The Basics of Conditionalism

In the coming weeks I'll be going into more detail on each of the three views held by christians historically on the nature of hell. This week we'll look at conditionalism.

The three main views historically held on the subject alphabetically:

Conditionalism - The belief that the unrepentant will experience a second death of both body and soul in hell passing out of being.

Traditionalism - The belief that the unrepentant will experience conscious torment of both body and soul in hell for all eternity

Universalism.- The belief that the unrepentant will experience conscious torment of both body and soul in hell until they repent and are saved.

The view most frequently called 'conditionalism' goes by two other names: annihilationism and conditional immortality. Many other suggestions have been made but, as with many things in this post, it's probably best to leave it for another day and not get bogged down. They are basically synonymous terms, but they are actually describing two different realities. Annihilation refers to what happens to the lost who do not receive Christ, whereas conditionalism or conditional immortality refers to what is given to the saved.

I think the most important thing to understand about this view is that it presents a drastically different anthropology than the other two views. Those who hold this view do not believe that all human beings are immortal inherently, by nature, or through God's unwavering sustaining of life or existence. They argue that the only people who are immortal are those who receive it through faith in Jesus and thereby through union with him. This immortality, which they take as basically equivocal with 'eternal life', is something that is only given to the saved and therefore 'conditional' as apposed to the other views which hold that all humans are immortal or live forever unconditionally.

They get this from texts such as

Rom 2:7 NIV, "To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." 

2 Tim 1:10 NIV, "but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel." 

1 Tim 6:15b-16 NIV, "...God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen."

They would also point to the fall of man and the punishment described there as proof positive, because when Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden, the punishment was clearly that they would no longer have access to the tree of life.

"And the Lord God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.'" (Gen 3:22 NIV)

This is the same tree of life said to be in the New Jerusalem/heaven/renewed earth in Rev 22:2. Something only the redeemed will have access to. What is disputed is what the tree of life provides and what the words mean.

Much is dependent on the definition of terms such as 'immortality', 'eternal life', 'death', 'perish', 'destroy' 'destruction', etc., which they claim to be taking in the most normative sense and, when found in Scripture, the most plain sense and meaning in context. They would ask how it is possible that when the Bible uses these terms they can never mean what we normally think of when we use these words in any other context. Something that perishes remains forever? Something that is destroyed remains intact? Something that dies continues on for all eternity? Eternal life never means living forever? A lot of linguistic debate is had between the three views on a variety of words and these are the ones the conditionalist pushes most often.

But what about those who do not receive this eternal life? What happens to them? There are a few ways conditionalists have put it and they often struggle to use language not already found in Scripture: Cease to be, cease to exist, cease to live or have life in any sense, die a second time, cease to be conscious, be no more, be annihilated, etc.. Some of these ways of describing what happens to the lost may be problematic if pressed, but the result in mind is clearly that the lost will not eventually be saved, nor will they be tormented for all eternity, but that they will experience nothing in any way. Life, in any sense, will be over.

The amount of places they draw from Scripture on this point is staggering and hard to choose from, but here are a few.

Mt 10:28 NIV "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. " 

Jn 3:16 NIV "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. " 

Rom 6:23 NIV "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." 

Jude 7 NIV "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

In combination with their view of immortality being conditional, it is clear how they read these texts and come to their conclusions about the fate of the unrepentant. They think that it is a very poor assumption to hold that all human beings will live forever when not a single scripture states it anywhere in the entire bible. They grant that some texts could imply the immortality of the lost if read a certain way, but they argue that this puts the cart before the horse.

The last reason they give that I will cover today, is the atoning death of Jesus. This is an argument that has gained a lot of traction recently. I have noticed the frequency of its use increase to the point where there is scarcely a time where it isn't brought up in debates or online articles. The reason should be immediately clear: Jesus died for us. He didn't just suffer, he died and the primary focus in scripture is his death. Even when it mentions his suffering it is in conjunction with his death. The argument basically says that since Jesus died for us, then those who do not receive this substitute have to bear that punishment themselves.

Conditionalists believe that all human beings are mortal. That we all die once. That Jesus died and was raised back to life defeating death for us. That we are all resurrected and will face judgment. That those in Christ will be given immortality and that those who are not will die a second time and be lost forever.

