From an interaction on Facebook

 I had an interaction today on Facebook on the topic of hell. Since I spent so much time working on it I didn't want it to go to waste, so I'll reproduce it here. 

Here is the initial interaction: 

Here was his response:

This was my response:

Thanks for taking the time to look into this, I’ll respond below:

//and there are a few verses you gave that proves there will be an eternal torment.//

None of the verses I shared teach eternal torment, it has to be presupposed and read into those verses as we’ll see as we go along. 

//Is 66:24 says the same thing as Mark 9:43,44,45,46,48, that is referencing the lake of fire, not hell.// 

First, the lake of fire IS hell. Hell, Gehenna, the lake of fire are all terms for the final punishment after the resurrection of the dead. What you are calling hell the bible calls hades and is called by theologians the intermediate state. Luke 16 takes place explicitly in hades and not hell since the rich man’s brothers are still alive. Luke 16 is a parable and not a recounting of actual events, but that’s another topic, suffice to say, hades is not final punishment. 

//Is 66:24 says the same thing as Mark 9:43,44,45,46,48, that is referencing the lake of fire, not hell.//

Mark 9:43 says:

And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire.

I’m confused by your statements because you say mark 9 is about the lake of fire, that hell is not the lake of fire, but Jesus explicitly uses the term hell. You’re contradicting scripture. 

I’ll address Rev 20 later, but let’s look at Mark 9 and Isaiah 66. 

Jesus quotes Isaiah 66:24 without changing any other words. This is significant because some intertestamental literature DID change Isaiah 66:24 to make it teach eternal torment. Judith for example as well as some rabbinical literature. Some rabbinical literature from the time of Jesus did change “worm” to “spirit” thus making Isaiah 66:24 teach eternal torment, but Jesus does not go with those rabbis but instead goes back to the text of Isaiah thus revealing that Jesus thinks the more recent changes were incorrect. 

The text of Isaiah 66:24 says:

And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.

Notice that it is DEAD BODIES that the worms and fire are consuming, not living conscious persons. These are corpses, slain by God back in verse 15-16:

For behold, the Lord will come in fire, and his chariots like the whirlwind, to render his anger in fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. For by fire will the Lord enter into judgment, and by his sword, with all flesh; and those _slain_ (not tormented) by the Lord shall be many.

You said //The worm here is in reference to one’s soul// This is reading your presuppositions onto the text. The word for worm means a worm. It’s a maggot that consumes a corpse. 

You might respond “but it says the worm does not die, that means they are tormented forever” 

It does say that the worm “shall not die” but this doesn’t mean that the worm will live forever, it means that the worm will not be thwarted from consuming the corpses. 

The phrase “shall not die” is used 16 times in the bible, 15 times it always refers to being put to death prematurely and the 16th time is Isaiah 66:24. Here are some examples of the phrase being used elsewhere that demonstrate that the phrase does not mean that they are immortal but that they won’t be put to death prematurely. 

Gen 42:19-20  if you are honest men, let one of your brothers remain confined where you are in custody, and let the rest go and carry grain for the famine of your households, and bring your youngest brother to me. So your words will be verified, and you shall not die.” And they did so.

Judges 6:22-23 Then Gideon perceived that he was the angel of the Lord. And Gideon said, “Alas, O Lord God! For now I have seen the angel of the Lord face to face.”  But the Lord said to him, “Peace be to you. Do not fear; you shall not die.”

1 Samuel 20:1-2 Then David fled from Naioth in Ramah and came and said before Jonathan, “What have I done? What is my guilt? And what is my sin before your father, that he seeks my life?” And he said to him, “Far from it! You shall not die. Behold, my father does nothing either great or small without disclosing it to me. And why should my father hide this from me? It is not so.” 

So you can see “shall not die” does not mean in this context “live forever” but it means shall not be put to death prematurely. When it says that the worms “shall not die” it means no one will intervene to remove them to give the bodies a proper burial. 

You may say “but it says the fire is not quenched, that means the fire burns forever” but this is not so. The bible uses unquenchable fire many times to describe the irresistibility of God’s judgment and is used in cases where the fire clearly went out after the judgement was complete. 

Jeremiah 17:27 But if you do not listen to me, to keep the Sabbath day holy, and not to bear a burden and enter by the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day, then I will kindle a fire in its gates, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem and shall not be quenched.’”

