Conditionalists: How did you come to your belief?

Post Reply
User avatar
Michelle
Posts: 845
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:16 pm

Conditionalists: How did you come to your belief?

Post by Michelle » Fri Jul 18, 2014 1:16 pm

The title is my question. Mattrose? Jriccitelli? Anyone?

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Conditionalists: How did you come to your belief?

Post by mattrose » Fri Jul 18, 2014 2:44 pm

This is not a very easy question for me to answer because there were a variety of factors and my memory is imprecise :) Therefore, I will type out far more than you likely want and give you a history and then summarize the key factors.

1. I was raised in a Wesleyan church. Like most evangelical denominations, our articles of religion included a statement on the topic and used the phrase 'everlasting misery' to describe the fate of the wicked. Of course, growing up, I never read the denominational articles of religion. Nor did I read the Bible often. Nor did my local church talk about hell much. Nevertheless, somehow the idea of everlasting torment did become my 'default' position.

2. I don't remember questioning the doctrine of everlasting misery during my Bible college years (1999-2003). Once again, I don't think the topic really came up very often. Everlasting misery was just the default view (it was a Wesleyan Bible college in Canada). My only interaction with other views was in studying cults and false religions. Embarrassingly, I simply didn't think about the issue much at all.

3. I do remember listening to Hank Hanegraaff and the Bible Answer Man broadcast in my room somewhat regularly with some of my friends. Either in my seinor year or shortly thereafter, I first encountered Steve Gregg as a guest on that show. The records show that I joined this forum (the old site) in late 2004. To be honest, that is probably when I first began encountering evangelical arguments for other views on hell.

3. I know for sure that it was either 2005 or 2006 when I listened to Steve's talk on the 3 views of hell. I specifically remember doing so during a bike ride from my home to my church. I remember being somewhat shocked by the initial strength of the other two views. By the Summer of 2006, I was already leaning toward 'conditionalism' based on the case the Steve gave for it. In my opinion he exposed some major weaknesses to the everlasting misery position that I had simply never genuinely considered.

4. My favorite way to learn something is by preparing to teach about it. In the Summer of 2006 I began presenting the 3 views of hell in various formats. I did this on my blog http://matthew94.blogspot.com/2006/06/3 ... -hell.html. I presented it to my small group in 2007. To my Sunday School class & the Sunday evening Bible study group in 2008. And at the district level (family camp) as a seminar in 2009. In those years I leaned conditionalists, but was still very open to argument. I never presented conditionalism as the truth. Every time I taught on the issue, I taught all 3 views.

5. By 2009 I had enrolled in a Master's in Theology program at Houghton College and knew the program ended with a thesis paper. I decided early on in the process that I'd write my thesis on the subject of hell. I wanted to really dig into the subject and come to some firmer conclusions. From 2009 to 2012 I did a lot of research on all three views. In the midst of that research I did more fully commit to the conditionalist view (which I prefer to call 'eventual extinction). Even still, my thesis was even-handed (not an argument for that view).

6. Presently, I am content to be labeled a conditionalist. My particular view is a bit more nuanced I suppose. I do not believe that it will be impossible for the wicked to repent postmortem, but I think if they don't they will eventually cease to exist. They will wither to nothing. They will run out of power (like an laptop disconnected from a power source). I have no idea how many people will cease to exist and how many will repent in hell. I don't even think God knows (I am also an open theist). I think the fact that the future doesn't exist (and therefore cannot logically be known) might explain why there are some passages that are hopeful about universal reconciliation and other verses that seem to clearly say the wicked will be consumed.

In sum, I would say the key factors that led me to believe in the eventual extinction of the wicked were as follows:
1. Becoming aware (through Steve) that there was a case to be made!
2. Becoming aware (through Steve) that there were respectable evangelicals who took that position (Stott, Pinnock)
3. Studying the Scriptures for myself to see that the case was strong
4. Reading Edward Fudges book 'The Fire that Consumes'
5. Forming a theology centered on LOVE has cemented my opposition to everlasting misery
6. Discovering that most people are impressed by the case for conditionalism once they hear it
7. The fact that I've yet to come across very good arguments against the view
8. The realization that the 'immortal soul' is not really a biblical doctrine was a key factor

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Conditionalists: How did you come to your belief?

Post by mattrose » Fri Jul 18, 2014 3:59 pm

I was thinking about this a bit more and I'd have to say that the #1 'argument' that finally convinced me was simply this: I became convinced that God alone is immortal. Man is mortal. Therefore, for everlasting misery to be true, God would have to be purposefully keeping people alive so they could experience such misery. Knowing God, I find that incompatible with His character.

