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?

[xone]

And again, the devil and his angels are not humans.

But: Matt 24:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: (The Lord is speaking here) Also, you are using Revelation, which is a book of symbols.

Same John that wrote the Gospel by the same name, 3 epistles. Hell in Revelation is the same hell referenced elsewhere specifically by Christ in the above passage. It isn't one of your symbols.

[angryoldfatman]

I will not engage in discussion of philosophies as they are all men’s wisdom.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Then do not discuss Hades, the invention of men and their supposed wisdom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_underworld

http://facultyblog.eternitybiblecollege.com/2012/07/how-plato-messed-up-the-church/#.WD9t_vkrI1I

[xone]

I’m talking about churches that preach the “turn or burn” message, which is not scriptural.

Uh yeah it is, it is the scriptural message of the Law. Presented alone in church is unscriptural. The Law convicts the sinner but presents no antidote, no sentence or message but death.

[Mr. Douglas]

I was going to go into a long diatribe. Instead, let me quote from here: http://rethinkinghell.com/explore/

The phrase eternal fire evokes in the mind of the traditionalist a picture of the unsaved burning and suffering in flames for all eternity. And it is assumed that this eternal fire, prepared for the demons, is the same lake of tormenting fire found in the symbolic imagery of Rev. 20. But the text indicates that it is the fire which is eternal, not those thrown into it. And the use of the phrase elsewhere indicates that eternal fire utterly destroys and reduces to lifeless remains.

Jesus uses the phrase elsewhere, in Matthew 18:8, and his admonition there, also recorded in Matt 5:30 and Mark 9:43, likens final punishment to Gehenna, a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew “valley of [the sons of] Hinnom,” which was once a place where idol worshippers burned up children as sacrifices to their gods. But Jeremiah 7:32-33 says that Gehenna would become “the Valley of Slaughter . . . And the dead bodies of this people will be food for the birds of the air, and for the beasts of the earth, and none will frighten them away.” Isaiah 30 speaks of God’s fiery vengeance upon Gehenna, likening it to a funeral pyre, which is a pile of wood for burning up corpses.

Another place the phrase eternal fire is used is in Jude 7, where Jude writes that Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities “serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” Jude explicitly states that the cities suffered the punishment of eternal fire, as many theologians admit. No wonder the parallel in 2 Peter 2:6 refers to their having been reduced to ashes.

The punishment of eternal fire is therefore not suffering for eternity as everlasting fuel for its flames. Rather, it is the punishment of being utterly destroyed, completely burned up, reduced to nothing but lifeless corpses and ashes by a fire that is eternal insofar as it cannot be quenched—no mere earthly fire but an eternal fire from God.

[Mr. Douglas]

BTW, the link I referenced will still require you to select the “scriptures” tab and then the Traditionalism tab under it. Then select the Matthew 25:41 horizontal bar.

You will notice there is a horizontal bar for a LOT of the scriptures used by Traditionalists to support ECT. Each one, when you click on it, contains the scripture in question along with comments on the meaning of the text.

[xone]

So, being burned up pays for your sins. Non-scriptural. More of a redefinition of God. Scriptures says only by faith in Christ and by His blood can sins be remitted. Now there is another way. It is nicer than Biblical truth, so it attracts those who can’t fathom a just God who keeps His promises. Substituting one who wouldn’t be so mean. Just what an itchy ear needs.

[xone]

I’ve read these references, you and I have been around on this. My responses have been for those who seek a biblical answer and avoid the error of this ‘new’ idea.

[Mr. Douglas]

My responses have been for those who seek a biblical answer and avoid the error of this ‘new’ idea.

---

I get that, but just for the record, two things:
1. it is not “new”.
2. Martin Luther’s ideas were “new”.

And just as with Martin Luther’s ideas, what brought the ideas to the surface was a renewed ability of all Christians to access and read God’s word. In the modern case it is easily available internet searches, greek lexicons, etc. Just one example: At no time in my entire time as a Christian (from 1981) did any pastor reveal to me that the word “Hell” in the KJV was translated from the word Gehenna, nor did they clarify the meaning of Gehenna and its history.

