Overstating the Importance of Conditionalism
I offer the following in response to the recent thoughts shared by Jefferson Vann in his article, why conditionalism matters - exposing the lie. I am grateful for Jeff’s voice on ACV and his participation in this conversation.
Apart from what I say below, I would refer you to my original article that seems to have inspired his post, To Reckon and To Answer: God’s Call Upon Advent Christians.
There are three things I must state upfront:
I am an unapologetic conditionalist.
I would like every Advent Christian to be a conditionalist.
I don’t believe it is in keeping with Adventism or the Spirit of Christ to insist that Advent Christians must be thoroughgoing conditionalists.
Please bear this in mind as I offer my considerations of what Jeff has shared. As far as belief in conditionalism itself is concerned, we are agreed. If I have any disagreement, it is not there; my concern lies elsewhere. The matter at hand is not the truth of the doctrine itself but its importance relative to the breadth of Christian doctrine and what implications this might have for our denominational fellowship. Jeff shared his post with the purpose of “encouraging Advent Christians to remain committed to conditionalism.” We must consider what such commitment would mean.
My position is that within this denomination certain facets of conditionalism must be maintained (e.g. the distinction between divine and human natures regarding immortality) but that differences on the nature of the final punishment should be tolerated (i.e. both annihilation and eternal torment). I come to this conclusion thinking along the lines of theological triage (see Gavin Ortlund), Adventist prioritization of essential doctrines and toleration of secondary differences for the sake of the Gospel mission, and Christ’s prayer for Christian unity in John 17.
With those same considerations in mind, I am concerned by how Jeff has framed the relative importance of conditionalism. He has not explicitly stated the practical implications, but I do think they are noticeable if we follow what he presents to its logical conclusion.
From the outset, he seems to hint that those who are not conditionalists have drifted away from “a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.” The logic of his article seems to proceed as follows:
Paul worries the Corinthians (2 Cor. 11) are being deceived and led astray like Eve by the serpent.
This raises the concern of drifting away from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.
The serpent led Eve astray by suggesting she would live forever despite eating of the forbidden tree.
Those who reject conditionalism have accepted the lie of the serpent.
If such persons have accepted the lie of serpent by rejecting conditionalism, they are drifting away from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.
Now, Jeff does say that Christians who are not conditionalists may be sincere. Nonetheless, he seems to suggest they will face some consequence for failing to embrace this doctrine:
“It matters because some of those people are sincere Christians who, like the Corinthians, have been deceived and will face the consequences of their poor choices.”
Given his repeated reference to the Corinthian situation, it is worth considering the doctrinal concern in that case. After verse 3, Paul says this in verse 4,
“For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.” (2 Corinthians 11:4 ESV)
In the same chapter, apparently speaking of those identified in verse 4, Paul also says,
“For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.” (2 Corinthians 11:13-15 ESV)
Do we rightly apply what Paul says here to those who reject conditionalism? We all know Christians who believe in eternal torment - do they proclaim another Christ? Do they spread a different spirit than the Holy Spirit? Do they preach another Gospel? Consequently, would we call such persons false apostles and servants of Satan?
I think it strains all credulity to suggest that this passage can be broadly applied to fellow believers who reject conditionalism. While I disagree with these brothers and sisters, I would never say they preach another Gospel or accuse them of any of the above on that basis alone. Those who believe in eternal torment are wrong about the final punishment and are often wrong in thinking that human beings are inherently immortal. Even so, this hardly merits calling such persons servants of Satan.
To be clear, I am not trying to put words in Jeff’s mouth; I am only pointing out the context of the passage he has used and its apparent implications. If applied in this way, it would seem to demand that we utterly reject those currently in our denomination who do not entirely embrace conditionalism; even beyond the denomination it implies we should treat those who disagree as deceivers, false apostles. Is that what Paul would say about our considerations here? Is this what it means to be committed to conditionalism?
As far as belief in inherent immortality is concerned, I do believe Advent Christians should deny this. If persons will be tormented eternally, it will not be because they are inherently immortal creatures but rather only because God has determined to sustain their existence for that purpose.
With that in mind, I think it is important that we appreciate the distinction between the serpentine lie and belief in eternal torment. While the prospect of eternal torment does entail human immortality, this form of eternal existence is certainly not what tempted Adam and Eve to rebel against God’s command. No, what they had in mind was their continued bliss in the Garden and even some improvement beyond that good estate, yet by their own devices. I do agree that belief in human immortality and a denial of final judgment would amount to the satanic lie; I entirely disagree that we can draw such a parallel with those who believe in eternal torment.
As I have already stated, here and elsewhere, I believe those who hold to eternal torment should be welcome in our denomination. I disagree with these brothers and sisters, but there is no reason why we cannot exhibit love for one another and warmly tolerate each other’s differences on this count. Our people have long bemoaned how we have been rejected by other denominations and organizations because of our conditionalism - how can we protest if we do the same thing? I believe with my whole heart that God has called us to something better. In advance of Christ’s return and for the sake of Gospel we should unite across this doctrinal difference, as we have in other secondary/tertiary matters.
There are some other matters Jeff raises that I am not sure pertain to conditionalism strictly speaking, namely the nature of the intermediate state (various convictions may be held) and the hope of Christ’s return (a matter of basic Christian orthodoxy). I leave those matters untouched.
I believe I have identified concerning implications from Jeff’s piece, but I do not presume to know what implications he believes should follow from what he has presented. So the question remains: what does it mean for Advent Christians to remain committed to conditionalism?
I am committed to conditionalism and hope that we may persuade every Advent Christian of this position. I agree with Jeff that we should certainly expose the satanic lie that leads non-Christians to believe they are inherently immortal and have eternal bliss before them; I agree that we should take a firm stance in maintaining that only God is inherently immortal. Even so, I do not believe that this wholehearted commitment should entail barring those who believe in eternal torment from the fellowship of our denomination; what Pauls says in 2 Corinthians 11 certainly does not provide grounds for this. The stance I take here anticipates the proposal of a new Declaration of Principles that I have formed with the gracious help of others that will soon be published.
ACV exists to foster dialogue on matters like this and all of our writers should feel at liberty to offer further explanation or to amend their opinions without concern for saving face; we must show grace to each other. I reserve the right to change one’s mind for myself, Jeff, and anyone else. We write in pursuit of the truth, seeking one accord.
Scripture quotations are from the Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001, 2007, 2011, 2016 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers.