Evangelical conditionalism

[Baptist Believer]

Based on the replies here I will assume everyone here agrees that conditionalism is false doctrine.

And that would be a false conclusion.

So does anyone here hold to this false view of Hell?

When you start the discussion thread like this, why in the world would anyone bother to discuss the matter with you since you have already declared them to have a "false view?" You have displayed no indications that you are open to thinking about the issue, so go on your merry way.

 

[evangelist6589]

And that would be a false conclusion.


When you start the discussion thread like this, why in the world would anyone bother to discuss the matter with you since you have already declared them to have a "false view?" You have displayed no indications that you are open to thinking about the issue, so go on your merry way.

If you have a position then lets hear it. Convince me that conditionalism is a true doctrine. I am waiting..

 

[Baptist Believer]

If you have a position then lets hear it.

I hold to conditionalism, although there are several different types.

Convince me that conditionalism is a true doctrine.

No one can convince another of anything that they don't want to believe. You have already stated your position, so I'm not going to exert a lot of time I don't have on a meaningless exercise. I'm not even keeping up with some other threads at the moment because of deadlines at the office.

Moreover, I don't debate people on the issue because I don't actually understand what is supposed to be the "traditional" position, since I can't figure out how the traditionalists came up with the doctrine from the scripture. Since I truly don't understand the traditionalist view (actually there's a few of them), I'm not sure how to demonstrate it is wrong, since the traditional view apparently believes that everyone has eternal life, not just those who are in Christ. That's contrary to everything I read from Genesis 3 to Revelation 22.

 

[Darrell C]

I'm not sure how to demonstrate it is wrong, since the traditional view apparently believes that everyone has eternal life, not just those who are in Christ.

I think confusion concerning what "Eternal Life" means complicates the discussion. Eternal Life should not be equated to an unending existence, which all men have. We know Scripture teaches that men are not born with "life" from a spiritual perspective, meaning men are born spiritually dead, though they have physical life. Men receive Eternal Life only one way, by being placed into Christ, which is the same as saying being placed into God, which is the same as God indwelling an individual.

So eternal life belongs only to the redeemed, though the lost will exist into eternity. They do not have eternal life, for they do not have life at all, as they are termed "dead," just as we were dead in trespasses and sins.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

It depends on what you mean. If you mean a literal Hell, then Jesus preached little on the topic. If you mean judgment, then he preached a lot.

Do we separate judgment from Hell?


God bless.

 

[StefanM]

I hold to conditionalism, although there are several different types.


No one can convince another of anything that they don't want to believe. You have already stated your position, so I'm not going to exert a lot of time I don't have on a meaningless exercise. I'm not even keeping up with some other threads at the moment because of deadlines at the office.

Moreover, I don't debate people on the issue because I don't actually understand what is supposed to be the "traditional" position, since I can't figure out how the traditionalists came up with the doctrine from the scripture. Since I truly don't understand the traditionalist view (actually there's a few of them), I'm not sure how to demonstrate it is wrong, since the traditional view apparently believes that everyone has eternal life, not just those who are in Christ. That's contrary to everything I read from Genesis 3 to Revelation 22.

I tend to view the "traditional" position as eternal conscious torment. Anything shy of that will be a minority view (at least in Baptist circles).

I personally reject ECT. I don't think it lines up with what the Bible indicates (although I do respect that others have legitimate reasons to disagree with me on that point), and I don't think it matches the character of a merciful God. God's mercy and justice are always present, and conditionalism is a way to punish for sins without actively inflicting torment forever and ever.

Personally, I'd love for universalism to be true (even with a possible purgatory-like hell for punishment/cleansing prior to ultimate salvation), but that's difficult to defend from the Bible.

 

[Darrell C]

Based on the replies here I will assume everyone here agrees that conditionalism is false doctrine.

It might be a good idea to present what you mean by "conditionalism." So far it just seems to be a dispute between how Hell plays into evangelical efforts.


God bless.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I think confusion concerning what "Eternal Life" means complicates the discussion.

Yes, the terminology on this topic means different things to different people.

Eternal Life should not be equated to an unending existence, which all men have.

From where do you draw the conclusion that all persons exist forever? This is the crux of the issue. Plato taught this, but I haven't seen this in the scripture.

 

[JonC]

Do we separate judgment from Hell?


God bless.

In a general sense, yes, I suppose we do, as Peter (in his first epistle) and Paul (in 1 Corinthians 5) dealt with a judgment that was not Hell...but their words were to the church, not in the context of evangelism. Dealing with the consequence of unbelief, I don't see how we can separate this judgment from Hell. In Revelation we read of death and Hades being cast into the lake of fire, which is the "second death". And in the message to the church at Smyrna Jesus proclaims that those who overcome will not be harmed by the "second death".

In other words, we are to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, which includes the judgment and Hell, but is not itself the message of judgment and Hell. Does that make sense?

 

[Baptist Believer]

I tend to view the "traditional" position as eternal conscious torment. Anything shy of that will be a minority view (at least in Baptist circles).

Yes, I tend not to use the term "hell" in these discussions, in favor of "eternal conscious torment," because "hell" means different things in the traditional view and even in the English translations.

I personally reject ECT. I don't think it lines up with what the Bible indicates (although I do respect that others have legitimate reasons to disagree with me on that point), and I don't think it matches the character of a merciful God. God's mercy and justice are always present, and conditionalism is a way to punish for sins without actively inflicting torment forever and ever.

I also reject eternal conscious torment, but not for the reason stated here - although I agree with it. I simply don't find it in the scripture. The lake of fire is a picture of destruction, not maintenance of life.

 

[StefanM]

One important thing to note: conditionalism doesn't necessarily imply immediate destruction of the individual/soul/spirit. A long period of conscious punishment could precede the destruction (and be proportionate to the specific sins of that person).

 

[Darrell C]

In a general sense, yes, I suppose we do, as Peter (in his first epistle) and Paul (in 1 Corinthians 5) dealt with a judgment that was not Hell...but their words were to the church, not in the context of evangelism. Dealing with the consequence of unbelief, I don't see how we can separate this judgment from Hell. In Revelation we read of death and Hades being cast into the lake of fire, which is the "second death". And in the message to the church at Smyrna Jesus proclaims that those who overcome will not be harmed by the "second death".

In other words, we are to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, which includes the judgment and Hell, but is not itself the message of judgment and Hell. Does that make sense?

It does, yes, but it goes off the focus a little, because we distinguish between evangelical efforts and the lost and instruction for those who are already saved.

Christ had much to say about judgment and ultimately, in His most explicit teachings, Hell is in view, and He thought it important to speak on. And we have no greater Model to follow in regards to instruction in righteousness, particularly to those who are lost. While we can separate Paul's (and other writers) teachings between lost and redeemed, in Christ's teachings we have but one audience...those in need of the Redemption He came to accomplish. I think we do well, in our efforts, to follow that model. I would agree with the general perspective you present in that it is not necessary to have a singular focus on Hell and judgment, but, I would also agree with the thought that the Good News is Good News because it is the provision that triumphs over the Bad News, which is quite simply all men are destined for Hell except they find grace from God. Men are born separated from God, are destined for Hell, and that is the problem that needs solution. That is the primary reason Christ came, and I think we see this in His teaching (though we have to maintain a balance between the Ministry He performed under Law and the ministries He performs through the Church in this Age, as we have revelation which was not given to men even during His Ministry. Spoken of, yes, but not revealed as it is through the Comforter).


God bless.

 

[JonC]

It does, yes, but it goes off the focus a little, because we distinguish between evangelical efforts and the lost and instruction for those who are already saved.

Christ had much to say about judgment and ultimately, in His most explicit teachings, Hell is in view, and He thought it important to speak on. And we have no greater Model to follow in regards to instruction in righteousness, particularly to those who are lost. While we can separate Paul's (and other writers) teachings between lost and redeemed, in Christ's teachings we have but one audience...those in need of the Redemption He came to accomplish. I think we do well, in our efforts, to follow that model. I would agree with the general perspective you present in that it is not necessary to have a singular focus on Hell and judgment, but, I would also agree with the thought that the Good News is Good News because it is the provision that triumphs over the Bad News, which is quite simply all men are destined for Hell except they find grace from God. Men are born separated from God, are destined for Hell, and that is the problem that needs solution. That is the primary reason Christ came, and I think we see this in His teaching (though we have to maintain a balance between the Ministry He performed under Law and the ministries He performs through the Church in this Age, as we have revelation which was not given to men even during His Ministry. Spoken of, yes, but not revealed as it is through the Comforter).


God bless.

Yes, I agree. I never indicated that the doctrine of Hell was to be omitted from the gospel message. That was a mistake that Evan made about my post. I said that preaching Hell is not preaching the gospel, that it is a part of the gospel message but it is not the gospel itself.

Man will never accept a Savior without accepts that he needs saving.

 

[Darrell C]

Yes, the terminology on this topic means different things to different people.

And we can't go by what people think Biblical Concepts mean, we must seek to understand what the Bible means when it presents those concepts (eternal separation being a big one, lol).

From where do you draw the conclusion that all persons exist forever? This is the crux of the issue. Plato taught this, but I haven't seen this in the scripture.

From the teachings of Christ and the New TEstament Writers.

I'm out of time so for now I will just point out that when Christ taught about Hell (Gehenna) He teaches in terms of an eternal existence.

For example:


Matthew 25:46
King James Version (KJV)

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


Both fates are identical.

The understanding of "death" in Scripture is something I don't think many put too much thought into. Those who erroneously teach annihilation view the Second Death as a cessation of existence, but the majority of teachings concerning eternal separation/eternal judgment do not imply that, but distinctly teach a state of existence, even though one is termed "dead."

Here is an example of a state of destruction without cessation of existence:


Matthew 10:6
King James Version (KJV)

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

(see also Matthew 15:24)

Now see that same word in relation to eternal judgment:


Matthew 10:28
King James Version (KJV)

28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


When Christ arrived Israel was in a state of destruction not terribly unlike the destruction awaiting those who die outside of God's grace. They had "life," but they did not have eternal life. Likewise, when the lost go into Hell, they will be dead, just as Israel was (the condition all men are born into)...but that does not mean they cease to exist.