This is the exact same words “shall not be quenched” that are used to describe the coming judgment brought by Babylon. The fire consumed the palaces and gates of Jerusalem and burned them to the ground, but 70 years later Nehemiah was able to come and rebuild the walls because the fire had burned out long before. 

If you want more evidence that this is the proper understanding of unquenchable fire in Isaiah 66, consider the number of parallels between Isaiah 1 and Isaiah 65-66. More than a dozen themes that are introduced in Isaiah 1 are concluded in these last chapters. Verse 31 of Isaiah 1 says:

And the strong shall become tinder, and his work a spark, and both of them shall burn together, with none to quench them.

To quench a fire means to put it out. Isaiah says in chapter 1 that there will be no one to put out the fire of God’s judgment, and repeats this in chapter 66 by saying the fire will not be quenched. This means that Isaiah is trying to convey that these judgments can not be resisted, not that they go on forever. 

When Jesus quotes Isaiah in Mark 9 he does so without altering his words, which means that Jesus means the same thing by it that Isaiah did, that God will slay his enemies and they will be no more. 

//Not only does Dan 12:2 say that after death there will be everlasting life or everlasting contempt,//

I’m glad you mentioned Dan 12:2. Here is the text: 

And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Notice that it is only SOME who will have everlasting life. The alternative to life is death, not life in torment. Jesus echoes this same sentiment in John 5:28-29:

Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

Only some will receive life. What Jesus calls “judgment”, Daniel calls “shame and everlasting contempt”. Notice that eternal torment is not mentioned at all. The only thing that speaks to what the lost will feel is “shame”, and notice that that shame is not said to be eternal. What is said to be eternal is contempt, which is not what the lost feel but what the righteous feel toward the lost. 

Now the word that is translated “contempt” is only used in one other place, Isaiah 66:24 where it is translated “abhorrence”. It is the feeling that the righteous will have when they look on this pile of corpses being consumed by fire and maggots. “and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.” The reason this contempt is said to be eternal is because after this judgment, there will never be anything to change our memory of these people. Just as we all look back on Hitler, or Genghis Khan, or Judas and feel disgust, the same will be said for those who are executed by God. 

Daniel was writing two centuries after Isaiah, and I think it was intentional that he chose to use this same word, that only appears in Isaiah 66:24, to describe what happens at final judgement to point his readers back to understand just what is going to happen after the resurrection. They will be raised (Dan 12) Judged (John 5) and slain (Isaiah 66) and forever remembered with contempt/abhorrence (Dan 12) 

//The worm here is in reference to one’s soul. Here are other verses that back up all of the above: Math 13:42,50 Math 18:8 Math 25:41//

Math 13:40-42 _Just as_ the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Jesus says “just as” which means what happened to the weeds is what will happen to the lost, “Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned” (Greek - Katakaio) the Greek word here means “burned down” it means to be completely consumed. In the Septuagint (Greek translation of the old testament) in the section about Moses and the burning bush, it says the bush was burning (kaio) but not consumed (katakaio) and yet Jesus says that the weeds will be “katakaio” burned down, and that the fate of the lost is “just as'' the fate of the weeds. This is a picture of utter destruction, not eternal torment. The burning bush would be an apt depiction of eternal torment, but Jesus says it’s going to be the opposite of that. 

Jesus says they will be thrown into “the fiery furnace” I believe he is drawing on two images.

1. Daniel, where the three are thrown into “the burning fiery furnace” which was meant to kill them (not torment them) but by God’s grace they were preserved unharmed.

2. I think Jesus is alluding to Malachi 4:1-4:

For behold, the day is coming, burning like an _oven_, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the Lord of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. 2 But for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings. You shall go out leaping like calves from the stall. 3 And you shall tread down the wicked, for they will be _ashes_ under the soles of your feet, on the day when I act, says the Lord of hosts.

Ashes can not experience torment. The picture in Matthew 13 is of utter destruction, not eternal torment. If Jesus had wanted to depict someone existing forever in flames rather than someone destroyed by the flames he could have used Paul’s analogy “gold, silver, precious stones” or as some of the early church fathers did who, when trying to illustrate eternal torment, departed from the examples of scripture (which are all very consumable things such as weeds, dead trees, branches, etc…) and said that the lost would be like rocks thrown in the fire, or salamanders, (which at the time were thought to be able to live in fire) or asbestos. 

Math 18:8-9  And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.

First off, notice that this passage is covering the same topic as Mark 9, meaning Matthew and Mark are likely referring to the same teaching, and we saw in Mark 9 that Jesus refers to Isaiah where Isaiah says God will slay his enemies and their corpses will be consumed by fire and maggots. 

