Conditionalists: How did you come to your belief?
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 1:16 pm
The title is my question. Mattrose? Jriccitelli? Anyone?
Hosted by Steve Gregg
https://theos.org:443/forum/
Thank you, mattrose! This post. Not the post I deserved, but the post I needed...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
Well said. I agree.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.
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.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.
I know! Right?steve wrote:This is a cool thread (thanks, Michelle, for starting it!). I like to read of the theological pilgrimages of others.