I.O.U. -- This first section (until the BIG divider-line followed by "What is the meaning of Conditional Immortality?") is temporary;  it will be gone by tomorrow, March 15.

Conditional Immortality  —  Part 3

Unfortunately, the term "Conditional Immortality" often is used in a way that is logically incorrect.

To understand why, just think about the basic logic:  The Bible describes The Condition of Conditional Immortality — IF, and only if, you accept The Grace (offered by God) so you are saved by God, THEN you get The Life (supplied by God) through His "tree of [everlasting] life" — and Conditional Immortality (CI) would occur with either Final Annihilation (FA) or Universal Reconciliation (UR) – but not with Eternal Misery (EM).  Therefore, CI is UR-or-FA.

In principle, a decision-about-defining should be simple, and this section should end here.  But...

In reality, the defining-of-CI is influenced by three criteria:  logical, plus traditional & personal.

    LOGICAL:  As explained above, logically it's easy to see that CI should mean FA-or-UR.
    TRADITIONAL:  In church history, the most common meaning for CI has been only-FA.
    PERSONAL:  Proponents of FA want CI to mean only-FA.  Why?  Because this definition provides apparent support for their view.  How?  The biblical evidence for CI is strong;  and if “CI is only FA” so “CI is not-UR” the strong biblical support for CI seems to provide strong support for FA and against UR, even though this apparent support is not logically warranted.

Many proponents of FA claim that “CI is only FA” so “CI includes FA but excludes UR”, even though this claim is not   They defend this claim mainly by appealing to TRADITION.  But they also use LOGIC by trying (without success) to provide a logical reason for only-FA.

my page, ur2ci.htm -- For example, Peter Grice, in Conditional Immortality – An Acceptable View? (August 2016), says "conditional immortality ... explicitly affirms that immortality is a gift from God given only to the saved" {this is THE PRIMARY MEANING, based on The Condition, that is logically justified} and {in A SECONDARY IMPLICATION, not based on The Condition, that is not logically justifiable}* "also implicitly rejects universal immortality, the view that all people are or will be immortal {thus claiming “IF Conditional Immortality, THEN not Universal Immortality” even though this claim is logically false}* ... therefore {also illogically}* also rejects universal salvation’s stipulation of a universally-met condition for immortality."   /   This summary is quoted — from his article in August 2016, Conditional Immortality – An Acceptable View? — with italics-emphasis in his original, but bold-emphasis added by me, plus {my added comments}.

August 2016 -- As a Christian doctrinal position, conditional immortality affirms that immortality—living forever and never dying—is a gift from God given only to the saved (1 Tim 6:16; Rom 2:7; 2 Tim 1:10; 1 Cor 15:54; John 6:50-51; John 11:25-26; Luke 20:36). It also tacitly rejects universal immortality, the view that all people either are or will be immortal. Since this is a tenet of both eternal torment and universal salvation, conditionalism necessarily denies those two positions.1

January 2016 -- immortality means “will live forever” and conditional means “subject to a condition.” Narrowly expressed, that’s primarily what we mean by the words conditional immortality.

There is more involved theologically, but at the level of words, it remains for us to appreciate the secondary sense of conditional that we are also invoking.

A second sense of conditional, denying universal and absolute

In theological labeling convention [appealing to Tradition], conditional is a technical term implying that conditions will not be universally met

(i.e. rendered absolute). The reason for this is that it’s not merely the fact of a condition that is in view, but rather the interesting question of scope. If you wanted to announce a universal scope, you would call your position universal or unconditional. If you wanted to refer to a limited, nonuniversal scope, you would refer instead to “conditional” matters. In this sense,

something can’t be both universal and conditional. But isn’t a condition that is universally met still a condition? Technically, yes.

However, in that case, the condition has become redundant. As such, it would be trivial—even potentially misleading—to point to it as significant. When choosing the best label for a position, it is important to avoid redundant, trivial technicalities! To object to our label on the basis of the notion of universally met conditions is therefore to nitpick and obfuscate, denying the actual conditionalist view its theological import.

It is not logically justifiable for a defender of Annihilationism to say “sometimes I call my view Annihilationism, and sometimes I call it Conditionalism” because whenever they claim “my view IS Conditionalism” this is a false claim, because they are declaring that Conditional Immortality is “only Final Annihilation” so “Conditional Immortality would not occur with Universal Reconciliation.”  But this is logically incorrect because it puts artificial restrictions on the Possible Afterlife-Realities that would be logically (and theologically) consistent with The Condition defined by God.

Hopefully you are now thinking “yes, we should be logical, so we should define Conditional Immortality as either Final Annihilation or Universal Reconciliation.”  If this is what you're thinking, you don't need to read the next two sections, about The Condition and Possible Afterlife-Realities.  But whether you're thinking "yes, we should be logical" or you want to continue using a less-logical definition, you may find the logic — described verbally and verbally/visually — to be interesting, and worth reading.

What is the meaning of Conditional Immortality?

