequitur. That has nothing to do with hellfire and brimstone.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As far as female angels go, all references in the Bible, Old and New Testament, are male angels— warriors and messengers. (Gabriel, Michael as examples). Christianity did not latch onto Greek philosophy of the afterlife, Christianity believed and believes in the Resurrected One.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Once again, all true, but a non sequitur.

The belief that the human soul is immortal without God’s gift of eternal life is more of a Greek concept. The idea of a place where people are tormented for eternity is straight from Greek mythology. Nobody who believed the Torah and Tanakh believed such a thing.

The angel thing I mentioned spoke more to popular depictions of them, not the Biblical ones. It doesn’t really describe angels in any detail at all in the Bible; they have an ordinary human male appearance according to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Popular depictions include those back in the Renaissance.
It is no accident that the Church was heavily influenced by Platonic ideals at the time, since (as I mentioned before) Plato wrote that the human soul had a female nature.

[georgiegirl]

There is nothing non sequitur about the Resurrection. It is THE center of the universe. All other philosophies are non sequitur and must submit to the Risen Lord, or fall by the wayside as the falsehood that they are. If there is no hell, there would be no need for Messiah to come and for His piercing on the cross. But what joy! He has risen and so shall we who believe that He lives at this very moment.

I will not engage in discussion of philosophies as they are all men's wisdom. God's foolishness of the cross surpasses such wisdom.

[angryoldfatman]

If there is no hell, there would be no need for Messiah to come and for His piercing on the cross.

---

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

---

Stop with the non sequitur browbeating. The reason for the Resurrection is above, in the poetry of the Apostle John.

Eternal torment is unnecessary for the Resurrection. You have confessed already that the Pharisees knew of the Resurrection before Jesus was born, yet they knew nothing (until long after their scriptures were written) of an eternal hell.

You insist on trying to shoehorn a parable told by Jesus into Christian doctrine, when the parable was a device used to illustrate the hardness of the Hebrew priests’ hearts.

The mention of Abraham’s bosom (is that your idea of eternal reward?) and the last line of the parable “And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead”, are clues to its lack of relevance as doctrine, and more as an illustration to the immediate audience.

Now, until you have enough faith to shove a mountain in a particular direction, let’s refrain from using hyperbole and obvious storytelling devices as hard, concrete doctrine.