Notice also that Matthew equates the “eternal fire” with “hell” showing that they are speaking of the same event. 

Hell here and in Mark 9 is translated from the word “Gehenna” which is derived from the valley of the sons of Hinnom. In Jeremiah 7:30-33 it says:

“For the sons of Judah have done evil in my sight, declares the Lord. They have set their detestable things in the house that is called by my name, to defile it. And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind. Therefore, behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when it will no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter; for they will bury in Topheth, because there is no room elsewhere. And the dead bodies of this people will be food for the birds of the air, and for the beasts of the earth, and none will frighten them away (this also speaks to the irresistibility of God's judgment like worms not dying and fire not being put out). 

The valley of the son of Hinnom will become the valley of slaughter, not the valley of eternal torment. When Jesus uses “Gehenna” he is alluding to this valley where the Israelites sacrificed their babies to Moloch and where, when the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem, they threw the dead bodies of those who they killed (it is also incidentally where the Romans threw the corpses when they destroyed Jerusalem, burned the Temple to the ground, and killed more than a million Jews in the process) If you wanted to give an example for final punishment, this example speaks of execution and not of eternal torment. 

Why does Matthew call it “the hell (Gehenna) of fire” because in Isaiah 30:33 it says:

For a burning place has long been prepared; indeed, for the king it is made ready, its pyre made deep and wide, with fire and wood in abundance; the breath of the Lord, like a stream of sulfur, kindles it.

The word translated “burning place” is Topheth, a place that is in the valley of Hinnom where they sacrificed their children to Moloch. Topheth and Gehenna are the same place. Isaiah says that in Topheth, God has prepared a fire that is kindled by his own breath. This passage is describing a judgment against the king of Assyria, an execution. So the “hell of fire” is even more evidence for execution and not eternal torment. 

Why does Matthew call it “eternal fire”? Well it would help to look at the three places where the phrase is used in scripture. The first is here in Matthew 18 where it is equated with Gehenna, Topheth, the valley of slaughter, thus indicating that whatever eternal fire is, it’s product is death. The second is Matthew 25 which we will get too shortly, and the third is Jude 7, the only one that gives us an example so we can know clearly what eternal fire does. Jude 7 says

just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

So Jude says that S and G underwent “a punishment of eternal fire”. What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah? Well Peter, when writing on these same matters says

if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly

So eternal fire:

1. Turns people to ashes (ala Malachi 4)

2. Condemns to extinction, not eternal torment. And Peter says that these two components together show us “what is going to happen to the ungodly” 

Is Sodom still burning today? You can visit the area today and see for yourself that it is not. So eternal fire doesn’t mean that the fire burns forever. Then in what sense is it eternal? I would say in two senses,

1. Whatever is destroyed by this eternal fire is destroyed forever. Unlike so many ancient cities that were destroyed and rebuilt, destroyed and rebuilt, over and over again, Sodom was never rebuilt, it was destroyed forever. As David says about his enemies

The enemy came to an end in everlasting ruins; their cities you rooted out; the very memory of them has perished.”

eternal fire destroys forever. 

2. The fire comes from the eternal God himself. Genesis 19:24 says:

Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.

The Lord rained fire “from the Lord” meaning from God himself. All throughout scripture the eternal God himself is described as fire and fire comes forth from him.

Deuteronomy 4:24 For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.

Daniel 7:9-10a  “As I looked, thrones were placed, and the Ancient of Days took his seat; his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames; its wheels were burning fire.A stream of fire issued and came out from before him;

Exodus 24: Now the appearance of the glory of the Lord was like a devouring fire on the top of the mountain in the sight of the people of Israel. 

Revelation 1:14 The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire

Isaiah 30:33 For a burning place has long been prepared; indeed, for the king it is made ready, its pyre made deep and wide, with fire and wood in abundance; the breath of the Lord, like a stream of sulfur, kindles it.

Revelation 20:9 And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them,

-----

Math 25:41 and 46  “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. …  And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

The final punishment comes via eternal fire and it results in a punishment that is eternal. 

The punishment is death, it is eternal because it will always be that way. “The righteous will have eternal life because they will never die again. The wicked will have eternal punishment because they will never live again.” As John Evans said “for no law ever did or can inflict the punishment of death for a limited period”. They will always be dead, there is no second resurrection, there is no coming back, there is no second chance. Once executed on the day of judgement, their punishment is eternal.

