Conditionalists: How did you come to your belief?

[Michelle]

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.

Thanks, jriccitelli. I like how you came to your position from studying scripture. You said that you hadn't read any conditionalist writings until this year. What did you read? I'm interested in reading what others have to say.

[jriccitelli]

I read Clark Pinnock’s view of Conditionalism in ‘Four Views on Hell’, and read ‘Two Views of Hell’ with Edward Fudge. Neither being their own book, so I hope to read their own books soon. I hope to read and reach more conditionalists as I feel the discussion and realization of it is hardly touched upon, yet. I know the UR camp would agree that the backlash from traditionalists can be scary, ominous, at times angry and sometimes unwilling to reason. On the other hand most of the people I talk to personally seem to politely agree it sounds more biblical than ET, but I have been slightly selective in to whom I’m speaking to on the issue

It may be interesting to note that I feel that taking a position against church tradition could label me as teaching false doctrine, maybe even be detrimental to my speaking in or working in most churchs. My main focus is still just to teach and encourage Bible learning, but when it does come up, I cannot be quiet. Oh well, combine this with my understanding of church services and church authority and I might as well ask to be jailed.

I'm interested in reading what others have to say. (Michelle)

Me too, not just popular theologians, but those here too

[Paidion]

ET: God created humanity, but will send over 99% of them to eternal hell.

Conditionalism: God created humanity but will annihilate over 99% of them.

Well, I admit the latter is not infinitely cruel as is the former, but yet seems just as inconsistent with the character of God.

UR: God created humanity and will eventually purify (with their coöperation) every individual, thus preparing everyone for an eternity with Him.

As I see it, only UR is consistent with the character of God, the God who is not only loving, but is LOVE Itself.

[jriccitelli]

Paidionism: Only 1% of humans have ever put their faith in Christ.

Conditionalism does not rule out post-mortem repentance, only post-mortem life for the dead.
Scripture warns many will not repent, many don’t repent, and many are thrown into the Lake of fire.
God is also The Word, and His Word says some did ‘not’ have their names written in the book of life.
CI is consistent with 'all' of scripture, UR is not.
Only ‘one’ person has to go into the LOF for UR to be false.

[mattrose]

ET: God created humanity, but will send over 99% of them to eternal hell.

Conditionalism: God created humanity but will annihilate over 99% of them.

Well, I admit the latter is not infinitely cruel as is the former, but yet seems just as inconsistent with the character of God.

UR: God created humanity and will eventually purify (with their coöperation) every individual, thus preparing everyone for an eternity with Him.

As I see it, only UR is consistent with the character of God, the God who is not only loving, but is LOVE Itself.

Do you really believe those percentages? Or is that just a rhetorical device?

Do you really think only 1% of the human population will be saved prior to their physical death???

[steve]

Conditionalism does not rule out post-mortem repentance, only post-mortem life for the dead.

This statement is impossible for me to make sense out of. Is this really, in your opinion, the view of conditionalism, or only your own private conditionalist interpretation? If life after death (the meaning of "post-mortem life") is ruled out of your system (a strange doctrine indeed!) then why make room for postmortem repentance? Are you saying dead people will repent, but not be forgiven? If so, where do you read anywhere that God ever has or ever will deny forgiveness to a repentant sinner?

Scripture warns many will not repent, many don’t repent, and many are thrown into the Lake of fire.

This is not relevant to any point in the controversy. Does any view deny that some will not prevent prior to being thrown into the lake of fire?

God is also The Word, and His Word says some did ‘not’ have their names written in the book of life.

True, but this assumes that the book of life is the register of all who will ever be reconciled to God. Is this affirmed in scripture anywhere?

CI is consistent with 'all' of scripture, UR is not.

A bold declaration, never demonstrated by you or anyone I have encountered.

Only ‘one’ person has to go into the LOF for UR to be false.

