Conditionalists: How did you come to your belief?

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

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

Post by Paidion » Fri Jul 25, 2014 11:27 am

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.
Matt, first let me make clear that it is not I who believe that such a large percentage of the world's population will either go to an eternal hell or be annihilated. It is a common EC view that anyone who has not "accepted Christ as his personal Saviour" will spend eternity in hell. I admit I presumed that most annihilationists believe that the same population will be annihilated. However, even most believers in EC allow for one exception—children who have not reached "the age of accountability" at the time of their death.

Notice that when I spoke of the more than 99%, I specifically mentioned that at least that number would not submit to the Lordship of Christ during this life. I didn't say anything about their final state.

My personal belief is that God will correct everyone post mortem except possibly the overcomers who won't need it. "Everyone will be salted with fire". I think this correction will involve not only discomfort, but the witness of the overcomers. Also that God will not provide any more discomfort than is absolutely necessary for post-mortem repentance (change of mind) and voluntary submission to the authority of Christ (every knee shall bow and every tongue confess Jesus Christ is Lord).

It is my thought that many of those who have never heard of Christ, will need only to be in his presence in order to acknowledge Him as their Lord. This would, of course, include little children.

I still believe that over 99% of people who have ever lived will have not known Christ as Saviour from sin in this life, but will come to know Him post-mortem, and will eventually attain immortality.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

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 25, 2014 11:31 am

I have read JR's statements. I still find them incomprehensible. Is there someone here who agrees with him and can make the view intelligible?

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 » Fri Jul 25, 2014 11:51 am

(Steve posted while i was writing this, so my answer Steve (to your statement from pg.2) follows my response to Editor and Michelle)
Michelle, right, kinda. How about if I put unrepentant in parentheses.
"Conditionalism does not rule out post-mortem repentance, only post-mortem life for the (unrepentant) dead"
(I should get that on a bumper sticker)

Editor, thanks for the questions. I did state my beliefs that a post-mortem second chance oppourtunity was possible, here on this forum many times. My very first posts here at the forum laid this out, and i have not to my knowledge ever differed. here is a link to some of my first posts here on the subject; 'Those who never hear the Gospel' thread at:
http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... 3&start=10
'Compassion when looking backward in time' thread;
http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=3823
I personally think God has some verses to allow for post-mortem repentance, and i have listed them here somewhere, and all even the non-Christian will be judged based on works, faith, righteousness, fear, love for truth, whether God allows Jesus to be preached at that point before The Judgment is the question.

I and Conditionalism would have to rule out repentance post-mortem 'after' the Judgment of God. And Conditionalism would also positively rule out post-mortem repentance 'after' being put into hell, and or 'after' being put into the LOF. As these by definition to a Conditionalist are post final Judgment, and by definition: fire, brimstone and the second death all mean 'destruction'. All repentance and faith must be made prior to the final judgment, this is Conditionalism.
Is there a repentance that does not lead to life? (Ed)
My belief, is that repentance must proceed faith, and thus repentance does not save: it does 'lead' to life, but faith is the what saves, and specifically faith in God and his sacrifice for sins.
Last edited by jriccitelli on Fri Jul 25, 2014 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 » Fri Jul 25, 2014 12:32 pm

Steve your comments are too kind. I will return the compliment, and explain the dilemma of this;
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 (Steve pg.2)
You have used this circular fallacious argument repeatedly.
A Mormon says that 'God is a man' and 'their position' holds that since: the earth is his footstool / that God has revealed His arm = then God has a body. Their position is that they believe all the anthropomorphic terms for God in the bible prove God has a body like us. So if I say God is 'not' a man, it is not because I do not 'understand' their position, it is because I do not believe their position.

Just because UR has a different interpretation of LOF does not mean I do not understand it, or that I must accept it.
This circular argument could be applied to any statement: If I say the world is round, someone could say “You don’t understand our position, we believe it is round, but our position is that it is not round as you believe round to be”. So if a person says it is round they have an uncanny skill at failing to understand plain statements.

I know me and 7150 (among others) have debated the LOF at great length here. UR holds that it is not final, that it is refining, that it is a number of things that I, or any Conditionalist, would ‘not’ agree to. That should not prevent me from saying and believing that the Lake of fire is the absolute end for those who are thrown in there. I might repeat that they are ‘thrown’, that it is brimstone, that it is fire, and that it is the second death. Please do not say I don’t understand the UR position (in fact the UR interpretation is 'why' I am debating them): UR says the LOF is not final, and that UR interprets the LOF as refining. UR could claim the LOF is a sponge bath, a merry go round, things I have never even heard of, or 'anything' at all, but 'their' interpretation does not change what I believe the LOF is.