But I couldn't go to the other extreme (eventual restoration) dogmatically b/c I believe love is the center and theology and love requires genuine choice. Not even God, having set up a world according to these values, can guarantee a particular free choice from all members of creation.

User avatar
jaydam
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:29 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Conditionalists: How did you come to your belief?

Post by jaydam » Fri Jul 18, 2014 5:15 pm

My journey began when I left my childhood faith in my teens and lived apart from God for almost 2 decades. While I lived an evil life, I came across many incredible, generous, and loving people in the world who were unbelievers. This just served to solidify my rejection of a religion and God that called for these people to be eternally tortured when many of them were nicer to me than many a Christian ever was.

Upon having a God encounter in 2011, I came running to him, but I still struggled with the traditional views of many things, including hell. It was one of the top things on my list to study out.

Shortly after becoming a Christian, I read Rev 21:8 about the second death. This single verse launched me into conditionalism. I could not understand why we would consider the first death to mean a cessation of existence, but the second death would not. No suitable answer has yet been provided to me why we think the first death deals with mortality, but the second deals with a separation from God and a deliverance into eternal torture.

Besides my belief that a further study of scripture regarding the idea in this verse lends itself to conditionalism, I also found myself ok with that as a cessation of existence here in the first death and a cessation of existence "there" in the second death would mean that the nice unbelievers I ran across are not being eternally tortured.

While many since have told me that my inclination to find a nice end for the nice people has clouded my interpretation of scripture. I say "yes," the love of God in me now does give me an inclination to read his word accordingly, additionally, even before I was saved, the littlest vestige of God's image I had that is common to all humanity also recognized something must be wrong with the picture of eternal torture for at least those who mean well and do the best they can in life and towards others.

I consider myself a conditionalist from the majority of the evidence, but a hopeful Christian universalist from the love I have for all people and a few pieces of scripture.

Edit: I should add that I do not believe physical death is the end of opportunity to choose God.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Conditionalists: How did you come to your belief?

Post by steve » Fri Jul 18, 2014 8:10 pm

This is a cool thread (thanks, Michelle, for starting it!). I like to read of the theological pilgrimages of others.

User avatar
Michelle
Posts: 845
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:16 pm

Re: Conditionalists: How did you come to your belief?

Post by Michelle » Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:12 am

mattrose wrote:This is not a very easy question for me to answer because there were a variety of factors and my memory is imprecise :) Therefore, I will type out far more than you likely want and give you a history and then summarize the key factors.

1. I was raised in a Wesleyan church. Like most evangelical denominations, our articles of religion included a statement on the topic and used the phrase 'everlasting misery' to describe the fate of the wicked. Of course, growing up, I never read the denominational articles of religion. Nor did I read the Bible often. Nor did my local church talk about hell much. Nevertheless, somehow the idea of everlasting torment did become my 'default' position.

2. I don't remember questioning the doctrine of everlasting misery during my Bible college years (1999-2003). Once again, I don't think the topic really came up very often. Everlasting misery was just the default view (it was a Wesleyan Bible college in Canada). My only interaction with other views was in studying cults and false religions. Embarrassingly, I simply didn't think about the issue much at all.

3. I do remember listening to Hank Hanegraaff and the Bible Answer Man broadcast in my room somewhat regularly with some of my friends. Either in my seinor year or shortly thereafter, I first encountered Steve Gregg as a guest on that show. The records show that I joined this forum (the old site) in late 2004. To be honest, that is probably when I first began encountering evangelical arguments for other views on hell.

3. I know for sure that it was either 2005 or 2006 when I listened to Steve's talk on the 3 views of hell. I specifically remember doing so during a bike ride from my home to my church. I remember being somewhat shocked by the initial strength of the other two views. By the Summer of 2006, I was already leaning toward 'conditionalism' based on the case the Steve gave for it. In my opinion he exposed some major weaknesses to the everlasting misery position that I had simply never genuinely considered.

4. My favorite way to learn something is by preparing to teach about it. In the Summer of 2006 I began presenting the 3 views of hell in various formats. I did this on my blog http://matthew94.blogspot.com/2006/06/3 ... -hell.html. I presented it to my small group in 2007. To my Sunday School class & the Sunday evening Bible study group in 2008. And at the district level (family camp) as a seminar in 2009. In those years I leaned conditionalists, but was still very open to argument. I never presented conditionalism as the truth. Every time I taught on the issue, I taught all 3 views.

