Conditionalists: How did you come to your belief?

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 » Sun Jul 27, 2014 5:24 pm

I agreed with Matt, and I noted why it seemed we disagreed. I don't know where you considered this to be be ill conceived. Could you say what you mean? If it sounds so I'm sorry.

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 » Sun Jul 27, 2014 6:10 pm

You didn't really answer my question, but since your post seems to express surprise, I'll take it as a "yes."
jriccitelli wrote:I agreed with Matt, and I noted why it seemed we disagreed.
I see. Matt had already pointed out where you two disagree. Other than that...
I don't know where you considered this to be be ill conceived.

...your post was pretty long and your points weren't clearly made.
Could you say what you mean?
Because of the length and ambiguity, it came across to me as condescending toward Matt. It sounded to me like you were trying to inform him on the view. Mattrose wrote his master's thesis on this subject, and presents his arguments with clarity. I almost always gain new insight from what he writes (and preaches.)
If it sounds so I'm sorry.
Thanks for the preemptive apology, but what sound are you sorry about?

It's really none of my business, I was just really curious.

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 » Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:36 am

jriccitelli wrote:Matt, Paidion got you that time, all views argue that life is a condition,
I don't think that's the case at all.

I have talked to and read advocates of the everlasting misery position who say that people's 'souls' are inherently immortal and, therefore, must exist somewhere forever. Everlasting misery, for them, is a direct result of the non-conditionality of the wicked person's existence.

Likewise, I have talked to and read advocates of eventual restoration who seem to argue from the non-conditionality of human immortality. They take it for granted that the wicked will 'live forever' and consider it impossible that they would utilize this immortality in continual rejection of God.

Indeed, I happen to think that a strong case could be made that both the everlasting misery position AND the eventual restoration position came into existence in Christian circles because the foreign doctrine of non-conditional immortality took root.

Of course, there are also conditionalists in both camps nowadays. Some everlasting misery supporters recognize that humans are naturally mortal, but believe that God keeps the wicked alive just so that they will experience the justice of torture for their wickedness. I think this view is morally repugnant. Conditionalism combined with everlasting misery, to my mind, leads to the destruction of the character of God.

There are also supporters of eventual restoration who are conditionalists. They think God is purposefully keeping the wicked alive in hell just so that they will eventually repent. This does not seem morally repugnant to me and wouldn't damage God's reputation at all. My only problem with eventual restoration-ism is any dogmatism that is attached to it. How can a future free will choice be guaranteed?

In response to the rest of your post, I would only say that you seem to have missed my general point. My point was that the term conditionalism can be used both broadly (all who believe that we are naturally mortal and dependent on God for immortality) and narrowly (applied to a certain view of hell, namely, eventual extinction).

The fact that that one word can have 2 very different meanings was my exact reason for not selecting it when writing my thesis. I wanted to label the 3 views in a way that responded to the question 'what do the wicked in hell experience?' Do they experience conditionalism? That's pretty vague. Do they experience annihilation? That's closer, but I personally felt that the term 'annihilation' had too much baggage from questionable denominations/cults and came across as too aggressive on God's part (it sounds to me like God is actively destroying them, which I don't think to be the case). I chose eventual extinction b/c it leaves room for multiple views of how soon they experience extinction and refrains from any aggressive language about the nature of the actual removal from existence.

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 » Wed Jul 30, 2014 7:52 am

I’m glad you could respond Matt, don’t take what I said the wrong way, I do appreciate your insight, as it is hard to find anyone online who can correspond at this level. Note that I purposefully have avoided the ‘immortality’ argument in debating (UR and ET) all along, simply because ‘immortality’ has a couple of difficult definitions; natural, inherent, derived, imputed, etc. and I feel the other approaches can avoid the word altogether in debate.
Note that I purposefully said; “all views argue that life is a condition”. I did not say everyone believes, or understands immortality the ‘same’ way. I too have read many traditional theologians, and most defend ‘their’ position and understanding in affirming the Evangelical belief that ‘God alone has immortality’ by rejecting the false natural immortality idea and affirming derived immortality. Thus most from all 3 viewpoints affirm derived immortality (Thus all 3 Evangelical views deny natural immortality, as understood by Platonists)
There are still all kinds of viewpoints and opinions, and some seem to hold to a Greek idea of immortality, but it seems rare. It seems Fudge makes the mistake of accusing traditionalists of Greek immortality traditions. And I am saddened by that, if it is true.
I have come across a few publications that present ‘Conditionalism’ as the belief that the soul disappears and ends at death (and Fudge may also hold to this belief). If that is the case then, I am ‘not’ a Conditionalist. Yet I think the popular trend is that Conditionalists believe like the popular Evangelical belief, that our-self goes to be with God, and that the unrepentant go to hell (hades, sheol) to await Judgment, like the rich man in Luke 16.

