Eternal Conscious Torment vs Conditionalism
Throughout the years, I have always believed what I have been basically taught in my first few years as a Christian. For that matter, I still do.
Which is ‘Eternal Conscious Torment’.
The first I heard of what is known as “Conditionalism” (annihilationism) was from John Scott over 25 years ago.
However, Conditionalism was not something until fairly recently with Kirt Cameron and the controversy that ensued.
It seems to be a matter that keeps being brought up on my feeds lately.
The Highway is no stranger to this subject and it even has a few articles on the site, included one I enjoyed by JI Packer.
https://www.the-highway.com/annihilationism_Packer.htmlThough, I need to admit that I was surprised when Packer wrote that Conditionalism is 19th Century phenomenon.
Most theologians and commentators who hold to ECT, even say that Conditionalism, is ancient.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding Packer?
Over the years, one of the things I have found quite helpful when looking at topics like this, is look at history.
It appears Conditionalism has always been a minority position. Nevertheless, there were some in the early Church that believed in it.
Including, Ignatius of Antioch (c. AD 35–108), Justin Martyr (c. AD 100–165), Irenaeus of Lyons (c. AD 130–202), Theophilus of Antioch (late 2nd century, fl. c. AD 170–183), Arnobius of Sicca (late 3rd–early 4th century, fl. c. AD 290–330), Athanasius (c. AD 296–373).
Clement and Polycarp are debated.
Augustine seems to be big driver of Eternal Conscience Torment.
Tertullian, Augustine of Hippo. Augustine, in particular, cemented eternal conscious torment as the dominant Western position.
As I look into the issue, I believe ECT is in my opinion the position that to me is more convincing.
Yet, if I am honest, I am somewhat surprised by some of my findings as I research the issue.
Saying that, I feel that I have only begun to scratch the surface of the issue.
I do like what JI Packer said near the conclusion of his article.
It is distasteful to argue in print against honored fellow-evangelicals, some of whom are good friends and others of whom (I mention Atkinson, Wenham, and Hughes particularly) are now with Christ, so I stop right here. My purpose was only to review the debate and assess the strength of the arguments used, and that I have done. I am not sure that I agree with Peter Toon that “discussion as to whether hell means everlasting punishment or annihilation after judgment . . . is both a waste of time and an attempt to know what we cannot know,”36 but I am sure he is right to say that hell “is part of the whole gospel” and that “to warn people to avoid hell means that hell is a reality.”37 All who settle for warning people to avoid hell can walk in fellowship in their ministry, and legitimately claim to be evangelicals. When John Stott urges that “the ultimate annihilation of the wicked should at least be accepted as a legitimate, biblically founded alternative to their eternal conscious torment,”38 he asks too much, for the biblical foundations of this view prove on inspection, as we have seen, to be inadequate. But it would be wrong for differences of opinion on this matter to lead to breaches of fellowship, though it would be a very happy thing for the Christian world if the differences could be resolved
With that quote in mind. There are some who are placing Kirk Cameron and Conditionalism, as “heresy”.
For them, I disagree. I would call ‘Conditionalism’, error but not heresy.
Tom