Can a scientist trust the New Testament? NT Wright

Tim Keller "Evolution, Creation, and Christian Lay-people"

Here is part of an article by Tim Keller written for BioLogos:

In my estimation what current science tells us about evolution presents four main difficulties for
orthodox Protestants. The first is in the area of Biblical authority. To account for evolution we must see at
least Genesis 1 as non-literal. The questions come along these lines: what does that mean for the idea that
the Bible has final authority? If we refuse to take one part of the Bible literally, why take any parts of it
literally? Aren’t we really allowing science to sit in judgment on our understanding of the Bible rather than
vica versa?
The second difficulty is the confusion of biology and philosophy. Many of the strongest proponents
for evolution as a biological process (such as Dawkins) also see it as a ‘Grand Theory of Everything.’ They
look to natural selection to explain not only all human behavior but even to give the only answers to the
great philosophical questions, such as why we exist, what life is about, and why human nature is what it is.
Doesn’t belief in the one idea—that life is the product of evolution—entail the adoption of this whole ‘world
-view’?
The third difficulty is the historicity of Adam and Eve. One way to reconcile what current science says
about evolution is to propose that the account of Adam and Eve is symbolic, not literal, but what does this
do to the New Testament teaching of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 that our sinfulness comes from our
relationship with Adam? If we don’t believe in an historical fall, how did we become what the Bible says we
are—sinful and condemned?
The fourth difficulty is the problem of violence and evil. One of the greatest barriers to belief in God
is the problem of suffering and evil in the world. Why, people ask, did God create a world in which violence,
pain, and death are endemic? The answer of traditional theology is—he didn’t. He created a good world but
also gave human beings free will, and through their disobedience and ‘Fall’, death and suffering came into
the world. The process of evolution, however, understands violence, predation, and death to be the very
engine of how life develops. If God brings about life through evolution, how do we reconcile that with the
idea of a good God? The problem of evil seems to be worse for the believer in theistic evolution.

Is creation out of nothing a doctrine 'ex nihilo'?

 

Today I will continue to cover the reasons why I reject Young Earth Creationism and believe the earth to be quite old. If you're looking for biblical evidence, reasons, and compatibility you'll find some here. I covered some scientific evidence yesterday including radiometric dating and ice layers.

This is going to have to be a series of posts because there is a lot to cover even off the top of my head so today I will start with the lack of texts that God created the universe out of nothing. I do believe God made the universe out of nothing, but when I examine the Bible there is actually no text that clearly and explicitly states creation 'Ex Nihilo', that is, 'out of nothing'. And before we get too far into this point it is worth saying that the claims of some from the scientific community that the universe indeed did come out of nothing isn't the same thing. For them, 'Nothing' is actually 'Something' such as a quantum vacuum. The move has been deeply criticized for highjacking a term used in philosophy and theology and creating more confusion than light.

Creation 'ex nihilo' is essentially a theological conclusion based upon biblical statements about the nature of God in relation to creation. There are various views on this front: Pantheism, Panentheism, and Theism.

This picture illustrates the differences fairly well. In the middle we see that the universe simply is God, which is pantheism. To the right, we see that the universe is God, but God is still beyond it, or larger than it, or not exhausted by it, which is panentheism. To the left is Theism, which shows that God is completely 'other than' the universe. I think this image does lean more toward a deism, however, because it looks like God is spatially transcendent or beyond the universe with no interaction as though there is a great distance. The Jewish and Christian view of God and creation is one where God is not the universe in any sense, yet sustains it and is immanent, or near, while still transcendent beyond it. The Bible is also clear that God is the only thing or being that is existent from eternity. This is classic theology and because of this view of God and creation it is said that because the universe is in no sense God it must have come into being out of nothing and that such an act was performed by God as the cause.

'But what about Genesis 1?' you ask. This is what it says:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." (Gen 1:1-2 NIV)

Before the first day where God said let there be light we have an earth without form and deep waters. This is not creation out of nothing. The rest of this creation narrative describes God bringing order out of the chaos of the primordial waters and darkness. If you read through you will notice that there simply is not point in which God creates water. He separates it with a solid dome so that some is held back in the sky for rainfall. He makes dry land appear by gathering the waters together (the land was apparently also already there and was not 'created out of nothing' but made to appear by moving the water). The water was already there and God is controlling it; bringing order. There are similar problems with the other creation texts in the Bible. They simply do not make overt proclamation about the first moment of something from nothing.

Millard J Erickson agrees with my assessment that the Bible does not explicitly teach this doctrine saying, "Although the language in the Old Testament is not conclusive, the idea of ex nihilo creation can be found in a number of New Testament passages where the aim is not primarily to make a statement about the nature of creation. In particular, there are numerous references to the beginning of the world or the beginning of creation." (Introducting Christian Doctrine 2nd ed. 2001, pg 131). The phrases in the New Testament are pretty much variations of "from the beginning of the world..." or "since the creation of the world..." Such instances are incidental and not actually teaching creation ex nihilo, yet the implication of these types of statements make it reasonable to hold to the doctrine by inference.

This may seem like a major tangent and have nothing to do with whether or not the earth is young, but stay with me. Even conservative theologians agree that there are only implications from texts and that many of the clearer sounding texts aren't teaching about creation. This means that the creation texts themselves, and particularly the oldest ones, are not giving an account of the moment where something came out of nothing. It is possible to believe that these texts are describing this event, but there is nothing in the texts themselves that requires us to interpret the texts in this way. That means that the Bible's account of creation cannot be giving a clear indication of the age of the universe.