The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Eternal Conscious Torment vs Conditionalism

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.html

Though, 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.


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

And every true biblical doctrine has been disputed and rejected from the beginning. You don't need "recent history" to show this truth... just read Scripture and you can easily grasp the principle that TRUE TRUTH has always been rejected and a LIE substituted because all humans are born depraved; hating God and all truth.

Secondly, it is often instructive to read the rejections of the teaching of Scripture and the "lies" that come forth justifying them. But they ALL fall to the ground with a loud 'thump" when compared not to "what do men say", but what does GOD say in His infallible, inerrant and inspired Word. Men's distorted reasoning always results in fanciful but woeful error.

Here are some further suggestions that make this issue a 'no-brainer':

- " The Morality of Everlasting Punishment" by Mark Talbot

- "Do the Flames Ever Stop in Hell" by John Zens

- "The Eternity of Hell's Torment by Jonathan Edwards

- "The Positive and Explicit Nature of Christ’s Teaching Concerning Eternal Punishment"

I wonder if this debate even matters in the long run. Regardless of which position one holds, the wrath and curse of God is terrifying whether it remains ongoing for eternity or not.

The apostles Plato and Socrates notwithstanding, Scripture's emphasis is on the resurrection rather than "going to heaven when you die."

I find strong evidence for both positions. Moses and Elijah on the mount of Transfiguration with Christ is pretty convincing evidence of a conscious "intermediate state," for one example.

And yet we find other examples from sacred Scripture that seem to support "conditionalism." I wrote a little about the controversy on my blog here.

Excerpt:


It should make no difference in how we present the gospel to sinners, whether they immediately go to heaven or hell or whether they await the judgment in utter insensibility for however long until Judgment Day.

In case I was not clear enough before. I hold to ECT, the only thing I mentioned is JI Packer saying that Conditionalism is only a fairly recent thing.

I mentioned my findings on that issue.

Scripture of course, is the final authority and that is why I believe in ECT.

Tom

The further references I provided were to help you and any others who are interested in the biblical teaching on "eternal death/damnation/punishment" and how notable and reliable believers have understood that doctrine. Confessionally, the "Eternal Constant Torment" has been the vast majority view among at least in Reformed/Calvinist/Protestant churches.

I realize the following is very simple, but hermeneutically relevant but is certainly problematic for those who reject ECT:


The Greek word "eternal" in both texts is aionios. If "eternal life" which Christ secured for the elect is forever, without end, continuous, then it is likewise true that "eternal damnation" is forever, without end, continuous. There is no way to avoid that fact.

The issue I have concluded with those who reject ECT is not one based upon the "Analogy of Faith" where the didactic portions of Scripture of the matter are the foundation of knowledge, but rather a presupposition upon "logic", "emotion" or a combination of both, e.g., "If God is the God of all love and mercy, then eternal punishment is impossible." The same time of "illogic" is used when the subject of the end of infants who die in infancy. Paul, by the direct inspiration of God, makes it perspicuous as to the condition of ALL mankind when he wrote: Romans 5:12 (KJV) ["i]Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: ... 18 Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."[/i] Thus, ALL human beings die because they are ALL sinners and thus under the just wrath and judgment of God unto damnation UNLESS the Spirit brings a sinner to Christ by faith. The "love and mercy of God" isn't universal for any group but to individuals whom from all eternity God has predestined to salvation in Christ. The fact that ANYONE is shown mercy and saved is beyond comprehension, but it is true that some are indeed rescued from eternal death.

ALL who are cast into hell and the Lake of Fire are deserving of eternal torment as all others (cf. Eph. 2:2,3). The eternal torment that is awaiting all who are outside of Christ is the same eternal punishment and torment which Christ endured on the cross for those whom the Father ordained to be saved by Him. Rejecting ECT isn't something that affects men, but it also has serious implications on all the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith; the Fall, the infinite holiness of God, God's immutable sovereignty, the incomprehensible love and mercy of God, true justice, the atonement of Christ, the depth of love for His elect, the affections of the believer's heart and the expression of true worship, et al.

I think this view, the anti-ECT view, has a very dim view of how God sees sin, and how He deals with it. Those who hold the dissenting view view God as being unjust to punish ppl for an eternity in the lake of fire. However, those there don’t cease to commit sin, but sin throughout all eternity there.

I look at it like this; if one could live a million years and only commit one sin, yet never repent and believe, that one sin would cause him to reside in the lake of fire for eternity. I know that’s not possible, but using it for an example.