On the surface those who teach annihilation seem to have a good case to present (Matthew 10:28 being their best proof-text), but, when you dig a little deeper you find that the "traditional" view that the lost will suffer torment for eternity is the correct position after all.

It's a lengthy study, and I think most would be surprised at just how much there is that has to be considered. Demons understand their fate:


Matthew 8:28-29
King James Version (KJV)

28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.

29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?


The torment they speak of gives no allusion to a cessation of existence, quite the opposite.

And the fate of demons and the lost is the same:


Revelation 14:9-11
King James Version (KJV)

9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.


Revelation 20:10
King James Version (KJV)

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.


So it is just my opinion that while we might not beat people over the head with Hell and eternal punishment, neither do we fail to be honest about what Scripture teaches. Eternal Judgment is one of the primary issues the Comforter has come to convict men about...


John 16:7-9
King James Version (KJV)

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;


...so if it is important enough for Christ to specify this issue, it isn't hard to believe He does so through us when He ministers through us. And note that it is the world He convicts. The convicting Ministry of the Comforter is clearly described as towards those who do not (yet) believe on Christ. This is the ministry the Comforter performs in this Age, so we would think that His message would be found in the message we convey in our efforts.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Yes, I agree. I never indicated that the doctrine of Hell was to be omitted from the gospel message. That was a mistake that Evan made about my post. I said that preaching Hell is not preaching the gospel, that it is a part of the gospel message but it is not the gospel itself.

Man will never accept a Savior without accepts that he needs saving.

One thing I would point out is that an understanding of our condition (as men in our natural state) is not necessarily reliant on specific revelation concerning Hell. Paul gives the example of Gentiles who would be judged according to their response to the internal witness of God (the works of the Law written on their hearts). So I think we might allow for men responding to revelation provided by God which is not specific to the Word of God, for this is the case Paul makes in Romans 2-3. However, in this Age, God is speaking to men through Christ, Who indwells the believer and fashions his understanding according to the Gospel.

Every evangelical effort is going to be, I think, unique to both the understanding of the evangelist as well as the understanding of the hearer. How one approaches each instance should ultimately rely on the leading of the Spirit. He'll know what it is that the hearer needs to hear, and He will draw upon the resevoir of our studies.

I do think that for most the conviction concerning eternal judgment is probably one of the greatest motivators for obedience to the Gospel. I know it played a role in my own conversion, and why wouldn't it, lol, that is precisely what Christ said the Comforter would convict those who do not yet believe about.


God bless.

 

[TCassidy]

Personally, I'd love for universalism to be true (even with a possible purgatory-like hell for punishment/cleansing prior to ultimate salvation), but that's difficult to defend from the Bible.

Amen. Me too. My heart tells me that universalism, or even annihilationism, just has to be true because friends and family suffering the torment of hell fire is just too much for me to accept.

But my bible says differently, so I have no choice but to accept the fact that sin is sin, hell is hot, and eternity is a long time of suffering for unbelievers.

 

[Yeshua1]

I am on a FB group that is into this doctrine. I like reading books on Hell that stir me up for evangelism as any good book should. The other day I challenged the people in this FB group and boy oh boy they responded like a pack of hornets!

So does anyone here hold to this false view of Hell? If so what are your arguments?

Is their view that Hell is not forever, as sinners will one day cease to exist?

 

[Yeshua1]

Amen. Me too. My heart tells me that universalism, or even annihilationism, just has to be true because friends and family suffering the torment of hell fire is just too much for me to accept.

But my bible says differently, so I have no choice but to accept the fact that sin is sin, hell is hot, and eternity is a long time of suffering for unbelievers.

In a way beyond us able to fully grasp, Hell exists as aa a testamet to the glory of God, to his grace and mercy Holiness and Justice!

 

[StefanM]

Amen. Me too. My heart tells me that universalism, or even annihilationism, just has to be true because friends and family suffering the torment of hell fire is just too much for me to accept.

But my bible says differently, so I have no choice but to accept the fact that sin is sin, hell is hot, and eternity is a long time of suffering for unbelievers.

As someone with bipolar disorder, I can sometimes be triggered into a manic or depressive episode because of events or thoughts.

I've had a particularly nasty depressive episode over this very issue. It's horrifying to my mind.

 

[TCassidy]

As someone with bipolar disorder, I can sometimes be triggered into a manic or depressive episode because of events or thoughts.

I am much to arrogant to allow anything external to affect my emotional balance. But I have to admit the very concept of hell bothers me sometimes.

I've had a particularly nasty depressive episode over this very issue. It's horrifying to my mind.

When I stop to think about it I too find the concept horrifying. It causes me to question whether or not I am capable of comprehending the love of God (which I am not). How can a loving God allow such horror and torment? I don't know.

But I do know this. Some day, in the not too distant future, when God calls me home and causes me, with my renewed eternal mind, to better comprehend Him and what He has decreed, I will know that He is right and I was wrong. And the provisions He has made for both the redeemed and the lost are right, and holy, and perfect. Because He is God and I am not.