Conditionalists: How did you come to your belief?

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

Just a few observations regarding your view that only one of 100k will be saved.

First it is my belief that before the law came there was a way for man to worship and be acceptable to God. When the law came it was given to the Jews. This did not wipe out the way to God that non-Jews had available to them. So a great many of them could be saved; we have no way of knowing, but Paul hints of it in Romans 2.

Secondly, if you believe as I do in an age of accountability, probably throughout history up to the last one hundred years or so a large portion, perhaps half of all people, died before reaching that age. And what of all the aborted babies, millions of them in the last 50 years in the USA. Aren't they persons? Do all these go to hell for the UR rehab?

And then your judgment seems extremely harsh regarding the lordship criteria. For "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved". How perfectly we submit to and follow Jesus is not clear enough to make the harsh judgment you make, IMO.

[Michelle]

Wow. I've been at work today and my thread went bonkers while I was away.

I appreciate the several responses to my original question. I became re-interested in reading about conditional immortality because earlier this month I met Glenn Peoples when he stopped over in California on the way to the Rethinking Hell conference in Houston. I listened to him speak about conditionalism while in Los Angeles. Glenn was the writer who sparked my interest in this view of hell. Here's a link to Dr. Peoples' remarks.

[nancyer]

I went through several years of searching for that "missing something". "The Secret", "A New Earth", Wayne Dyer, you name it. While some of them had good points to ponder and a lot of their points made sense, nothing really clicked. None of it seemed to have a reason that worked.

One afternoon I was channel surfing and landed on Joyce Meyer. I couldn't turn it off. Everything she said made perfect sense. A lot of it was similar to what the books had been telling me to do but now there was reason. And she wasn't sugar coating anything. It wasn't what I came to understand as "Prosperity" preaching. She wasn't telling me everything would be perfect, all my problems would go away, she was saying God would be with me through it all and He would give me strength to get through it, that He loved me, faults and all.

So I looked for a Methodist church (I was raised Methodist, though we rarely went to church) and my daughter and I attended. Within a couple weeks I knew we'd found a home. That was early 2009.

I found you, Steve, shortly there after, I believe and I enjoy your program very much. The way you explain and clarify things is great. I thank you for furthering my knowledge and desire to learn.

[steve]

Homer wrote to me:

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?

I did not bother to read Ballou. I knew of his role in modern universalism, but since I could not find his book currently in print, and as no modern universalist I have encountered seems to agree with him, I assumed that he is not a dominant modern voice defining the views of modern evangelical universalists. I concentrated on books by men who are currently speaking on the subject. Ballou was a "no-heller," I believe, and I have only encountered one person (a participant here) who takes that view. I believe that most universalists would consider this view aberrant. In any case, if I thought Ballou's position was influential among universalists today, I would have included it in my research. I mentioned in my book that, since I was writing a comparison of three views of hell, I was limiting my consideration to the views of those who actually believe in hell. I did not think it necessary to mention that many people in the world do not believe in hell at all.

[jriccitelli]

Conditionalism does not rule out post-mortem repentance, only post-mortem life for the dead (Me, pg.2)

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? (Steve pg.2)

You have read what I believe before, and I said the dead can repent and be forgiven, that’s what I have been saying here for years. Conditionalism rules out eternal life for the dead, or in other words ‘immortality’. Do I have to restate the first half of the statement? (Conditionalism does not rule out post-mortem repentance)

The Conditionalists whom I’ve read, and those at the Rethinking Hell site, and the various text books I have on Theology do not generally ascribe ‘life’ to the dead in hell. And if they do, they do not ascribe the ‘life’ that Jesus talks of. That is the point of Conditional Immortality; it is a condition. The word life is used ‘loosely’ by ‘commentators’ to describe the state of the dead when they are ‘raised up’ for judgment, but scripture does not ever ascribe the word for life to the post-mortem unsaved dead. If I am alone in this idea, so be it, but I am not going to change the meaning of a word just because ‘commentators’ make this error, I am going to stick with the biblical text.

[Michelle]

Do I have to restate the first half of the statement? (Conditionalism does not rule out post-mortem repentance)

Maybe? Are you saying that an unsaved person who dies might have a chance to repent and be forgiven, but that's too late; he has not met the condition for immortality? He glorifies the Father and bows the knee to Christ, and then it's all over for him??

[jriccitelli]

It is my presumption that everything I said previously was read. Same with scripture. It was a bumper sticker reduction of Conditionalism. If my Bumper sticker says 'Jesus is my boss' I am not ruling out that a construction company writes out my check each week. Of course it is not the belief of 'all' Conditionalists that there is a second chance post-mortem, but it is not 'ruled out' by the Conditionalist premise.

[jriccitelli]

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? (Steve, pg.2)

Promising ‘life’ to everyone who dies is not a strange or new doctrine, it is the Serpents words and his doctrine. I think it is God and Jesus who rule out ‘life’ for the unrepentant dead and wicked, not me.

[TheEditor]

JR,

Please forgive my wooden-headedness, but I still am not sure of your position. Let me give and analogy and then you can answer based on your paradigm:

a) Chang is born in middle China and is raised never hearing the name of Jesus, dies a Buddhist. What is his fate?

b) Chang is born in Coastal China, has heard of Jesus, but not much more, dies a Buddhist. What is his fate?

c) Chang is born in America to Buddhist parents, knows of Christianity due to the culture here, but never chooses it, and so dies sort of a nominal Buddhist. What is his fate?

Regards, Brenden.

PS. What is the difference between post-mortem repentance and post-mortem life? Is there a repentance that does not lead to life?

[Michelle]

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

OK, if I'm comprehending you correctly this time, your bumper sticker didn't have room to insert the words and the granting of immortality between the comma and the word only. Right?