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 25, 2014 12:54 pm

jriccitelli wrote:I and Conditionalism would have to rule out repentance post-mortem 'after' the Judgment of God. And Conditionalism would also positively rule out post-mortem repentance 'after' being put into hell, and or 'after' being put into the LOF. As these by definition to a Conditionalist are post final Judgment, and by definition: fire, brimstone and the second death all mean 'destruction'. All repentance and faith must be made prior to the final judgment, this is Conditionalism.
I'm a conditionalist and I don't rule out post-mortem repentance at all. I am not sure you speak for all of us.

To me, the conditionalist position, most broadly stated, simply means that the continuance of our lives is dependent on the giver of life. If I want to keep living, I am dependent on God for that desire to be fulfilled. This is true in this life, in the intermediate state, and after Judgment Day. How long God might choose to grant life to people negatively judged on Judgment Day is an open question amongst conditionalists. It is also an open question amongst conditionalists whether or not repentance is possible during this time (should there, in fact, be time).

I think it is helpful, whenever we choose to speak as a representative of a position, to actually consider the word used to label that position and think about what point it most broadly addresses. Conditionalism is short for conditional immortality. So the position has to do with the belief that we are not inherently immortal, but that our immortality is dependent upon something (Someone) else. That's all. A conditionalist approach to hell, then, need only say that hell is likely a place of extinction. Whether that extinction happens immediately or eventually is an open question.

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 25, 2014 5:00 pm

JR,

Consider the statement you made to which I was referring:
Only ‘one’ person has to go into the LOF for UR to be false.
If you had said, "Only ‘one’ person has to go into the LOF, as I understand that term, for UR to be false," you would have been speaking responsibly—and unnecessarily, since the statement would be, essentially, a tautology. No doubt this is why you did not frame the statement this way.

Instead, you spoke as if the validity of your view of the lake of fire is a given (it is functioning as a premise to your conclusion), and saying that it disproves universal reconciliation. If you had stated the case more humbly, and more accurately, you would have noted that yours is only one of several possible interpretations of Revelation 20:15, and your holding to that interpretation is what compels you to reject universal reconciliation. No one could refute this, nor question its validity—nor even object to it! As it stands, your statement declares your view of the lake of fire to be valid, which no one who has weighed all the options seriously can humbly say with certainty.

If you wish to convince universalists that their view must be regarded as false, it will do not good to appeal to premises that only your position accepts. You must argue with universalists on their own terms.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

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

Post by Paidion » Fri Jul 25, 2014 5:17 pm

Matt wrote:Conditionalism is short for conditional immortality. So the position has to do with the belief that we are not inherently immortal, but that our immortality is dependent upon something (Someone) else. That's all.
If that's all Conditionalism is, Matt, then I am a Conditionalist—as well as a believer in the universal reconciliation of all to God.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

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 25, 2014 9:39 pm

Paidion wrote:
Matt wrote:Conditionalism is short for conditional immortality. So the position has to do with the belief that we are not inherently immortal, but that our immortality is dependent upon something (Someone) else. That's all.
If that's all Conditionalism is, Matt, then I am a Conditionalist—as well as a believer in the universal reconciliation of all to God.
Yes, you are a conditionalist in that broad sense. In the very next sentence I narrowed in on what conditionalism means when applied to hell:
A conditionalist approach to hell, then, need only say that hell is likely a place of extinction.
You just happen to be a conditionalist who feels the conditions will always be met (positively... you think God will keep them alive and they will repent). There are even some believers in eternal torment who are conditionalists in this sense (negatively... they believe God will keep them alive and they will be miserable forever). The everlasting misery form of conditionalism is morally repugnant, but I also have a big gripe with people that aren't conditionalists at all! They believe that humans are inherently immortal. I think the Bible flatly contradicts this notion.

The fact that conditionalism is, in my opinion, so broad... is one of the main reasons I don't use that label to describe a view of hell. All 3 camps on the hell subject could include some conditionalists. I like to call the 3 views of hell: Everlasting misery, eventual extinction, and eventual restoration.