Today, any Christian can go to Biblehub and other sites and look it up themselves. It is sort of a modern Martin Luther. :-)

[Mr. Douglas]

So, being burned up pays for your sins. Non-scriptural. More of a redefinition of God. Scriptures says only by faith in Christ and by His blood can sins be remitted. Now there is another way. It is nicer than Biblical truth, so it attracts those who can’t fathom a just God who keeps His promises. Substituting one who wouldn’t be so mean. Just what an itchy ear needs.

---

Actually, it is quite scriptural. It’s actually more scriptural than the ECT teaching. That’s my point. As more and more open minded believers are exposed to the scriptures presented by BOTH sides of this argument, more and more believers are coming to the CI side, and for obvious reason.

[Mr. Douglas]

Eternal Conscious Torment. ECT

[Mr. Douglas]

Sorry, what I meant by “turn or burn” was “accept Christ or forever be consciously tortured in hell.”

That Message.

I agree with you that the lost die at the second death. It’s why it is called death. ;-)

[PeterPrinciple]

Jesus never used the word “hell”. He used the word Gehenna.

---

The good news is that you are in the Bible. I always personally find that to be exciting, and then I think about it.

1Ti 6:4 Anyone who teaches something different is arrogant and lacks understanding. Such a person has an unhealthy desire to quibble over the meaning of words. This stirs up arguments ending in jealousy, division, slander, and evil suspicions.

You argue that eternal punishment doesn’t mean forever, it is a period of time, and that it is meant for correction.

Well then you have to argue that ETERNAL LIFE is just for a period of time and doesn’t last forever either.

You major in minors, and minor it majors. You need to seek higher ground.

Pro_20:12 Ears to hear and eyes to see—both are gifts from the LORD.

Jesus favorite quote was “ear to hear”. May you hear his voice and not mine.....................

[Mr. Douglas]

You argue that eternal punishment doesn’t mean forever, it is a period of time, and that it is meant for correction.

---

No. I don’t believe that at all. I think that may be a universalist thing.

I believe that it IS forever. I just believe it is a condition, rather than a place. Same with eternal life - immortality - given to believers (as opposed to NOT being given to non believers).

And the condition is that you are gone. You are dead, burned up, never to return.

[Mr. Douglas]

You major in minors, and minor it majors. You need to seek higher ground.

---

Actually, the ECT vs CI issue is CRITICAL to me because I believe ECT is seriously damaging the Christian message for two reasons:
1. It is filling churches with people who are there to “hedge their bets” because they are afraid of “what if it is true” and so come to Christ out of fear. But the Gospel is about coming to Him out of desire to be with him in eternity, not fear of being eternally tormented.
2. It destroys the loving God message. The entire bible comes at us in a way we can understand with our human minds. Paul reasoned with people all over the place to bring them to Christ. The Bereans were complimented for SEARCHING WITH THEIR MINDS to see the truth of the Gospel. But when you bring this ECT thing to THINKING non-believers along with the “gospel” of love, it looks ridiculous. And it should. It makes a mockery of Christianity. But when you come to these people and offer the true Gospel of the Bible - that the fate of man from Genesis 3 is death, but the gift of God is eternal life, it is the positive message the gospel presents. We are saved from DEATH. Some will accept it and some won’t, but those that do will do so out of Desire to be with Christ in eternity rather than fear of a mean and vengeful God that created the entire human race with the knowledge that most of them would end up in his horrendous and eternal torture chamber. If the bible taught that, it would be one thing. But it doesn’t. Rather, men who have somehow lost the core of His message, for what ever reason, have embraced that interpretation in hopes that the fear factor would more fill church pews with givers that at least will give some of their money in their lostness to help the cause.

i.e. this is critical to the gospel because of the gross harm ECT teaching has done not only to the great commission, but to the spirits of those that are saved, but have loved ones, many of which will never accept Christ. I’ve seen these people and the constant misery they live, while attending church at every moment the doors are open.