“There and Back Again” · A Reconstituted Conditionalist’s Tale

My apology to J.R.R. Tolkien  and Bilbo Baggins but I do feel a bit like I have been on a journey from what I once found true and meaningful for an adventure of exploration that left me, for a time, convinced that what I once found true and meaningful was wrong. That thing, which early in my Christian life I found true and meaningful, was conditional immortality. Conditional Immortality and my association with my Advent Christian family were like Bilbo’s shire.  I was at home and felt comfortable because I was convinced that it was a Biblical teaching.   I had no interest in going on any adventures that would lead me to explore contrary realms.  In fact after graduating from Berkshire Christian College and attending Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia my conditionalist convictions stood firm.   

Yet after 25 years or so of pastoring in Advent Christian circles (I only have pastored two Advent Christian Churches in my 39 years of ministry) I began to question if what I had come to believe regarding conditional immortality was indeed Biblical.  I left the shire and went on this “kind of scary” adventure and after some time found myself rejecting conditional immortality and embracing the traditional view of eternal conscious torment of the wicked. So I found myself “there,” embracing the traditional view of the nature of hell. Here is my brief tale of my journey “there and back again.”  I am glad I made that journey and I think, in fact, that I had to make it even though at times it  was distressing to myself and to others whom I love and are dear to me. So if you are interested in my tale please continue reading.

I came to faith in Christ at 15 and was discipled by some wonderful Southern Baptist believers at First Baptist Church of Satellite Beach Florida.   I will ever be grateful for them in being agents of grace to me in my early beginnings as a Christian. My father was ending his career in the Air Force and moved our family back to his home in Arundel Maine. I was then 17 and a senior in High School. I remember my first week there asking my Aunt Avis what church in the area had a youth group. Without any hesitation she told me that there was an active and dynamic youth ministry at the Kennebunk Advent Christian church led by Spencer and Ruth Andrews. That is how I was introduced to the Advent Christian denomination. What began at First Baptist in Satellite Beach Florida continued for me at the Kennebunk Advent Christian church that was pastored by Rev. Robert Hewitt. My conversion occurred during the Jesus Movement of the late 60’s and early 70’s, which I am convinced was indeed an awakening or revival and I was all in.  I was active in evangelism at Kennebunk High School and even met a young Advent Christian pastor named Roger Brown and had him come to the high school and give some lectures on the Gospel.   Roger impressed me as both passionate for Christ and knowledgeable and was able to really connect with my peers. He had recently graduated from Berkshire Christian College and within another year that is where I found myself.   

It was as I sat under godly and Gospel-centered teachers like David Dean, Freeman Barton, Carlyle Roberts, Fred Ehle and Oral Collins that I came to be convinced of the Bible’s teaching on the Trinity, the hypostatic union of Christ’s two natures, the doctrines of grace and of conditional immortality. (I can remember that Dr. Dean, being the Calvinist that he was, preferred to call it “conferred immortality.”)   The point is that I was convinced that what I was being taught was fully biblical because of who was teaching me. I was still a young Christian and upon reflection I know now that it was, in part,  my admiration for these teachers that led me to embrace what they taught in their classes. The problem was not with them but with me. They were teaching what they believed was Biblical. They were offering sound reasons and facts. They would not have wanted any of their students to accept their teaching purely based on admiration. Their desire was for their students to let their faith pursue and take hold of reason. They wanted their students to think about and ponder the arguments presented. I understood their arguments and could replicate them but I had not done the hard work of serious contemplation of the Scriptures that I needed in order to come to my own conclusions. So when challenges came, years later, regarding my views of conditional immortality, I found myself in a crisis.    It was during my seminary years that I did the hard work of deliberation regarding the Trinity, the person and work of Christ and the doctrines of grace but I remained on a kind of auto-pilot setting regarding conditional immortality.   

Those challenges came as I was working with a group of pastors on a project to promote a greater and deeper orthodoxy within our Advent Christian denomination. We called ourselves the Themelios Forum and we produced papers and wrote articles for a few years. Of course we were advocating a strong evangelical and Trinitarian position while affirming conditional immortality. In doing more in depth research I found myself again falling into the trap of “theology by admiration.” I had benefited greatly from Christian teachers like John Piper, Don Carson, Al Mohler, J. I Packer and Gregory Beale to mention a few.  I also had great respect for men like John Calvin, John Owen and Charles Spurgeon.  As I read them on this subject  I found myself questioning what it was I in fact believed regarding the nature of final punishment. Could such stalwart teachers be wrong? Could the majority or traditional teaching of the church over the centuries be out of line with the Bible?    

