Speaker 1: 0:10

Welcome to the Theological Touchpoints podcast. I'm Julian. The focus for this episode is Touchpoints at the intersection of biblical theology and everyday life. Here we are at the final episode of this series on Hell. In this episode we will look at a bit of the early Anabaptist understanding of Hell, discuss the consequences of accepting conditional immortality and talk briefly about how we should respond when conditional immortality shows up in our churches. First, what did the Anabaptists believe about Hell?

Speaker 1: 0:40

Edward Fudge, in the video presentation I've referenced previously, says that Annihilationism was held by some of the early Anabaptists. Being a Mennonite, i'm a bit sensitive to how we're presented, so I did some quick digging. While it may be true that some of them did believe Annihilationism, it was never a majority view and it never made it into the main confessions. The Schleitheim makes no mention of Hell, but it was intended to clarify certain doctrines unique to the Anabaptists, not to give a thorough explanation of all biblical doctrines. The Dortrecht Confession and Meno-Symons both made their views quite plain. Neither represent Annihilationism.

Speaker 1: 1:19

Here's an excerpt from Dortrecht Concerning the resurrection of the dead. We confess with the mouth and believe with the heart, according to Scripture, that in the last day, all men who shall have died and fallen asleep shall be awakened and quickened and shall rise again and shall be placed before the judgment seat of Christ and the good be separated from the wicked. That then everyone shall receive in his own body according to that he hath done, whether it be good or evil. The wicked or impious, as accursed, shall be cast into outer darkness, yea into the everlasting pains of Hell, where their worms shall not die nor their fire be quenched and where they, according to Holy Scripture, can never more expect any hope, comfort or redemption. That's from the Dortrecht Confession, article 18. So I hope you can see from this that the early Anabaptists were not confused as to what they believed about Hell. And here the Dortrecht, which is one of the main confessions of the early Anabaptists, makes very clear what the early Anabaptists thought about Hell That all who have died, both righteous and unrighteous, shall be awakened and quickened and shall rise again, and the good and the evil, the just and the unjust shall rise again and shall be placed before the judgment seat of Christ. The good shall be separated from the wicked and then everyone will receive according to what he hath done, whether it be good or evil, and this, borrowing the language of a number of scriptures this receiving, according to what he has done, coming from Romans 2 and other language here that should be very familiar to us if we are familiar with Scripture. A lot of this language comes straight from Scripture All those who have died shall appear before the judgment seat of Christ. The good will be separated from the wicked. And it speaks first of the fate of the righteous and then has this to say about the wicked or impious as the language says, the wicked or impious shall be cast into outer darkness, into everlasting pains of Hell, where there worm shall not die nor their fire be quenched. And then it ends by saying, from which they can never more expect any hope, comfort or redemption. Here, clearly communicating, they understood that Hell is eternal, that it will be experienced eternally, everlasting, everlasting pains, it says, and from this there is no hope of redemption. This dealing with both of the alternative views of Hell that are in circulation right now, both the annihilationism view and the universalism view, and both of those are squarely dealt with in this article of the Doer-Trek Confession.

Speaker 1: 3:57

Meno-simon speaks of Hell multiple times in his works. He says that apostates, if they do not repent, will be damned in Hell for unto eternity. Here are two more quotes from his writings. First, the whole scriptures testify that they speaking here of those who persecute the Anabaptists shall forever bear the intolerable curse and malediction of the righteous judgment of God and the devouring flames of Hell. Their lot shall be like that of the angel of the bottomless pit, with the unbearable wrath of God, death and Hell which shall last forever. Also, he says, one would have to be unmerciful to offer his precious soul, speaking of the soul of an impenitent man, to offer that man's soul to the devil of Hell, under the unbearable judgment, punishment and wrath of God. So he's speaking here in the context of non-resistance. And one of the reasons why it is wrong for a Christian to take the life of another person, especially an unbeliever, is to take the life of that man, is to commit that man to this fate in Hell. Again, one would have to be unmerciful to offer his precious soul, the soul of this man who is an unbeliever, to offer his soul to the devil of Hell, under the unbearable judgment, punishment and wrath of God, so that he would forever have to suffer and bear the tortures of the unquenchable burning, the consuming fire, eternal pain, woe and death. So he uses the language that we're familiar with from Scripture and that are familiar by now in our discussion forever and eternal, unquenchable. But clearly here Meno is communicating. He believes that to kill a man is to send him to an eternal judgment in Hell.

Speaker 1: 5:42

So we've seen, at least from Menno, who is a prominent early Anabaptist, and from the door-trek, that conditional immortality or any form of annihilationism was certainly not a main view in the early Anabaptists. Now Fudge is a respectable scholar, so I'm guessing he's done his research and I'm sure he is correct that some of the early Anabaptists taught annihilationism. He even quotes Calvin, who hated the Anabaptists and one of the reasons why he hated them is, per this quote, that they taught annihilationism rather than eternal conscious torment. But I don't think conditional immortality or annihilationism was ever the prevailing view. In any case, even if it was a prevailing view early on, it didn't last long. It would be wrong to say that the early Anabaptists believed conditional immortality, since it wasn't a main view.

Speaker 1: 6:35

More recently, the Mennonite theologian JC Wenger wrote this of hell in the 20th century, and I believe his position should be our own. He says It is sometimes objected that it is unthinkable that a god of love should consign sinners to a place of torment forever and ever, where there is no longer any opportunity to repent and where the punishment is obviously not redemptive. It should be observed that the doctrine of eternal punishment is not arrived at through philosophy or through a vindictive spirit on the part of the theologians. This doctrine is taught simply because it is the clear representation of the New Testament. That quote taken from Wenger's common work Introduction to Theology. So our Anabaptist history testifies to the traditional view of hell the uncomfortable but unavoidable reality of eternal, fiery judgment for sinners in hell. As JC reminds us, we don't arrive at this view by philosophy, by human wisdom, because this is the idea we like or because this makes sense to us. Nor do we arrive at this view because we want to see sinners punished as much as possible. Rather, we believe that scripture is best understood as teaching that hell is eternal and those who rebel against God will suffer eternally in it. So there's at least a quick introduction to what some of the early Anabaptists believed about hell and about conditional immortality.

Speaker 1: 8:00

I want to spend some time answering the so what question? So what? What difference does it make if we accept conditional immortality? We spend all this time talking about different views, different interpretations, different scriptures that are used. Why does it matter? I want to look at this in three categories Orthodoxy, hematiology and Theology. First, orthodoxy Now the word Orthodoxy gets used a number of ways.

Speaker 1: 8:27

I'm using it simply to refer to that which Christians have traditionally believed. So what does this matter? First, orthodoxy, as I've alluded to conditional immortality is at odds with the majority belief of Christians throughout the last two millennia. We looked at this in the context of the Anabaptists, but we could expand that and look at it in the context of the church. Yes, there have been Christians who have believed in Isolationism, but it was never accepted as an Orthodox view. So the question we need to ask ourselves is am I willing to identify with the historical Christian faith? We Anabaptists are used to being unique and we're used to standing out in a crowd, and I think that also makes us gravitate toward novel ideas, preferring something unconventional and a bit unique rather than the same old traditional belief. But this penchant for uniqueness at times leads us off the narrow path of biblical faith. I cautioned last time about blindly following tradition, but most of the time traditions are built upon biblical truth.

Speaker 1: 9:32

The church has consistently said for the last 2,000 years that hell is eternal. Will we identify with the historical faith? Second, homartiology Homartiology is based on the Greek ha-martia, meaning to miss the mark or, more familiarly translated, sin. What we believe about hell reveals a lot of what we think about sin. Hell shows us just how severe our rebellion against God truly is. God made us, god gave us everything, and he provides not only for our physical needs but even for our salvation through Christ's atoning blood. How severe it is, then, when we use what God has given us to rebel against him. Every good thing comes from God. How dreadful it is when we prostitute ourselves with His gifts while mocking He who is the giver.