(I am taking a chance at not being complete in my posts, sorry. And my posts are abit rushed lately as I am in the middle of painting my whole exterior, and putting a large skylight in my house, while working my job too, and thats the best i can do right now, and I’m late)

User avatar
RickC
Posts: 632
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 5:55 am
Location: Piqua, Ohio

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

Post by RickC » Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:59 am

Greetings,

I'm (and have been for some time now) a frequent View Active Posts reader & a seldom-poster.

I considered posting about how I came to believe in 'C', Conditionalism (note: capital C, to distinguish it from Matt's alternate use of the term) and/or 'CI', Conditional Immortality and/or Annihilationism.

I didn't post because it was merely my 'default position' over the last 6 years or so. Briefly, I took Matt 10:28 as the strongest 'proof text' as do most Cs. Since then I've come to see the prophecy as having been fulfilled, circa 70AD. This 'shift' of mine came from paying strict attention to who Jesus was talking to (context). It seems clear he was talking to 'them' -- not us. I also don't see how or why we could or should try to make a 'double-application' with Jesus also 'speaking to us'.

At any rate, I currently don't hold to any position & could be considered 'agnostic' in the matter. (Other related complications involving eschatology and ecclesiology are being considered in my latest studies). But be that as it may . . . .
JR wrote:I have come across a few publications that present ‘Conditionalism’ as the belief that the soul disappears and ends at death (and Fudge may also hold to this belief). If that is the case then, I am ‘not’ a Conditionalist.
The C/CI and/or A (Annihilationist) position believe the soul is one's self. That is, it's the 'life of you', so to speak. Put another way, one does not 'have' a soul; one 'is' a soul. They also advocate 'soul sleep' -- that oneself, though dead: body, soul and spirit, never the less 'exists' in that the 'real you' will be the real (same) you when brought back to life at the final resurrection.

That's all I have, Thanks! :)

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 Aug 02, 2014 6:26 pm

jriccitelli wrote:I’m glad you could respond Matt, don’t take what I said the wrong way, I do appreciate your insight, as it is hard to find anyone online who can correspond at this level. Note that I purposefully have avoided the ‘immortality’ argument in debating (UR and ET) all along, simply because ‘immortality’ has a couple of difficult definitions; natural, inherent, derived, imputed, etc. and I feel the other approaches can avoid the word altogether in debate.
Note that I purposefully said; “all views argue that life is a condition”. I did not say everyone believes, or understands immortality the ‘same’ way. I too have read many traditional theologians, and most defend ‘their’ position and understanding in affirming the Evangelical belief that ‘God alone has immortality’ by rejecting the false natural immortality idea and affirming derived immortality. Thus most from all 3 viewpoints affirm derived immortality (Thus all 3 Evangelical views deny natural immortality, as understood by Platonists)
There are still all kinds of viewpoints and opinions, and some seem to hold to a Greek idea of immortality, but it seems rare. It seems Fudge makes the mistake of accusing traditionalists of Greek immortality traditions. And I am saddened by that, if it is true.
I have come across a few publications that present ‘Conditionalism’ as the belief that the soul disappears and ends at death (and Fudge may also hold to this belief). If that is the case then, I am ‘not’ a Conditionalist. Yet I think the popular trend is that Conditionalists believe like the popular Evangelical belief, that our-self goes to be with God, and that the unrepentant go to hell (hades, sheol) to await Judgment, like the rich man in Luke 16.

(I am taking a chance at not being complete in my posts, sorry. And my posts are abit rushed lately as I am in the middle of painting my whole exterior, and putting a large skylight in my house, while working my job too, and thats the best i can do right now, and I’m late)
This post made me ponder a lot. I also went searching in The Fire That Consumes and at the RethinkingHell website. Way to go, jriccitelli!

I have a question for you: You said: "...all views argue that life is a condition." I'm having a little trouble understanding what exactly you mean by this.

Particularly, I'm wondering if you are using a different shade of meaning for the word "condition".