5. By 2009 I had enrolled in a Master's in Theology program at Houghton College and knew the program ended with a thesis paper. I decided early on in the process that I'd write my thesis on the subject of hell. I wanted to really dig into the subject and come to some firmer conclusions. From 2009 to 2012 I did a lot of research on all three views. In the midst of that research I did more fully commit to the conditionalist view (which I prefer to call 'eventual extinction). Even still, my thesis was even-handed (not an argument for that view).

6. Presently, I am content to be labeled a conditionalist. My particular view is a bit more nuanced I suppose. I do not believe that it will be impossible for the wicked to repent postmortem, but I think if they don't they will eventually cease to exist. They will wither to nothing. They will run out of power (like an laptop disconnected from a power source). I have no idea how many people will cease to exist and how many will repent in hell. I don't even think God knows (I am also an open theist). I think the fact that the future doesn't exist (and therefore cannot logically be known) might explain why there are some passages that are hopeful about universal reconciliation and other verses that seem to clearly say the wicked will be consumed.

In sum, I would say the key factors that led me to believe in the eventual extinction of the wicked were as follows:
1. Becoming aware (through Steve) that there was a case to be made!
2. Becoming aware (through Steve) that there were respectable evangelicals who took that position (Stott, Pinnock)
3. Studying the Scriptures for myself to see that the case was strong
4. Reading Edward Fudges book 'The Fire that Consumes'
5. Forming a theology centered on LOVE has cemented my opposition to everlasting misery
6. Discovering that most people are impressed by the case for conditionalism once they hear it
7. The fact that I've yet to come across very good arguments against the view
8. The realization that the 'immortal soul' is not really a biblical doctrine was a key factor
Thank you, mattrose! This post. Not the post I deserved, but the post I needed...

Thanks so much for writing all that out. I had several reasons for asking, one of which is that I have Fudge's The Fire That Consumes, but to my shame, my bookmark is only about a quarter of the way through. I've reread the first two chapters today and don't recall it at all. I plan to actually and carefully read it now.

User avatar
Michelle
Posts: 845
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:16 pm

Re: Conditionalists: How did you come to your belief?

Post by Michelle » Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:14 am

mattrose wrote:I was thinking about this a bit more and I'd have to say that the #1 'argument' that finally convinced me was simply this: I became convinced that God alone is immortal. Man is mortal. Therefore, for everlasting misery to be true, God would have to be purposefully keeping people alive so they could experience such misery. Knowing God, I find that incompatible with His character.

But I couldn't go to the other extreme (eventual restoration) dogmatically b/c I believe love is the center and theology and love requires genuine choice. Not even God, having set up a world according to these values, can guarantee a particular free choice from all members of creation.
Well said. I agree.

User avatar
Michelle
Posts: 845
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:16 pm

Re: Conditionalists: How did you come to your belief?

Post by Michelle » Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:19 am

jaydam wrote:My journey began when I left my childhood faith in my teens and lived apart from God for almost 2 decades. While I lived an evil life, I came across many incredible, generous, and loving people in the world who were unbelievers. This just served to solidify my rejection of a religion and God that called for these people to be eternally tortured when many of them were nicer to me than many a Christian ever was.

Upon having a God encounter in 2011, I came running to him, but I still struggled with the traditional views of many things, including hell. It was one of the top things on my list to study out.

Shortly after becoming a Christian, I read Rev 21:8 about the second death. This single verse launched me into conditionalism. I could not understand why we would consider the first death to mean a cessation of existence, but the second death would not. No suitable answer has yet been provided to me why we think the first death deals with mortality, but the second deals with a separation from God and a deliverance into eternal torture.

Besides my belief that a further study of scripture regarding the idea in this verse lends itself to conditionalism, I also found myself ok with that as a cessation of existence here in the first death and a cessation of existence "there" in the second death would mean that the nice unbelievers I ran across are not being eternally tortured.

While many since have told me that my inclination to find a nice end for the nice people has clouded my interpretation of scripture. I say "yes," the love of God in me now does give me an inclination to read his word accordingly, additionally, even before I was saved, the littlest vestige of God's image I had that is common to all humanity also recognized something must be wrong with the picture of eternal torture for at least those who mean well and do the best they can in life and towards others.

I consider myself a conditionalist from the majority of the evidence, but a hopeful Christian universalist from the love I have for all people and a few pieces of scripture.

Edit: I should add that I do not believe physical death is the end of opportunity to choose God.
Thanks so much, jay dam! I appreciate your struggle with the traditional view of hell because I also struggled with it. The verse that sent me to conditionalism is Matthew 10:28. I think I, too, am a hopeful Christian universalist, but haven't yet been persuaded fully.