Speaker 1: 10:30

Eternity in hell is certainly the just consequence for a willful rebellion against God. Yes, it does strike our souls to think of the eternal sufferings of the sinner, but how much greater should be our jealousy for God's glory. No one will suffer in hell beyond what they deserve. Hell is simply a demonstration of God's holiness, righteousness and glory. Hell is the just consequence for sin. Soberingly, sin against God earns eternal judgment. So why does this matter? Well, it matters because what we do with hell affects what we will do with the historic Christian faith. Secondly, what we do with hell reveals or communicates a lot about what we believe about sin And third, theology.

Speaker 1: 11:24

What we believe about hell reveals our attitude toward God. God is the Creator of all, the Sustainer of all and will be the Judge of all. It is God's divine prerogative to judge as He sees fit. We can be grateful that God Himself is just, else the judgment may be beyond what we actually deserve. He has absolute authority to judge as He wills. Some will say that means He doesn't need to execute justice if He wills to save. Maybe. Since God can judge however He wills, he can just let this inner go free. In a sense, it's true that God can be merciful when He wills to be merciful, but it's also true that God will never will anything that is incompatible with His character. For this reason, salvation requires that God be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. God wills to show mercy to sinners, and so He meets His own requirement for justice. His perfect righteousness is met by His abundant mercy in the cross. He saves not by compromising His justice, but by meeting the requirements of His own justice.

Speaker 1: 12:40

Christ died as a propitiation that we might be saved not by the deeds of the law, but by faith, as we receive what He offers. God is God and God can do what He wills. God, desiring to save sinners, has made a way for sinners to be saved in Christ, but those outside of Christ experience nothing but God's judgment. Those who reject the gospel will suffer the just consequence for their rebellion. God will not compromise His justice. Those in Christ are redeemed by Christ's intervening death. Those outside of Christ bear the wrath themselves.

Speaker 1: 13:30

We must beware of the idolatry that says My God would never. Is it up to you to determine what God is allowed to do? Don't be so arrogant. God does what He chooses. Yes, he loves and, yes, he desires to save, so much so that He did everything necessary for us to be saved. We need only receive the gospel and faith. God's love is experienced within the gospel. But again, those who reject that gospel have denied God's love and will experience only His justice. So why does it matter?

Speaker 1: 14:12

Third, and probably most importantly, what we believe about hell reveals our attitude toward God. Are we willing to believe what He says, or will we redefine and reinterpret what God has clearly said in order to make a view of hell that fits what we would like it to be? Will we submit to God Or will we mock Him by rejecting His truth, fashioning a God according to our own desires and thus an explanation of hell according to what we think is right and just and good? Why does this matter? Does it matter because of theology? It matters because of haemartiology. It matters because of orthodoxy. Will we identify with historic faith? Will we believe what God has said in His word?

Speaker 1: 15:04

Finally, is this a salvation issue? Is this a dividing line between true faith and false? Should we consider apostate those who believe conditional immortality? Or maybe a different way of asking the same question can someone believe conditional immortality and still go to heaven? To answer that it depends. I've done everything I know how to be clear that I don't think this is something the Bible is unclear about. The Bible is clear about this truth. Christians for 2,000 years have been saying the same thing about this truth. We should not reject the truth of hell as eternal conscious torment and think it doesn't matter. But I will say can somebody believe this and go to heaven? It does depend. The answer is either no or yes, depending on some related factors We understand.

Speaker 1: 16:04

We do not have to have a perfect theology in order to be saved. We're saved by faith, not by theology. Getting the truth right does not save us. Getting it wrong doesn't necessarily exclude us from salvation. I say that for two reasons. First, the Bible only gives one condition for salvation, that is, faith. If we believe in the heart and confess with the mouth, we will be saved. Now, even that belief and that confession is theological. We are recognizing our own sin, we are surrendering to Christ, we are receiving redemption in His blood, but not much is required of us theologically beyond that. Perfect understanding of the truth is not a prerequisite for salvation. We grow into the truth, into our understanding, and all of us come to the Gospel with wrong ideas, and God saves us in that. Again, we're saved by faith, not by theology. So we can be wrong about hell and still be saved, and none of us ever gets our theology entirely correct. We all have blind spots, we all have chinks, we all have unknown errors or sometimes known errors that we're trying to find our way through in our belief system, that need to be conformed to Scripture. Infant Christians are susceptible to being led astray. So when an individual is confused about hell and is considering conditional immortality as a legitimate explanation of hell.