I pored over the pertinent Scripture texts and read the arguments and came away shaken regarding my conditionalism. I especially was disturbed by the text in Revelation 14:9-11. The traditional arguments presented concerning the meaning of “destroy” or “destruction” seemed cogent to me at that time. Yet, upon reflection, the major pull was again, “theology by admiration.”  How could these men and the traditional position of the church be wrong? At least this nagging thought put pressure on me to be more open to a non-conditionalist position. Yet, in all honesty I was wrestling more with the Biblical texts. That was good and profitable. I was premature in announcing on a blog post that I was a “Conditionalist No Longer.” Yet as I made my journey from my ‘theological home” I felt that I needed to come clean. I let the elders of the church know my thinking and they wanted me to remain as the pastor. We already had a number in the church who were not conditionalists but many were. One thing I knew I could never do was lead the church out of the Advent Christian family. So we came to a compromise.  We extended liberty of conscience to our members on this matter and in fact strengthened our doctrinal statement on the nature of final judgment.   Here is how we amended our constitution and statement of faith.  

Concerning matters that pertain to the Bible’s teaching on last things (eschatology) it will be our church’s policy to extend liberty of conscience to one another concerning the interpretation of the Bible’s teaching on the nature of physical death for believers and unbelievers and the exact nature of God’s final judgment of the unrepentant.  However, that liberty of conscience needs to remain within the boundary of understanding that the Gospel without the wrath of God is not the Gospel, for it is the Gospel that saves from God’s wrath by Christ bearing that wrath in our place (the vicarious propitiatory expiation of Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross) and hence His eternal wrath is real.  Therefore, we deny that there are further opportunities for repentance after physical death (post-mortem conversions), or there exists any state or condition of purgatory.  Concerning God’s judgment of the unrepentant we affirm that God’s judgment will be in keeping with his holy justice and that even now all human beings apart from faith in the Lord Jesus Christ are under his wrath and we have an obligation to warn them to flee from the wrath to come by repenting of their sins and their self-reliant autonomy and trust in Jesus Christ as the promised redeemer from sin and God’s wrath.  Further we affirm that God’s wrath is real and final and that hell is in no way morally remedial so as to eventually lead to the universal salvation of those justly banished there. God’s wrath is eternally punitive and for that reason, it is indeed a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God.  Further, God’s wrath in its own way, like his grace, magnifies his glory and must not be denied by the follower of Jesus Christ.  

Even when I came to be convinced of the traditional teaching on hell I kept deliberating.   I was always poring over the major passages praying for light and clarity of thought. I continued dialoguing with the church elders and some close Advent Christian brothers.   So while I was ‘there’ I found myself pulled back again and again to search the Scriptures and this was a very good ‘adventure’ for me.  Again the passage that I was stuck on was Revelation 14:9-11.   

And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name." (Rev. 14:9-11 ESV)

On the surface this seemed to me to support eternal conscious torment of the wicked.   What could be clearer? The one who worships the beast and its image and receives the mark of the beast on his forehead and hand will receive God’s wrath that is described as his drinking the full potency of the wine of God’s wrath and being tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and even in the presence of the Lamb. The smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day or night. So it seemed to me that as long as the smoke of their torment rises their torment continues. I still think that this passage presents a strong challenge to conditional immortality but not a conclusive challenge. I hovered over this text for a long time, wrestling with a principle of hermeneutics that I kept hearing from those who held the traditional view: the New Testament interprets the Old Testament.   Now the reason this kept hounding me was because of what appeared to be a very clear Old Testament text that supported conditionalism. That text was Malachi 4:1-3

"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. 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. 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. 