Today's "christianity" is nearly devoid of biblical truth which is substituted with "personal gratification". Many will use lots of "god words" but they are vacuous and have no real meaning. The 'by-word" is invariably, "God is LOVE" and "he LOVES everybody without exception" and "Jesus wants to be your friend.", ad nauseam. Fact, God is love, but if one actually reads/studies Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, GOD is overwhelming described as HOLY. A simple consulting of a concordance will reveal that incontrovertible truth. The God of the Bible is infinitely HOLY and the slightest deviation from that perfect holiness invokes His endless and terrifying hatred and wrath. You are 100% correct. One miniscule sin is worthy of eternal damnation. But, even further, due to Adam's sin as the Federal Head of the human race, the penalty that was given by God upon him was physical, spiritual and eternal death. Thus that guilt incurred was passed on to ALL (cf. Rom 5:12-19). And thus, all men from conception are destined to physical, spiritual and eternal death. Now, for reasons unknown to us and known only to God, and which are alien to us as those created in His image, He from all eternity determined to shed His love and mercy upon a remnant of this fallen race and with an incomprehensible cost, redeemed them by the giving of Himself and suffered our sins that we might be made holy and not have to pay the ultimate price ourselves.

To diminish God's holiness and the vicarious substitutionary nature of the atonement and the imputation of Christ's righteous, biblical truth and the very foundation of Christianity becomes a fanciful wisp of smoke which cannot save. God does not and cannot "wink at sin" but He must and does deal with it in only one way; all and any sin must be punished. This is the essence of the Gospel... "and you shall call his name Jesus for He will save His people from their sins. (Matt 1:21).

When this truth actually penetrates not just the mind but becomes fiduciary and moves one's very soul, the love of God begins to be understood and overwhelming. Such questions such as, "How could God hate Esau?", are discarded as juvenile and the true question painfully becomes in bewilderment, "How could God love Jacob???"... no!! How could God actually love anyone????"

Small correction. It is John Stott, not John Scott.

Duly noted,Thankyou.

I knew it was John Stott, not John Scott. I just did not notice my error.

Tom

I thought it would be only fair to Kirk Cameron, to point out that he recently came out explaining some misunderstanding about what he said.

He stated, that he in no way was trying to state that ECT, would be making God unjust.

From his past discussions, my understanding of what Cameron said. He did say that ECT does not fit the crime.
Yet in the following video, he states that was a misunderstanding of what he said.

You be the judge.

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1HCJqdrypP/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Tom

I wonder also if much of the present debate has to do with evangelical emphasis on “going to heaven when we die” rather than where sacred Scripture puts it – on the Resurrection, which is both foundational and ancient, with roots all the way back to Genesis.

But start with a familiar Bible verse everyone knows:


By the term, “death,” does the Apostle mean the continuation of life in a different place or under different circumstances or does he mean DEATH? And if eternal life is a gift that comes only through Christ Jesus, how is it that anyone can say they already possess it without faith in Christ?

Considering Conditional Immortality

The word “immortality” occurs only five times in Scripture:

• In Romans 2:7 it is to be strived for.

• In 1st Corinthians 15:53-54 it is to be “put on” (obtained).

• In 1st Timothy 6:16 it is something that only God possesses.

• In 2nd Timothy 1:10, it is “brought to light.”

Conditionalism argues simply that Man is not immortal just as God Himself is, but that God grants immortality to His elect – on the condition of the New Birth (regeneration). Without regeneration, humankind, the Conditionalist says, is not immortal, but ceases to be, in any real sense, at death. Resurrected “unto judgment” on the Last Day, those who died without regeneration (in Christ) are thrown into the lake of fire along with death and hell (Rev 20:13), where they destroyed (annihilated, wiped out of existence).

The debate centers on whether or not all men are immortal, as Plato taught, or whether we face death and then resurrection – either unto eternal life or eternal death.

I have always been uncertain about the "intermediate state," and there are examples like the one I cited in my first reply - Moses and Elijah appearing with Christ on the mount of transfiguration, for example, is pretty compelling evidence for the traditional view, at least for the elect. But what of the wicked?

How much of the tradition is from Greek philosophy rather than scared Scripture? I have yet to sort all that out.

Just a brief note and a few of references that address the matter of "immortality" and the end of the wicked:

1. A necessary reminder concerning biblical hermeneutics (interpretation of Scripture); a) the Bible and the Bible alone determines how it is to be interpreted. God gave us the written word and also the means to understand how it is to be read and to provide wisdom. b) The didactic (teaching and propositional statements ALWAYS interpret the symbolic).

2. The statements concerning the end of man; the judgment, heaven, hell, new heave and new earth have proposition facts of each that should be the basis upon which we can learn and conclude questions concerning "immortality", punishment, objects of who will be affected, etc. (note: like the word "eternal" and "everlasting" which can mean without beginning or end, e.g., pertaining to God's nature, or man which has a beginning but no end, immortal also has a beginning but no end. Only God has no beginning, but man, covenants, etc. always have a beginning but may have an end or no end. CONTEXT must determine the definition.

Okay, just a few references that are relevant to the discussion:

- Do the Flames Ever Stop in Hell? by John Zens

- The Morality of Everlasting Punishment by Mark R. Talbot

- The Positive and Explicit Nature of Christ’s Teaching Concerning Eternal Punishment

Immorality by Loraine Boettner
- Physical Death
- Immortality
- The Intermediate State

-The Rationale of Hell by John H. Gerstner