Speaker 1: 17:45

We are to be compassionate, we are to uphold the weak, as Second Thessalonians says, or as Jude says on. Some have compassion, making a distinction, but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garments defiled by the flesh. And so our reaction, our response to this changes depending on who it is we're interacting with. If it's someone who's deceived, if it's someone who's immature, if it's someone who's looking, somebody who's trying to find the truth, we are to have compassion on them and help them discover the truth. But others we save with fear, those who knowingly believe false doctrine. We do not have compassion on them. We warn them of the consequences of their sin.

Speaker 1: 18:33

But coming back to the question, can somebody believe conditional immortality and still go to heaven, still be a Christian? I think yes. A person can be misled or deceived and still be a true believer. But sometimes the answer is no. Sometimes the answer to the question can someone believe this and still go to heaven? The answer is no.

Speaker 1: 19:00

I believe conditional immortality departs from Scripture. It contorts Scripture and does damage to other important doctrines. The theology of conditional immortality is incompatible with that of Scripture. So, while a belief in eternal conscious torment is not a part of how we are saved per se. Saving faith includes surrender to God, which is demonstrated in surrender to His written word. So those who resist Scripture, resist the truth of God's word when it is revealed to them, are found to be resisting God himself. How can one who says he is submitted to God walk in willful rebellion against God's word? Salvation through the gospel requires death to self that we may live to God. If we are fighting the word of God, what does that say about our posture toward God? We have no right to claim true faith while resisting the clear teachings of Scripture.

Speaker 1: 20:03

Again, i want to give adequate room for somebody to study Scripture, to wrestle with these truths, to have legitimate questions. We need to be willing to take those questions, answer those questions, lead people to Scripture. But when somebody comes face to face with the biblical truth and says, no, i can't believe that, i can't believe my God would do that, how can that person be a true Christian? If a move toward conditional immortality is a move away from God's word, it is a move that resists God himself, and so, in this sense, this is a salvation issue. Those who accept conditional immortality in willful rebellion against the Spirit's conviction and against the authority of Scripture may take no comfort in the Gospel, any more than we can willfully persist in known sin and expect God's mercy. Nonetheless, we do not comfort ourselves in our sin. Saying God is merciful, god's mercy and God's grace leads us away from sin and toward Christ. True belief demonstrates itself in turning away from sin. True belief demonstrates itself in turning away from false doctrine. If we believe the Gospel, we are surrendered to the Lord and how we live and in what we believe. So is this a salvation issue? Again, i would say no or yes.

Speaker 1: 21:31

If somebody's growing, if somebody's struggling, we need to walk with them, we need to work with them, we need to help them come to the truth. We need to be kind, we need to be patient, we need to help them, we need to bear their burdens and go through the struggle with them. But it's always in working toward the truth. We don't compromise the truth. We lead people toward it. And if someone comes face to face with the truth of God's Word not as we interpret it, not based on our opinion, but based on what God has clearly said in His Word if somebody comes face to face with that and rejects it, i think we need to see this. I think we need to understand that as a rejection of God Himself. For this reason because a move away from biblical view of anything is a move away from the true gospel for this reason we must be stalwart in our defense of the biblical view of hell, not because we like it, not because it's the most attractive, but simply because it's what God has said in His Word.

Speaker 1: 22:35

If conditional immortality is contrary to Scripture or is incompatible with Scripture, it is a heresy indeed. And if it is a heresy, it has no place in Christ's Church. If you are a church leader, you have a responsibility to protect your flock. That means drawing a line, standing for truth and bearing the consequences. While we need to be patient with those who are searching or confused, those who defend or promote conditional immortality are outside the biblical bounds. Allowing their ongoing influence can only be a detriment to the church.

Speaker 1: 23:13

If a person has bound himself to false doctrine, this doctrine or any other, we must not hesitate to cleanse the church of his influence. No faithful shepherd allows a wolf to mingle with the sheep. So we must be stalwart to protect ourselves and our flocks. We must also stand for the truth for the sake of purity. Galatians 5.9 says a little leaven leavens the whole lump. If we want the pure gospel, and thus the true gospel, the only one that saves, we need to purge that which pollutes it. Salvation is found only in the gospel of Christ. If we allow that gospel to be polluted, we risk losing the very gospel by which we are saved.