While the language of torment is used in the Revelation text the language of destruction is used by Malachi.  Both texts depict the fate of the wicked.   In Malachi all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. They will be set ablaze and the blaze will completely destroy them (it will leave them neither root or branch). They will be turned into ashes.  So I kept hearing that since the New Testament should interpret the Old Testament it follows that the Revelation text should have the final word and its plain reading trumps what I was reading in Malachi. Or that because Malachi was writing figuratively his language should not be understood as describing the literal fate of the wicked. Yet, the truth is that Revelation is also highly figurative.   It also seemed to me that none of the proponents of the traditional view really engaged with the Malachi passage in setting forth their arguments.   

Then one of my former Berkshire Christian College professors (through his writings) provided some helpful clarity for me.  It was as I was reading Dr. Oral Collins’ commentary on Revelation that an additional hermeneutical principle was brought to my attention.   While the New Testament, due to progressive revelation, is to interpret the Old Testament, it will not contradict the Old Testament.   Nothing in the New Testament denies or  countermands the teachings of the Old Testament.   So I was left with the task of seeking to understand how these two strongly descriptive passages fit together.  What aided me was the reality that in working to understand and formalize any doctrine from Scripture what was required was that Scripture be compared with Scripture and whatever conclusions reached must be in harmony with Scripture.    

It seemed to me that the way to understand these two texts (in light of other texts on the doctrine of hell and eternal punishment) was that in Revelation 14:9-11 the primary focus was on the process of the punishment and hence the emphasis was on torment, whereas Malachi focused on the final result or consequence.   The Revelation text does point in the direction of the results when it describes the smoke of the torment going up forever and ever but in light of Malachi it cannot be teaching that their torment lasts forever.  For if it does then it clearly contradicts Malachi. This way of handling the Revelation text for me reminded me of what I had been taught regarding Mark 9:42-48 where three times Jesus quotes from Isaiah 66:24 describing the agents of final destruction in Gehenna (Hell) “where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.”   The traditional view sees evidence here as in Revelation 14:9-11 of the wicked suffering eternal conscious torment. Yet in the Old Testament text that Jesus quotes namely Isaiah 66:24 it is the corpses of those who have transgressed against the Lord that are seen being devoured by worms and consumed by unquenchable fire.   These agents of destruction are basically unstoppable.  So the worms do not die and the fire is not quenched but rather thoroughly and  completely secure the  destruction of the corpses of the wicked.  

Now I am giving only the highlights of my journey, but as I was making my way “back again” it seemed obvious to me that the final judgment of the wicked entailed some degree of suffering or torment. How long it occurs in real time cannot be ascertained with any certainty nevertheless degrees of punishing seem to be taught in other texts like Matthew 11:20-24 but the final consequence will be utter destruction. It was good to come back again. Yet the journey or adventure was nevertheless valuable for it forced me to deliberate in a fresh way and brought greater clarity to my thinking regarding “conferred immortality.”   

So as I compose this personal tale as a reconstituted conditionalist I must say that it is good to be back again.  As I have reflected on this journey I have come to some further conclusions. First that the doctrine of conditional immortality belongs with the theological loci of anthropology and eschatology.  While the major non-negotiables of eschatology are the Second Advent of the Lord Jesus Christ and the pouring out of God’s wrath and the establishing of the new heavens and the new earth, differing views on the nature of God’s wrath among committed Christians must not lead to denying the validity of one another’s faith.   

Second, while I think there is a warrant for further and deeper probing on denominationalism and the unity of the visible church of Jesus Christ, the nature of Christian unity is not primarily organizational or institutional.   This means that within historic evangelicalism it has been the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ that forms the basis of true unity and denominations have been formed around secondary or tertiary doctrines.   This is the case with conditional immortality in the Advent Christian denomination. It is our affirmation of the immanence of the Second Advent of the Lord Jesus Christ and conditional immortality that unites us as a denomination or association of like-minded churches.   

I seem to recall that at one time in the preface to our Declaration of Principles there was included a statement that said something like this: “the things most commonly believed among us.”   It was those beliefs that rallied us as a people.  The Declaration of Principles was said not to be a statement of faith that was binding but rather a description of what Advent Christians have “most commonly” believed since the inception of the denomination in 1860.   At that time we were far more heterodox in our theology especially in what was believed and advocated regarding the nature of God and of the person of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Over the years the denomination has moved in a more orthodox and evangelical direction and has embraced the value of a more creedal stance.   Nevertheless it is this ‘secondary doctrine’ of conditional immortality that is distinctive to us and that I would argue needs to be embraced more fully and completely. This would include making sure that in the licensing and credentialing process of those who will fill Advent Christian pulpits that they would be able to affirm and teach this doctrine. In doing this we would be saying that we want to remain committed to this teaching and to advocate for it as we put the primary value on those central doctrines that make us evangelicals who are “conditionalists.”   