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 10:09 am

If that's all Conditionalism is, Matt, then I am a Conditionalist—as well as a believer in the universal reconciliation of all to God. (Paidion)
Matt, Paidion got you that time, all views argue that life is a condition, and good because the bible teaches that. But Conditionalism does not stop there, nor is "that all" as you stated 3 posts above. Yet, you correctly pointed to the correct definition as you stated above: ‘eventual extinction’.

Although you may find some Conditionalists that believe many different things (and they are free to do so), the basic argument from Conditionalists is that fire, destruction, death, and primarily the second death are taken literally to mean they result in eventual annihilation. Also, the Conditionalists I have been speaking of argue that they are ‘Evangelical Conditionalists’, such as I have also stated myself that I do not find it necessary to divert from any other normal theological doctrine to accept Conditionalism. That is I hold to all the other common interpretations of salvation, especially those regarding the Final Judgment and Hell. The only real difference is that I believe people will be annihilated ‘eventually’ in Hell. So, the evangelical belief is that there is a general resurrection and a final last Judgment, after which the dead are thrown into hell, the LOF, and the second death. Any delay between the resurrection and Judgment is your guess, but not important to the premise that souls will be destroyed (annihilated) in Hell.

I do not believe, as it seems ‘some’ Conditionalists believe: that a person disappears or is extinguished at death, and that the dead are then recreated at the resurrection of the dead in order to face Judgment. Although I think this is unbiblical, and unnecessary it is not a premise to Conditionalism nor does it affect the basic point of Conditionalism.

Remember I said I have only read from a few Conditionalists, but I have ‘shelves full’ of traditional (non-conditionalists) commentaries and theology books that do describe Conditionalists beliefs (although negatively, and in very little depth).

Never have I said God could not keep someone alive forever in order to fulfill their punishment. Remember I never attributed ‘all’ to either my view (as in ‘all’ will be annihilated), nor to what I believe is a general Conditionalist viewpoint. That ALL share the same fate is a Universalist idea, not a Conditionalist idea.
“Conditionalists believe that since the damned are not immortal and never will be, they will actually perish in hell (annihilation). This is the punishment referred to in the Bible as destruction, by which one will perish in the lake of fire, the second death… Immortality is a gift bestowed by God upon his children. To receive this crown, a person must belong to Christ. Such is the condition of this conditional immortality. And this conditionalist view is evangelical insofar as it is understood and articulated within a framework of evangelical Christian orthodoxy” (Explore Evangelical Conditionalism: Introduction, ‘Rethinking Hell’ site) http://www.rethinkinghell.com/explore/

We affirm the future, bodily resurrection of both the saved and the unsaved; those who are saved, to the resurrection of eternal life in the presence of God; those who are unsaved, to face final punishment, consisting ultimately in the destruction of body and soul, a permanent end to life and conscious existence. (Beliefs page, ‘Rethinking Hell’ site)

There is some debate among evangelical conditionalists regarding finer eschatological details. For instance, some believe there is a consciously experienced intermediate state between physical death and judgment day, and others believe the intermediate state is not consciously experienced… All evangelical annihilationists believe that the damned (those who do not belong to Christ) are raised bodily from their graves at an appointed day of judgment and are then finally punished, they perish with finality, suffering the eternal punishment of destruction in hell. (What is Annihilationism? ‘Rethinking Hell’ site)

“Our understanding of the text is simple and elegant. Those who die a first time apart from Christ will be raised, judged and sentenced to permanent execution: to die a second time. And this, of course, coincides with the repeated and consistent testimony of Scripture that the wages of sin is death” (Chris Date, ‘Rethinking Hell’ site)
I could quote many more definitions from theological sources, and other writers but I would have to type it out, i hope this is enough (Note Bakers Theological dictionary of Theological terms, and note: Hell under fire' pg.203 on 'Destruction')
I'm a conditionalist and I don't rule out post-mortem repentance at all. I am not sure you speak for all of us… I'm a conditionalist and I don't rule out post-mortem repentance at all. I am not sure you speak for all of us. (Matt, from above)
We agree, as I never ruled out post-mortem repentance. But although you said “That’s all” you seem to understand that is ‘not’ all Conditionalism means, since you added: eventual extinction

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 11:30 am

JR, just out of overwhelming (and probably inappropriate) curiosity, when you are leading a bible study or discussing theological ideas with friends, do you speak to them the way you did to mattrose in the post above?

Post Reply

Return to “Views of Hell”