As Augustine said:

"Then as to the award of death for any great crime, do the laws reckon the punishment to consist in the brief moment in which death is inflicted, or in this, that the offender is eternally banished from the society of the living? And just as the punishment of the first death cuts men off from this present mortal city, so does the punishment of the second death cut men off from that future immortal city. For as the laws of this present city do not provide for the executed criminal's return to it, so neither is he who is condemned to the second death recalled again to life everlasting."

If it seems strange to you to call death an eternal punishment, not because it is experienced forever, but because death will last forever, consider that the bible does this with other terms.

The bible speaks of "eternal sin" this is not a sin that you _do_ forever but a sin you do in time that has eternal consequences.

The bible speaks of "eternal judgment" this does not mean that the process of judgement takes forever but that it happens in time and its results are eternal.

The bible speaks of "eternal redemption" this does not mean Jesus is redeeming forever but having redeemed at a moment in time, that redemption lasts forever.

The bible speaks of "eternal salvation" this does not mean that we are being saved forever but that once we are saved, that salvation lasts forever.

The bible speaks of an "eternal inheritance" this does not mean we will be inheriting forever but that once we have our inheritance, we possess it forever.

The bible speaks of "eternal destruction" this does not mean being destroyed forever (for how can anything be said to be being destroyed if it never is fully destroyed?) but a destruction that, once it is accomplished, lasts forever.

So you see it is perfectly consistent with scripture to call a punishment that takes place in time "eternal" if it's results last forever."

//You can see that clearly in Mark 9 and Is 66 where the reference is to Rev 20:10-15, especially in verse 13 as it says that the sea, death and hell were judged and in verse 14-15 says that who ever was not found in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire, and that is the second death, the death that Rom 6:23 is talking about.//

I agree that Mark 9, Is 66, and Rev 20 are all referring to the same event, but again, it is not “hell” that is thrown into the lake of fire, it is hades, the intermediate state, the realm of the dead. 

This is the death that Rom 6:23 is talking about and it is called the second death because it will be the second time people die, if the second death is something all together different from the first death (since the first death is not eternal torment, but the loss of life) then in what sense can it be called “second”? 

The first use of the term “second death” in scripture is earlier in Revelation 2:10-11:

Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who conquers will not be hurt by the second death.’

The first death mentioned (“be faithful unto death”) refers to the loss of life, for the second death to be “second” it has to be the same kind of thing. 

Here is where it is important to lay out a principle in interpreting Revelation, since the book is a long series of visions, the things that John sees are not to be taken literally, they are to be understood for the meaning they are trying to convey. This meaning is most clear when John, or God, or an angel gives a direct interpretation of something in the vision. The vision on it’s own would be difficult to understand if it were not interpreted for us. Some examples:

Revelation 5:8 And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

John sees: elders holding bowls of incense

The reality: the prayers of the saints

Revelation 17:1 and 15 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who is seated on many waters, … And the angel said to me, “The waters that you saw, where the prostitute is seated, are peoples and multitudes and nations and languages. 

John sees: Prostitute sitting on many waters

The reality: peoples, multitudes, nations, languages

Revelation 20: 11-15 Then I _saw_ a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This _is_ the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

John sees: people being thrown into a lake of fire

The reality: this IS the second death

In each instance (and there are more) John sees something, but the thing that he sees is not the reality, but is a symbol for something else. This is how apocalyptic imagery works and it’s found all throughout scripture. No one thinks that pharaoh's dreams about cows were really about cows. No one thinks Nebuchadnezzar's dream was really about a statue. No one thinks the beasts in Daniel were actually beasts in reality, there is a symbol and it means something different in reality. When God and John interpret the lake of fire (Rev 20:15, Rev 21:8) they interpret it as the second death. This then connects with the HUNDREDS of passages that speak of the end of the wicked as death, destruction, perishing, being no more, etc…

//It seems that you are looking at the words “Destruction" and “Perish” as if they are to say that one will be blotted out and no longer exist. //

That is because this is what these words mean. I could quibble over "no longer exist" since I didn't use that language, but I won't.

///The meaning of the two words couldn’t be farther from the meaning to no longer exist or to be blotted out.//

You are 100% wrong. In Gen 7:23 it says:

He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.

When describing the flood in Luke 17:27 Jesus says:

They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.

The root word translated “destroyed” is the same word that is translated “perish” in John 3:16, that is translated “destroy” in Matthew 10:28 so this means that “destroy/perish” literally does mean the same as “blotted out” in these contexts.

