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?

[Mr. Douglas]

I’m a member of a site called Rethinkinghell.com and the sister, rethinkinghell in facebook. For me, it all started with this thread that began my turn from ECT to CI:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2240648/posts

[Mr. Douglas]

I was Robroy back then. I posted quite a bit because I was “bench testing” the argument and was looking for anyone to successfully poke holes in it. Nobody ever did. It’s part of the reason I changed my view.

[georgiegirl]

A born again Christian who has a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ spends very little time thinking about hell. It is a real place, Jesus spoke about it a lot. When we have received Him, the fear of death and hell no longer torments us, and our thoughts turn to the joy of living for Him and spending eternity with Him when we are in heaven, our real home. This joy compels us to tell others this good news, so they too could abandon their fear of death and hell for the hope of heaven and the joy of a living relationship with Jesus.

[Mr. Douglas]

It is a real place, Jesus spoke about it a lot.

---

Yes. It is a real place. It is actually a physical place. It is also spoken of in Jeremiah.

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

Jesus is painting a very clear picture of the fate of the lost when He uses that word (Gehenna, which some English bibles translate as “hell”). It is where kings of Judah sacrificed their children by fire.

[Mr. Douglas]

A born again Christian who has a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ spends very little time thinking about hell.

---

You would think that would be true, but it’s almost all the preachers in the bible belt talk about. I know this because I’m in a southern Gospel band that plays at a LOT of churches in Kentucky. The main message I hear is that hell is terrible and you don’t want to go there.

If it was just a benign teaching, that would be one thing, but I believe the hell message damages the Gospel. Thing is, we are to seek His presence out of a desire to be with Him, not out of fear of Him torturing us. The latter may fill pews, but it fills them only with posers hedging their bets.

It also paints God as a MONSTER who created most human beings to be forever tortured. It doesn’t make sense when you actually read His word. Nowhere does God torure his enemies. What he does is destroy them.

[angryoldfatman]

I’m not getting in the middle of a religious dogpile here. Just want to chime in that the Universal Reconciliation doctrine (number 3) is heretical at best, and is a favorite among liberal theology (or non-theology, in the case of Unitarian Universalist) churches.

[GOP_Party_Animal]

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.

I don't find it fascinating because it's splitting hairs; whether you're tortured endlessly or utterly annihilated, Hell is a bad place and you don't want to go there. Who cares about the details? I don't think the Unsaved will meet demons with pitchforks, but those images still convey "Hell is bad" and that's enough information. Like georgiegirl says, keep your mind focused on Heaven, the details of Hell are all bad and don't need contemplation.

I do wonder one thing about this theory though: Why torture the Unsaved for even a finite period of time? There is a Hell, we know that. But what is served for the soul that is tortured and disappears?

[PeterPrinciple]

It also paints God as a MONSTER

---

Yep, a MONSTER who would send his only son to die on the cross. A Holy God, who can have no sin in is presence. A Just God who must punish sin.

But your God is a loving God, he would never do such things because it offends your way of thinking (which is obvious in your comments)............................

He must be Just and Holy. Mercy is at his discretion.

Isa_33:6 In that day He will be your sure foundation, providing a rich store of salvation, wisdom, and knowledge. The fear of the LORD will be your treasure.

Act_9:31 The church then had peace throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria, and it became stronger as the believers lived in the fear of the Lord. And with the encouragement of the Holy Spirit, it also grew in numbers.

This “no hell” concept is a recent LIBERAL view (becoming popular in the mid 1800’s) because it offends human nature. IT has not stood the test of sound doctrine.

[xone]

but it fills them only with posers hedging their bets.

I'll assume you are talking about churches that preach the Gospel of our Lord.

The 'posers' are in a church where they hear the Word of God, faith comes by hearing. If they weren't 'hedging their bets' would they be in church exposed to the Word? Did not Christ die for their sins as well? The Law and the Holy Spirit convict the sinful heart, if they are absent from church how will they hear the remedy.

Nowhere does God torture his enemies.

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.

Hell was created for the Devil and his angels. 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:

[bethelgrad]

I’m a regular reader of the site as well. Sympathetic but not yet convinced.

[SoFloFreeper]

some reformed resources, for a biblical perspective:

http://www.ligonier.org/search/?q=Hell&object_type=Article

[georgiegirl]

God created our soul in his own image, to live forever. It is our choice WHERE we will spend eternity. He has made every effort to put a roadblock to hell for us, He sacrificed His own Son to keep us from going there. He sent the Holy Spirit to convict us of our sin and to lead us into all righteousness. We have the responsibility to submit our own will to this plan of God’s, sometimes referred to as “the foolishness of God”. Such a plan seems foolish to the natural man, but to the one that humbly submits to Him, it is salvation (rescue from hell).

[boxlunch]

I began exploring these concepts because our church is ultra reformed and both my husband and myself had extreme issues with 5 point hypercalvinism once we finally understood what it was really teaching- it is just not Biblical and it logically leads to some very monstrous claims about the nature of God. We are both engineers so we have to sort through things that logically don't make sense, so we've been studying this for a couple of years. As we studied scripture and the writings of the early church fathers, I came across books and articles on Universal reconciliation.

One thing many do not know is that the word used for eternal when connected with punishment is aeonion, which means of an ag or duration of time. It can indicated something that lasts for a specific age and is usually in the context of related to God, or of a quality given by God.

Also the word for punishment is Kolasis which can have the meaning of a redemptive correction rather than the angry wrath. It is painful and severe but the purpose is to bring repentance.

I am leaning toward Universal Reconciliation - my husband has become a traditionalist or Arminian, but I found this article on Annialationism very interesting also, and I am going to study this further.

[Mr. Douglas]

I’ll assume you are talking about churches that preach the Gospel of our Lord.

---

No. I’m talking about churches that preach the “turn or burn” message, which is not scriptural.

[Mr. Douglas]

” Nowhere does God torture his enemies.”

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.

Hell was created for the Devil and his angels. 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:

---

Yeah. I’m sorry I wasn’t more precise. I was talking about past events (OT) and I was talking about Humans. After all, Christ died for humans.

And again, the devil and his angels are not humans. Also, you are using Revelation, which is a book of symbols. Just as the seven churches are not literal lampstands, many of the other alegories/symbols are similar. But I’m trying to re-invent the wheel. Ed Fudge covers it very well in his book and movie.

[Mr. Douglas]

Yep, a MONSTER who would send his only son to die on the cross. A Holy God, who can have no sin in is presence. A Just God who must punish sin.

---

Yes. And He died. He was not eternally tortured. Only the saved are eternal. The lost are destroyed in the second death. Like Jesus, they die, except they are not resurrected after the second death. That is why their condition is eternal.

[Mr. Douglas]

This “no hell” concept is a recent LIBERAL view (becoming popular in the mid 1800’s) because it offends human nature. IT has not stood the test of sound doctrine.

---

Two things:
1. it is not recent. Rather, thanks to the explosion of the sharing of knowledge thanks to the internet, it is gaining the popularity it had 2000 years ago.

It is similar to the things that Martin Luther disagreed with in Catholic teachings that had been the mainline beliefs for a very long time. But they are no longer, and rightfully so.

[Mr. Douglas]

This “no hell” concept is a recent LIBERAL view...

---

Jesus never used the word “hell”. He used the word Gehenna. It is a place with a morbid history. A history His listeners were very familiar with. The message is clear.

[Mr. Douglas]

God created our soul in his own image, to live forever.

---

Yes. Sadly, Adams sin ended it. In fact, it is clear in Genesis that God removed Adam and Eve from the tree of life so they would NOT live forever.