One has only to affirm that one statement in order to be false. Every universalist I have read believes that the lost enter the lake of fire. If you think this somehow inconsistent with their position, then you do not know their position. If you do not know their position, after having it clarified to you scores of times, you must be commended for your uncanny skill at failing to understand plain statements. Few could match it.

[Paidion]

Do you really think only 1% of the human population will be saved prior to their physical death???

I think there are fewer that 1%, probably fewer that 1 in 1000 (.1%) who have submitted to the Lordship of Christ or who will submit to the Lordship of Christ during their lifetimes.

Consider the following persons, almost all of whom will never submit to the Lord Jesus during this life.

1. The millions who have never even heard the name of Jesus.
2. Those who are various world religious systemes throughout their lives: Hinduism, Islam, Confucianism, Sikhism, Judaism, Buddism, Bahai Faith, Native American traditional religion, etc., etc., etc.
3. Those in the various cults, not only in "Christian" cults, but those cults which have no relation to Christianity.
4. The atheists of the world.
5. The multitude of mankind who choose to live their lives for themselves only.
6. Those who have turned against God because they think God has "taken" their children or caused their loved ones intense suffering.
7. Those who consider Christianity to be superstition.
8. Those who live in countries where Christianity is forbidden and Christians are put to death.
9. The many who lived prior to the time of Christ, and who had no connection with the Hebrew faith.
10. The many in "Christian churches" (including liberal churches) who have never submitted their lives to Christ.

Hmmmm... I think I've just convinced myself that there are fewer that 1 in a 100,000 (.001%) who have become or will become disciples of Messiah Jesus during their lifetimes.

[mattrose]

Do you really think only 1% of the human population will be saved prior to their physical death???

I think there are fewer that 1%, probably fewer that 1 in 1000 (.1%) who have submitted to the Lordship of Christ or who will submit to the Lordship of Christ during their lifetimes.

This seems like a radical bait and switch to me. If you're suggesting less than 1 and 100,000 people have submitted to Christ (in a world where almost 1 in 3 persons are professing Christians), then you're either an extremely pessimistic person or you're reserving salvation for only those who have attained some level of christian perfection.

Consider the following persons, almost all of whom will never submit to the Lord Jesus during this life.

1. The millions who have never even heard the name of Jesus.

The Bible doesn't address such people directly. Why would you automatically assume they would either burn forever or be annihilated? Isn't it possible that the grace of God in Christ reaches them even in this earthly life.

2. Those who are various world religious systemes throughout their lives: Hinduism, Islam, Confucianism, Sikhism, Judaism, Buddism, Bahai Faith, Native American traditional religion, etc., etc., etc.

3. Those in the various cults, not only in "Christian" cults, but those cults which have no relation to Christianity.

Since none of us are saved by religion, why would you assume that all people in these traditions are headed for hell?

8. Those who live in countries where Christianity is forbidden and Christians are put to death.

Ummm.... there are tons of people in those countries that seem to be 'Christian' as far as i know. If estimates in China, for instance, are accurate, then that could be as many as 1 in 70 people in the world right there (my impression of Chinese Christians is that they are serious... I've been there 3 times).

9. The many who lived prior to the time of Christ, and who had no connection with the Hebrew faith.

Again, your automatic grouping them as hell-bound is, I think, premature.

[mattrose]

That being said, Paidion, I think if I were as pessimistic about Jesus ability to save people in the here and now as you are... I'd probably resort to universalism too

It seems to me you consider hell-fire far more powerful than Jesus himself!

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

You wrote:

Every universalist I have read believes that the lost enter the lake of fire.

I thought in your research for your book you were going to read Hosea Ballou, who has been called the "Father of American Universalism". Does he not qualify as an "evangelical universalist? And if not, why?

And

If you think this somehow inconsistent with their position, then you do not know their position. If you do not know their position, after having it clarified to you scores of times, you must be commended for your uncanny skill at failing to understand plain statements. Few could match it.

"love is patient, love is kind"....