//A simple word search in the dictionary will revel the meanings of these words and they do not mean more than to reduce down to a lesser state and to stop/cease to live.//

I don’t know what dictionary you’re using, but destroy, as used in the new testament to refer to what one active agent (i.e. God) does to another (i.e. humans) it ALWAYS means slay/kill. 

Matthew 2:13: Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.”

Herod wanted to kill Jesus, not “reduce down to a lesser state” and it’s the same root word that’s used in John 3:16 and Matthew 10:28 

Matthew 12:14: But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.

The Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus, not “reduce down to a lesser state” and it’s the same root word that’s used in John 3:16 and Matthew 10:28 

Matthew 22:7: The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

The king killed those murderers, not “reduce down to a lesser state” and it’s the same root word that’s used in John 3:16 and Matthew 10:28 

As one person said “My mind fails to conceive a grosser misinterpretation of language than when the five or six strongest words which the Greek tongue possesses, signifying 'destroy,' or 'destruction,' are explained to mean maintaining an everlasting but wretched existence. To translate black as white is nothing to this."

//The teaching of being blotted out and that hell is not really a place, or that you will just cease to exist is a false doctrinal heresy taught by the Jehovah witness.//

First, I didn’t say that “hell is not really a place” I said “The bible teaches that hell is a place of execution, not eternal torment.” Hell is INDEED a real place, the bible refers to it as “Topheth” and “Gehenna” and “the lake of fire” it is a place where there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth” it is a place of judgment, it is where their worm shall not die and the fire shall not be quenched, so to say that I’m saying that “hell is not really a place” is a lie. 

Second, to say “the teaching… is a false doctrinal heresy taught by the Jehovah witness” is 

A. The logical fallacy of guilt by association. Would it be fair to say that eternal torment is “a false doctrinal heresy taught by Islam”?

B. Ignorant of history. Annihilationism was taught in the very early church by multiple early church fathers, it was a view that popped up again during and since the protestant reformation and it was VERY common in the middle of the 19th century and it is from these protestant, evangelical conditionalists (the name we give ourselves, it stands for conditional immortality as opposed to universal immortality as eternal torment teaches) that Charles Russel got his understanding of final punishment BEFORE he abandoned the bible's teaching on the nature of Christ and started his own cult.

Now in closing, I appreciate your interaction. I hope after reading this you will see that there are lots of reasons to challenge the traditional understanding of final punishment as being eternal torment. I have barely scratched the surface of my studies over the past two years, but what I have learned is that if you will take off the assumptions that you bring to the text about final punishment, and read the words of scripture for themselves, in their own context, you will see with me that the doctrine of conditional immortality is one of the most clearly taught doctrines in scripture. It’s nearly on every page. I’m up for further interaction, but I understand that I’ve given you a lot to digest. I hope things are well with you. 

My thoughts on how a Conditionalist should live in a Traditionalist church

I recently had a meeting with some of the pastors at my church. This was the third meeting I've had with various elders since I let them know of my change of mind on final punishment back in July.

It has been a sanctifying experience. Before I became a conditionalist, for years I have been passionate about three concepts relating to the life of the church. 

The first is in Galatians 6:2 

"Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." 

The second is 1 Peter 4:8 

"Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins." 

The third is Hebrews 13:17 

"Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you." 

I'm especially passionate about that part in bold. 

I'm passionate about believers not just playing nice and putting on a church face but really digging into the mess of each other's lives and helping each other walk with Christ. The life of a Christian is NOT meant to be lived alone. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12:21 

"The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”"

I've never understood how people are satisfied with surface level relationships in the body of Christ. I don't understand why people would keep others at arms lengths, keep their struggles to themselves. It seems that when people do that they go along until they crack and all the yuck spills out. We should be relying on one another in Christ, knowing that others are there for us and being there for others. 

I am so very thankful for the relationships I have at our church both with the friends I am closest too and with the elders as I've gotten to know them. It would have been real easy for them when I told them about my change of mind to just write me off, to just box me in and shut me up. They could have kicked me out, they could have rebuked me publicly, they could have revoked our membership. 

They haven't done that. They have asked that I not go around talking to everyone about this because that would cause a lot of trouble. It has been my intention since the beginning to NOT be a source of division. When I changed my mind on Hell I told almost no one before telling one of our pastors because I don't want to be or come of as being subversive. They have the responsibility of shepherding the flock of God that is among them and the last thing I want to do is make that more difficult. 