Since you say that the bible means sure death when it uses the word death (sure death being the complete and utter destruction of both body and soul after the judgement), I'm assuming that you believe it means immortality where the bible (and you, as well, in this quote) uses the word life (immortality being the eternal life of the soul [not sure where you stand on the question of the resurrection of the body])

*Whew*

So, if the above is not incorrect, do you mean immortality is a condition or do you mean immortality is condtional? Or...perhaps you don't see a difference between these two phrases?

Oh, and if I got the definitions of life and death incorrect, could you help me out??

Hope your home renovations are going well!

Michelle
Last edited by Michelle on Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 Aug 02, 2014 6:31 pm

RickC wrote:Greetings,

I'm (and have been for some time now) a frequent View Active Posts reader & a seldom-poster.

I considered posting about how I came to believe in 'C', Conditionalism (note: capital C, to distinguish it from Matt's alternate use of the term) and/or 'CI', Conditional Immortality and/or Annihilationism.

I didn't post because it was merely my 'default position' over the last 6 years or so. Briefly, I took Matt 10:28 as the strongest 'proof text' as do most Cs. Since then I've come to see the prophecy as having been fulfilled, circa 70AD. This 'shift' of mine came from paying strict attention to who Jesus was talking to (context). It seems clear he was talking to 'them' -- not us. I also don't see how or why we could or should try to make a 'double-application' with Jesus also 'speaking to us'.

At any rate, I currently don't hold to any position & could be considered 'agnostic' in the matter. (Other related complications involving eschatology and ecclesiology are being considered in my latest studies). But be that as it may . . . .
JR wrote:I have come across a few publications that present ‘Conditionalism’ as the belief that the soul disappears and ends at death (and Fudge may also hold to this belief). If that is the case then, I am ‘not’ a Conditionalist.
The C/CI and/or A (Annihilationist) position believe the soul is one's self. That is, it's the 'life of you', so to speak. Put another way, one does not 'have' a soul; one 'is' a soul. They also advocate 'soul sleep' -- that oneself, though dead: body, soul and spirit, never the less 'exists' in that the 'real you' will be the real (same) you when brought back to life at the final resurrection.

That's all I have, Thanks! :)
Thanks for posting, RickC! Nice to see you here again!

Am I understanding that your belief and your agnosticism about this position hung on one verse? Wow.

Also, it's interesting to explore where disregarding Matthew 10:28 leads...

Michelle

User avatar
RickC
Posts: 632
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 5:55 am
Location: Piqua, Ohio

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

Post by RickC » Sun Aug 03, 2014 9:04 am

Hi Michelle, :) -- You wrote:Thanks for posting, RickC! Nice to see you here again!

Am I understanding that your belief and your agnosticism about this position hung on one verse? Wow.

Also, it's interesting to explore where disregarding Matthew 10:28 leads...
First, I'm not sure what you mean by 'disregarding Matt 10:28'. Clarify, please?

Next, my current (default) position is agnostic. I've been studying these things for years & years! and am doing everything I can in order to understand the relevant texts as they probably would have been originally understood -- after which I may come to a more concrete belief.

(For other clarification): I said Matt 10:28 was probably 'the strongest proof text' for the C position. And, of course, 'proof texts' can be regarded as good or bad, depending on how one uses and/or interprets them (i.e., misquoting verses; quoting in context, etc., etc.).

I also referred to Matt 10:28 as a prophecy, which wasn't exactly correct. It was a warning, which, the consequences of not heeding it, and as it turned out, was 'fulfilled' circa 70AD, IMO.

Another 'strong text' for the C belief is from Rev 20: the second death. If I'm not mistaken, this phrase wasn't used often in related non-canonical Jewish and/or Jewish-Christian texts. Offhand, I recall only one or two other usages. These didn't 'match' Revelation passages, but were similar.

Lastly for now, Paul's writings influenced my tentative (default) belief in C. Most notably, texts like "the wages of sin is death" <<< period, nothing added or taken away, without regard to theology and/or traditions, e.g., how many or maybe most people 'add' more to what Paul wrote, as in "the wages of sin is death (but this just means physical death") . . . or . . . "the wages of sin is death (but your soul or spirit keeps on living") <<< ARE NOT what Paul wrote! (obviously, caps for emphasis), etc., etc.

Anyways, re: Alan Bernstein's book: "The Formation of Hell" (I told you about elsewhere): Only about the first fourth of the book deals with ancient Babylonian, Greek, and Roman concepts. IOW, the last 3/4ths of the book gets into Jewish and Christian concepts (including post-NT ideas).