Third, we should take great encouragement from many other evangelicals who have and now are promoting conditional immortality as a doctrine that should not be branded as minimizing the justice of God but can be and ought to be embraced by those who call themselves evangelicals. This began with evangelicals in Britain like Harold Guillebaud and Basil F. C. Atkinson.  Atkinson influenced men like John Stott, John Wenham. Two other notable British scholars who embraced conditional immortality were F.F. Bruce and Philip Edgcumb Hughes (who was a very close friend to Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones).  Of course Edward Fudge’s contribution in promoting conditionalism among evangelicals, by opening discussion and substantive debate, cannot be overstated.  We owe much to Edward Fudge and his book “The Fire that Consumes” for bringing out the truth that conditional immortality should not be rejected as heresy on the basis of some kind of “guilt by association.”   Rather, Fudge, with his thorough exegetical and historical work, proved that conditional immortality had Biblical weight that requires a hearing and can indeed be held by those who glory in the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and the authority of the Scriptures.   Further, a substantive and irenic advocacy for conditional immortality is being done by Chris Date and the folk at “Rethinking Hell.”   Conditional immortality, while not a primary tier doctrine, cannot simply be dismissed as an heretical aberration that is unworthy of being embraced by those who call themselves evangelicals.  

Fourth, having stressed the role of these people in advancing conditional immortality within the broader evangelical universe, I still need to guard my heart and mind against doing theology “by admiration.”   It is never a matter of garnering the most reputable names on a list and having the weight of those figures shape one’s theological convictions.  We must never see theology as a numbers game.  The Scripture alone must be our ultimate or final authority for what we believe. Nevertheless, we must not turn a blind eye or a deaf ear to the historical teachings of the church. While the historic creeds and confessions of the church must not bind our consciences they should not be rejected out of hand either. When it comes to creeds and confessions, I would advocate that the Ancient Creeds of the church carry weight that we must not lightly brush aside. The confessions of the Protestant Reformation have significance too in clarifying the Gospel. While these various Protestant Confessions agreed on what the Creeds affirmed  and on what the Gospel is, they varied a great deal on secondary or even tertiary doctrines like the sacraments, church government and the role of  church and state.   

The Ancient Creeds are not simply arbitrary documents that compete with Scripture, rather they are the fruit of years of labor over the Scriptures, in some cases, by men who suffered for their faith.  They were forged in the heat of serious controversy over the big questions of what do the Scriptures indeed teach about the nature of God and the Person of Jesus Christ.  In this sense, while they are not the ultimate authority they bear some interpretive authority which should give us serious pause if we come to views about what we think Scripture teaches on the nature of God and the person of Christ that do not line up with the Apostles, the Nicene, the Chalcedonian and the Athanasian Creeds. The confessions and catechisms of the Protestant Reformation provide some interpretive weight regarding the nature of the Gospel but due to the differences that existed among the Reformers (and still exist among their evangelical heirs) on secondary issues, which are reflected in the different confessions, they are not the doctrines that define what it means to be evangelical anymore than holding to conditional immortality excludes one from being an evangelical.  

Finally, when was the last time you really deliberated over a matter of Biblical teaching? About what doctrines even now might you be uncertain or unclear? I have learned through this journey that I must always remain a learner or a student of the Scriptures. In fact the word disciple really means student. Yes, be teachable but do not be gullible.  Listen carefully to those who proclaim and teach God’s word. Yes, read books and other materials that are either promoting or critiquing theological positions. However, make sure you are going to the Scriptures directly and intentionally and by all means, pray. Make sure that your pursuit of Bible knowledge is at its core a pursuit of God. Seek the illumination of the Holy Spirit who breathed the Scriptures into existence. Remain humble and thus open to communication and dialogue with other believers but be sure that you yourself are being deliberate in striving to understand what the Bible is indeed teaching. This is a journey worth taking and a journey worth returning to again and again.