This whole time I've been trying to not only feel my own feelings about hell but to see things from their perspective. We are called to love our neighbors as ourselves and to treat others the way we would want to be treated. How can we do that if we don't try to imagine things from their perspective?

Here are some of the thoughts and concerns I imagine they might have:

-They might be concerned because for 1400 years this has been a minority position. It's real easy to believe (and I have done this myself) that if an understanding about a biblical topic has been shared by the vast majority of believes for most of church history, across denominational lines, through more than a dozen centuries then it's difficult to believe that it is wrong. 

-They likely go to the text and read it themselves and they see the traditional view in the text (I'll be writing another blog on this topic) They really believe that the text is teaching ECT.

-They might have concerns about how conditionalism may effect other doctrines.

-They might be concerned that it has often been associated with cults and fringe groups within Christianity. 

-They might worry that it might sap the zeal or urgency for sharing the gospel.

-They might worry that if they were to change their minds that they would have to step down from church leadership.

-They might worry about the impact that would have on those who look up to them if they were to change their minds. 

-They might worry that if people believe that the "church" has been wrong on this issue that it might be wrong on more foundational issues like the trinity, the deity of Jesus, the exclusivity of the gospel etc... and that it may shipwreck the faith of some. 

-They might worry that it may take away the urgency for unbelievers to accept Christ.

-They might worry that it could cause a church split.

-They might find it hard to believe that all the people who have taught them and poured into their lives have been wrong. 

-They might worry about the personal cost if they were to consider this view. "Will I lose friendships? Will I lose my job? How can I provide for my family?

-They may worry about letting themselves be deceived.

-They might be concerned that it is only emotions that would be pulling them to believe in conditionalism. Traditionalism is a hard truth and it's too easy to give into wishful thinking.

-They may be worried about persecution if they were to adopt conditionalism.

-They may be worried about being ostracized by family and those whom they respect.

-They may worry that if they are just deceiving themselves that they could be used to deceive others. 

I could go on and on, there are many more concerns that they could face and I would not be a disciple of Christ if I just shoved all that aside and yelled "don't you care about the truth?!" or something like that. 

I believe that I have understood what the bible is saying correctly by accepting conditionalism. I want to stay humble enough to say that I might be wrong. None of us comes to the bible nakedly objective. We all have our presuppositions, our assumptions, life experiences that shape how we take in information and how we interpret the text. 

Often, when faced with two similarly good but different explanations of a passage or a doctrine we accept the one that "feels" more correct. To admit that sounds like we're guided by our feelings, that is not what I mean. What I mean is that often when two people make equally good cases to us it is other factors, factors we are often unaware of that lead us to go with one over the other.  I can't fault anyone else for doing this since I do it myself. If I'm going to love my neighbor as myself I must be willing to put up with things in them that I would hope others would put up with in me. 

It has become clear to me, through these meetings and other conversations that at least for now, neither of us are going to convince the other. The question then is, how do we live out our Christianity together?

First, I'm thankful that at least in my situation the elders do not believe that my conviction is a salvation issue. They also do not think it is an issue that would warrant church discipline. With those two concerns out of the way, they do however believe that it is a serious error. Because of this they have taken me out of teaching positions at the church (I was teaching a home fellowship group and was in the rotation for Sunday morning prayer and scripture reading) They have asked that I 

1. Not bring up the topic with people I haven't already talked to in the church. 

2. Refrain from trying to convince others of my view that already know that I hold it (my 6 or 7 closest friends). 

I am however able to talk with said friends about the situation proper. I can discuss how my meetings have gone, share my thoughts and feelings, pray with them etc...

I also am able to discuss this issue itself with the elders and 2 of my closest friends. This has been a great relief since I don't have to keep all my thoughts bottled up in my head. 

------

Now I know that many will perhaps read this and they will have all manner of different reactions. Some may read about my current situation and think "They don't have the right to silence you like this" others may read it and think "They should be silencing you more!" and everywhere in between. 

I get those thoughts. 

For those of you who think "They are not being fair with you" I want to share my perspective.

While I would love to be able to freely discuss my view with everyone or anyone in our church I realize that to do so could cause tremendous chaos. I know there are people in our church who upon hearing about my change of mind would say "that's interesting. What led you to adopt that view?" or "this is not something we should divide over." I also remember having a conversation with a man (several years before I became a conditionalist) who was concerned that our church was working together with another church because THAT church was renting their building from the 7th day Adventists and the 7th day Adventists are Annihilationists. I imagine he would have quite strong feelings if he knew what I've come to believe. 