Have a good day! :)

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 » Sun Aug 03, 2014 11:55 am

Hi Rick,

Thanks! You have a great day as well!

When I spoke about disregarding Matthew 10:28, I mostly meant whether or not there are enough other scriptures to make a case for the, um, Position-Formerly-Known-As-Conditionalism.

Yes, Matthew 10 is all about Jesus instructing his disciples as he sent them out on a specific mission trip. Of course he was talking to them and not us. And it is risky to approach this passage thinking it applies to everyone every where. What about verse 28, however? Is it risky to take it by itself as a reminder that we serve God first, even if our lives are in peril? If this verse is swept away by fulfillment by 70 AD, does that mean that God no longer destroys bodies and souls? Should we now fear of those who can destroy the body only? These are the questions I've been turning over in my mind. What is your opinion about how this verse, as well as the larger passage that contains it, should inform us, living, as we do, so far removed from 70 AD?

Michelle

User avatar
RickC
Posts: 632
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 5:55 am
Location: Piqua, Ohio

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

Post by RickC » Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:12 am

Hello Michelle - :) - You wrote:When I spoke about disregarding Matthew 10:28, I mostly meant whether or not there are enough other scriptures to make a case for the, um, Position-Formerly-Known-As-Conditionalism.
I'd say there are. You're undoubtedly familiar with them.
You also wrote:Yes, Matthew 10 is all about Jesus instructing his disciples as he sent them out on a specific mission trip. Of course he was talking to them and not us. And it is risky to approach this passage thinking it applies to everyone every where.
The main risk in terms of interpretation is, obviously, not getting it right: agreed. Otherwise, I'm sure you also know how some folks interpret passages like Matt 24 (Olivet Discourse) as potentially involving us or people in the any-time-now-future (e.g., Dispensationalists). They do err, I'm sure you'd agree.
You wrote:What about verse 28, however? Is it risky to take it by itself as a reminder that we serve God first, even if our lives are in peril? If this verse is swept away by fulfillment by 70 AD, does that mean that God no longer destroys bodies and souls? Should we now fear of those who can destroy the body only? These are the questions I've been turning over in my mind. What is your opinion about how this verse, as well as the larger passage that contains it, should inform us, living, as we do, so far removed from 70 AD?
I'm immediately thinking about Christians being martyred as I type . . . and you read. How would they understand the passage? What would be their thinking on, (from the Olivet Discourse), when Jesus warned them (his contemporaries) to flee to the mountains when they saw the Roman armies approaching?

Now I'll interject this: I'm tending to think that being or getting "saved" was what happened literally, circa 70AD. As forewarned, the Christians fled Jerusalem and, thus, were actually saved from death.

Re: your Qs surrounding if Matt 10:28 has been fulfilled (70AD) and how might we understand its meaning today, etc., etc.

9/11 was understood by some as a judgment of God against the USA. Most of us have problems seeing things this way, I would imagine (me included). Seeing 9/11 in this manner would be based on a presupposition that the USA is somehow "God's Chosen Nation or People." I don't believe this and assume that neither you or other posters on the forum do. At this point we're getting into what God allows, and so on, which might be another discussion.

Questions about the future, in terms of a judgment after death, and how God will deal with the wicked, and so on; I'm agnostic on this stuff. 'Not sure what else I can add or say at this point.

Re: Matt 10:28 with the entire passage, as to how it might inform us, etc. I'm trying to see the significance historically. Somewhat akin to the ways we usually see things, events, people, and God from the OT. Looking back, seeing what part they played, how this past comes together with, for, and in us now.

Illustration: the exodus. We admire Moses, take the exodus story as our own, so to speak. In much the same sense I can see how Matt 10 has Jesus as a/the New Moses (the prophet) who delivered his people. With Jesus' actual warning, the outcome worked out historically, much in a same sense as the exodus had (leaving aside whether the exodus was historical, which doesn't matter in terms of the exodus story meaning).

Lastly, had the disciples not heeded Jesus' warning, and as it's written in the Olivet Discourse: had God not shortened the tribulation, even the elect may not have been saved. The Romans could have killed many more than they did, including the Jewish-Christians.

Which, had that been the case, what would our religion be? Who would be our god?

'Tired.
'Suppose I need to go to bed now.
So ... how did I do?
Thanks! :)

Post Reply

Return to “Views of Hell”