User avatar
Michelle
Posts: 845
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:16 pm

Re: Conditionalists: How did you come to your belief?

Post by Michelle » Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:19 am

steve wrote:This is a cool thread (thanks, Michelle, for starting it!). I like to read of the theological pilgrimages of others.
I know! Right?

User avatar
jriccitelli
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Conditionalists: How did you come to your belief?

Post by jriccitelli » Mon Jul 21, 2014 12:39 am

Thanks for the question.

I never thought of myself as a Conditionalist at first, after all I came to the idea on my own from scripture. I think I had 'heard' we would be punished in hell forever, but I may never had actually believed it. I just thought I had a ‘wrong’ idea about our eternal fate at first, but I just figured I would be wrong then, because the other idea (ET) was becoming ‘really really’ wrong, and I was happy just to let my own theory be my own.

I had only heard of Conditionalism, and I never even read any Conditionalists writings till this year (I still thought Conditionalism was very obscure up until about 5 years ago, and I was content to stay in the closet with my beliefs about it until then). I was familiar with annihilationists, as per the JWs but I never believed their view because I held to a postmortem Day of Judgment and conscious postmortem punishment for sins and wickedness.

I was a late Christian convert, in my late twenties. I had never gone to a church service. I came to faith in God and Christ with very little influence other than my Bible. Unwittingly I joined a Mormon church, and being a born again believer while in the Mormon Cult, I began asking a lot of questions. This caused me to study more and more, as the Mormons were at least willing to engage me in debating all kinds of doctrines on their faith. After leaving there I became much more involved in witnessing, evangelism groups and outreaches. Still I felt the 'best thing to do' was to make solid informed Christians and focus on follow-up, or in another word ‘discipleship’. And the best way to do so is bible study, and the best way to do that is with a bible.

After many bible study/witnessing discussions with Christians and ‘spiritual’ people I realized that very few had any grounding in the fundamentals of the ‘faith of Abraham’ (let alone any understanding of other religions and cults), so I focused on teaching bible studies on the basics and foundations of scripture. I also focused on teaching the Old Testament as our foundation, and because I feel foundations are so important: the Garden of Eden event and Genesis was generally the foundation of my studies and teaching. I also found that the scriptures built upon simple and basic foundations, and that God’s premises never change, only the details became greater.

I taught my small group in a doctrinal/word study format. I believe that scripture defines itself, and by following a doctrinal word or idea from Genesis throughout scripture to the end you get a better or correct understanding of a word, rather than (the commonly) trying to understand a word by only the context of its immediate surroundings. I believe God lays out certain principles in the beginning, they don’t change, and that God builds on these ideas as He goes from Genesis through the Gospels.

Genesis’ has most our doctrinal principles, even in the first 3 chapters for example: We were created / God is our creator / We can have a relationship with God / We have freewill / Our relationship was broken by sin / We will die / There must be a covering for sin / God imposed a curse on mankind and the earth / so on and so on.

I believed God writes in the same way that a mason builds a building, one stone upon another. None are removed or replaced in Gods Word. I believed that if people better understood the words that the biblical writers first laid down, they would understand the scripture written down 1000 or 2000 years later, rather than burying the older scriptures, or trying to make them fit under your building later.

I also became aware that nothing changes from the Old Testament to the New, the only change is in the sacrifice for sins; what the Law could not do, Jesus did. The Law was fulfilled, thus you are no longer under Law or under the curse ‘if’ you are in Christ, otherwise we were still dead in sins and trespasses. Thus the OT became completely relative to me, profitable for teaching and instruction, as the principles and warnings in the Law were not in vain.

I also had a long debate with a person who at first believed in keeping all the Commandments. Then when I showed him he couldn’t possibly do so, we started debating God’s penalty of death for not keeping the Law. He then argued that God wouldn’t really kill anyone for breaking the law, and I printed out a list that showed God did indeed kill for breaking the Law. Along side that list was a list of God putting to death the sinful, this became a long list of passages.

I also debated and had a bible study or so on God’s justice, and fairness. Showing that each sin had a penalty, but not an excessive penalty. Nevertheless God was serious about penalties.

So, among other things, about ten years ago I started to notice that there were only four or so verses that supported ‘eternal’ punishment. And even odder was the repetition of the commentators and men on the radio repeating the ‘worm that never dies, and the fire that never goes out’, and eternal fire, yet these NT verses find their origin in OT verses that speak of ‘sure’ destruction and justice but never speak of ongoing unfair punishment. And any argument that suggests humans were intended to burn forever is at odds with OT teachings of destruction and Justice.

Post Reply

Return to “Views of Hell”