I love my pastors. I love them as my pastor, and as a brother, and as friends. I know how hard being a pastor is. I know they have many early mornings, many full days, many late nights, many nights lost in concern or in prayer. I know that being a pastor is hard on their families, that often times when crises arise that it is their wives and children who sacrifice time with them. I know they carry the weight of the well-being of hundreds of people. As the apostle says when listing all the difficulties he has faced:

"In toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night... And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant?"

My heart truly goes out to these men and the burdens they endure. How could I demand they give me my freedom when they have given themselves as slaves for Christ? Are we not all called to pick up our cross and follow Jesus?

If I were to go around making the case to everyone in the church, it would be like an arsonist going around starting fires. I believe that conditionalism is true, but the elders to do not. Am I going to win them over by causing conflict and schism? 

Even if I am right, the way I go about sharing what I believe to be truth matters. 

If you are a conditionalist reading this I want to appeal to you to consider carefully how you carry yourself. We can wield the truth as a weapon and destroy what we should rather be building up. I want to consider Romans 14 in it's entirety since it speaks to exactly how we should handle ourselves in this situation.

1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

What we believe about final punishment is not a salvation issue. In Paul's audience there were some who, by how they've understood the word, believed that they should not eat meat. Others, by how they have understood the word, believe they are able to eat meat. The key is that we are told not to quarrel over opinions. 

In the issue of hell, let the traditionalist not despise the conditionalist and let not the conditionalist pass judgement on the traditionalist for since this is not a salvation issue it is evident that God has welcomed him. Who are we to pass judgment over God's servant? He and you are both accountable to God and because of what Jesus did on the cross, because of the righteousness of Christ we will both be upheld for Jesus is able to hold us up.

5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

Here Paul brings up another issue. Some people disagree on what is acceptable to eat, others disagree on whether some days are better than others. Paul's statement at the end of verse 5 is fascinating. Rather than say "each one should admit they might be wrong" rather he says that "each one should be FULLY CONVINCED in his own mind."

Here is John pipers thoughts: 

Therefore I conclude from what Paul says that the way for disagreeing Christians to get along with each other in a truth-honoring, Christ-exalting way is not to breed indecisiveness on minor issues. The answer to judgmentalism and despising others and not accepting others is not vacillation, wavering, indecisiveness, and uncertainty about what to do. That might create a kind of peace. People without opinions tend to be able to get along pretty well. But evidently Paul does not believe the solution to Christian disagreement is for all of us to become wishy-washy—even on the minor issues! When Paul weighs the risks of the mindset that can’t come to a conviction and stand for it, versus the risks of the mindset that has convictions on all minor matters, he chooses the second set of risks. In fact, he advocates for the second set of risks: “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."

The key to in what WAY we should be convinced is in the next verse:

6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 

It doesn't seem that Paul is saying that we must be convinced that we are right but rather we should be convinced that what we believe honors the Lord.

The traditionalist believes he is honoring the Lord to believe in eternal torment, the conditionalist believes he is honoring the Lord to believe in eternal destruction. We should recognize in each other the desire to honor the Lord in what we believe.

If you are struggling with loving traditionalists, with being patient with them, with thinking the best of them, please read that last sentence again. 

If we are really Christians, then the deepest desire of our heart is to love God with all our heart and mind and strength. I recognize in my brothers that they are not believing in traditionalism because it is just tradition or because they hate unbelievers, they believe it because they think it is what the word says. They desire to conform their beliefs to Jesus. I want to honor that in them. If we are seeking to believe things simply because they feel good or are pragmatic or they are appealing we should repent. 

7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

I can't tell you how much these 3 verses make my heart soar and how there is a deep longing in my heart for my life and the life of those who are in Christ to exemplify this attitude. 

1 cor 6:19-20: 

"Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body."

When we really get the gospel, what God has done for us, how can we insist on our own way?

Philippians 2:2-5

"complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus"

 Jesus emptied himself by taking on the form of a servant. He didn't seek his own good but sought ours. He was willing to suffer himself for our good. We should follow his example. 

If I was seeking to please my flesh my pride would be hurt. It hurts to be removed from a teaching position. If people were to ask me why I'm no longer teaching, I don't have an answer that makes me look good.