Speaker 1: 24:00

So I'm asking for a willingness to stand for what we believe and to serve God rather than men. We find that hard to do, and we ought to find it difficult to divide over these things. If we divide willy nilly over anything, over opinion, over preference, and don't care and aren't concerned when we're rending the church of Christ, we've got bigger problems. But when it's an issue of truth, when it's an issue where God has spoken clearly, we need to be willing to draw a line. I don't want to get too personal here, but this isn't something we struggle to do as Anabaptist. We just stand for the wrong things. We excommunicate over style of clothing or facial hair, but not over issues of truth. Now, i'm all for churches making what they believe are the legitimate, appropriate applications of biblical truths. I'm not trying to target clothing or facial hair or any other of those issues. I'm not saying it's wrong to stand for something there, but why do we divide over these little issues and then, when it comes down to a question of the gospel or question of the truth or question of clear biblical doctrine, we act like it doesn't matter? That's the last time you heard of a person being excommunicated for heresy. More often, false ideas are tolerated as long as the person looks the part. But is that what God is really concerned about? Man looks on the outside, the Lord looks on the heart. We need to be willing to protect ourselves, protect our flocks, to stand for and stand in the true gospel. Third and finally, we need to defend the truth for the sake of unity. And yes, i do mean we divide for unity's sake.

Speaker 1: 25:56

True unity is not the absence of conflict. So we often think about unity. True unity is not the absence of conflict. Unity is agreement on the truth. Biblical unity is experienced in a common understanding of the faith. Our tendency is to choose between unity and the truth. Either I can stand for the truth and experience conflict, or I can relax the truth and experience peace, and we get stuck in this false dichotomy. I can stand for the truth or I can stand for unity, but in my experience and as I see it taught in Scripture, the greatest unity is found when I and others agree on the truth. Unity is found in the context of the truth. True Christian fellowship is birthed from a common faith, a common doctrine, a common love. Unity is not found by ignoring the places we disagree. Now, if we're disagreeing on issues that Scripture doesn't give us any direction on, then let's disagree and not worry about it. If Scripture's not clear, it's not worth dividing over. When Scripture is clear, we need to come together for the truth In the depth of unity experienced when we agree on the truth far surpasses the fragile unity experienced when truth is compromised because we all want to just get along. Let's strive for the unity of the Gospel, unity in the Gospel, not unity that sacrifices it.

Speaker 1: 27:28

Alright, so this ends our 6 episode series on conditional immortality. I hope this discussion was helpful for you. This is a complex issue with a complex of perspectives, nuances and opinions. I certainly don't have the last word. I know I said a lot of things on these podcasts, but I don't have the last word. I'm trying to help us, as believers and discover the truth, know why we believe what we believe, so we can correctly discern between truth and error. I don't have the last word. I've done my best to represent conditional immortality correctly and I think we do a disservice to ourselves and to those we are interacting with and to the Gospel when we misrepresent those we disagree with in order to critique them, in order to set ourselves up as better or superior. I've done everything I know how to do to represent conditional immortality as it's presented by those who believe it and then interact with it biblically, give the benefit of the doubt, but give the clear Biblical principle in the end. I would like to hear from you if you have feedback on any of this discussion. I welcome your comments, whether you've agreed with my perspective or disagreed with it. We can help each other toward the truth. Your feedback will help not only in thinking about this issue, but will also shape the future trajectory of the podcast as I think about and interact with other current issues among our end-of-aptists.

Speaker 1: 28:53

Thank you for joining us for this episode of the Theological Touchpoints podcast. This podcast is a production of Sword and Trumpet Ministries. For more information, visit wwwswordandtrumpetorg or theologicaltouchpointscom. If you have thoughts or questions, you can contact us at podcastattheologicaltouchpointscom. Now may the God of Peace himself sanctify you completely and may your whole spirit, soul and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful, who also will do it.