It hurts to be asked to not discuss with others what I've come to believe to be true about hell. It hurts to know that people I respect and care about think that I am wrong in a serious way. All of those thoughts and feelings need to be crucified. If giving up all those things, the respect of being a teacher, the status of approval as appearing sound in doctrine in the eyes of people who's opinions I value, is required in order to preserve the unity of the body then I will lay them at the foot of the cross. My deepest desire is that Jesus would be honored in my life. I stumble in many ways but I am determined to do all that I can to love Him and to love others through this.

10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; 11 for it is written,
“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” 12 So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

If some of you are facing situations that are similar to mine, take courage from these verses. It is not our place to pass Judgment. I cannot judge my brother. I'm not in authority over him. How can I let him be small in my sight? (the word translated in the ESV as despise can mean to think of as nothing) Remember that they will stand before God and give an account of himself to God, if he was wrong about hell, God will address it. But also remember that YOU will stand before God. If you have been despising your brothers for their view of hell God will also address that with YOU. 

13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. 16 So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.

There are ways to discuss our disagreements that work toward building one another up. There are also ways to discuss our disagreements that tear each other down. Paul says that he personally is persuaded that nothing is unclean in itself but he understands that if another person see's it differently then in their own conscience it IS unclean. If Paul thinks that it's fine for him to eat bacon and a brother thinks that bacon should not be eaten, for that brother to eat it would be to violate his conscience. 

If I think something is sinful then to allow my self to do it would be to allow myself to sin. To push someone into that kind of moral dilemma is unloving and dangerous. If I push a brother into violating his conscience he may learn to do that in other areas as well. I may end up pushing him along a path that even ends up walking away from the faith all together. 

If I promote what I believe to be "good" in such a way that it damages others faith, others will regard what I believe to be good as if it were "evil". If I promote conditionalism, a thing which I regard as good, in such a way that it causes chaos, disorder, crisis of faith in others in the church, everyone who disagrees with me will look on conditionalism as a problem. The same could be said about how we hold Calvinism, Continuationism, Baptism, our view of the Eschatology, etc... Paul tells us to hold our opinions on secondary matters in love. 

20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. 21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. 22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

Sometimes as conditionalists we can feel so sure that we are right that we just want to MAKE everyone else see what we see. But if the way we go about talking about our understanding harms another brother Paul says it would be better if we just shut our mouths.  Paul says "the faith that you have, keep between yourself and God" this means that it IS appropriate at times NOT to argue for your cause. Since this is not a salvation issue, we can be wrong on it and still be approved by God. One of them was right, either the day was better or it wasn't but both are holding their beliefs so as to honor God. Either it is okay to eat meat or it's not, but both believe they are doing what is right toward God. If you never convince others of the truth of your view, if they are in Christ, they will still be accepted by God. 

------

I want to say a final word to my traditionalist and conditionalist friends. 

To the conditionalists reading this please remember that many of you were likely traditionalist yourselves, perhaps for decades. You read the scriptures and you thought they taught ECT. You discounted conditionalist arguments and were not persuaded by them. The Lord had to bring you through all the life experience necessary to the point that you could receive a change of mind. Therefore have mercy on others knowing that they are not where you are at. 

It's not due on their part to moral deficiency, they believe they are believing what the bible says. Many traditionalists have stated that they don't like the doctrine but they believe it is what the bible teaches. Love and treat them the way you would want to be treated. I don't believe that Paul's instructions in Romans 14 rules out conversation to try to mutually discover the truth but it does preclude causing another to stumble in the way we interact over disagreements. 

To my traditionalist brothers, please also remember our view is not due to moral deficiency. We are not conditionalists merely because we "can't stomach the truth about hell" or because we put our feelings ahead of the text.

Please be humbled by the fact that in the first five centuries of the church there was GREAT diversity of views. Conditionalists (Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Athanasius) Universalists (Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, perhaps Clement of Alexandria) and Traditionalists (Athenagorus, Tertullian, Augustine) all worked together for the gospel, they didn't anathematize each other over their view of hell. None of the first ecumenical counsels decided dogmatically on the nature of hell which means, despite a diversity of views, no one thought a particular view was essential for salvation or that it disqualified one from ministry. 

I would encourage you in two ways, first be careful to make more of this doctrine than the early church did, if they could tolerate diversity on this issue so can we. Second, put yourselves in our shoes, if you came to be persuaded FROM THE SCRIPTURES that the end of the wicked is death, how would you hope to be treated. 

I love you all. For the glory of Christ and the furtherance of the gospel, peace be with you in Christ.