This page supplements my overview of Conditional Immortality and explanation of why — whenever we use the term Conditional Immortality — it always should mean “either Final Annihilation or Universal Reconciliation” so it never should mean “only Final Annihilation”.

This page is written for defenders of FA, so during discussions I can ask “what do you think about the ideas?  and my attitude? (e.g., is my confidence not justifiable?)”  Then I will use your feedback to change the way I'm thinking, to revise-and-improve what I've written, to condense and clarify, to make it better.  More specifically,...

    I will condense the logical arguments by reducing duplications and cutting non-essentials, if you say “Craig, we agree with your logic,* but we disagree in other ways.”  And where it's needed, I will try to explain the logic more clearly.   /   * maybe logic is not very important in decisions about defining CI, and my sections about logic could be reduced to a fraction of what they are now, with “more about the logic” put into an appendix?
    And I will change my attitude if, for example, you think I'm being ungracious (or inaccurate) in saying “it seems to me that your arguments are based mainly on Tradition-Reasons (not Logic-Reasons) and are motivated by Personal Reasons.”   { Reasons - Logical, Traditional, Personal }

Why did I change?

me in the past, assuming tradition:  For two decades, my papers about FA-versus-EM used Conditional Immortality (CI) to mean only the view I'm now calling Final Annihilation.  While writing these papers, I thought CI was Final Annihilation (FA) — so therefore CI was not Universal Reconciliation (UR) — but now I think CI is FA-or-UR.

me, now persuaded by logic:  Why did I change my mind about the meaning?  It's because in late 2014 when I began to reconsider the plausibility of ultimate Universal Reconciliation, it became easy to recognize (as explained below) that Conditional Immortality could occur with either Final Annihilation or Universal Reconciliation, not just with FA.  Therefore, to be logical we should define Conditional Immortality as “either FA or UR”, not as “only FA”.

some others, not yet persuaded:  Although I was persuaded by the logic of “what Conditional Immortality is, and thus what it should mean,” since 2014 I've discovered that some people don't want to change.  Instead, many defenders of FA — in the community of RethinkingHell.com and beyond — want CI to mean “only FA”.

Comparing Two Definitions  —  A Logical Analysis

Peter Grice, a prominent defender of FA, claims that only one position – annihilationism – is conditional immortality, and I disagree.  Why?  Let's compare our definitions and our logic.

My overview of Conditional Immortality (CI) defines The Condition (that “IF saved, THEN immortal” but “IF un-saved, THEN un-immortal”) and explains why CI is not possible with Eternal Misery (EM), and how CI is possible with either Final Annihilation (FA) or Universal Reconciliation (UR), so “CI is either FA or UR”.*   Each of these two possibilities-for-CI is biblically/logically consistent with The Condition of Conditional Immortality because every existing person (no more, no less) would be saved-and-immortal in The Final State of Afterlife with FA (because all people who were unsaved-in-Life have been annihilated so they no longer exist) or with UR (because all people who were unsaved-in-Life have been saved-in-Afterlife so they now meet The Condition).     {* or is FA+UR in semi-UR}

Peter summarizes his claim — that “CI is only FA” which means “CI includes FA but excludes UR” and “CI is not-UR” — by saying "conditional immortality ... explicitly affirms that immortality is a gift from God given only to the saved" {this is THE PRIMARY MEANING, based on The Condition, that is logically justified} and {in A SECONDARY IMPLICATION, not based on The Condition, that is not logically justifiable}* "also implicitly rejects universal immortality, the view that all people are or will be immortal {thus claiming “IF Conditional Immortality, THEN not Universal Immortality” even though this claim is logically false}* ... therefore {also illogically}* also rejects universal salvation’s stipulation of a universally-met condition for immortality."   /   This summary is quoted — from his article in August 2016, Conditional Immortality – An Acceptable View? — with italics-emphasis in his original, but bold-emphasis added by me, plus {my added comments}.

* Peter and I seem to agree that IF we use only CI's PRIMARY MEANING, then CI is FA-or-UR.  Why?  The logical reasons are briefly summarized above with links to deeper analyses.   /   But we disagree about whether CI has a SECONDARY IMPLICATION that should be used to define CI as only-FA.  Why?  After the next section (about Reasons for Choices), I explain my logical reasons for rejecting his SECONDARY IMPLICATION that CI prohibits a Universally-Met Condition.     {similar arguments also are made by Chris Date & Glenn Peoples}

Reasons for Choices — Logical, Traditional, Personal

If, as I explain above, a claim that “CI is only FA” cannot be logically justified, why do many proponents of FA continue to claim that “CI is only FA” so “CI does not include UR” and “UR is not-CI”?   It seems to me, although of course I could be wrong, that:

    they recognize the biblical/logical weakness of their definition, so
    instead they emphasize the historical tradition supporting it,
    and one of their personal motivations is wanting to maintain the significant rhetorical benefits arising from a claim that only their own position is Conditional Immortality.

This section describes these three factors.

LOGIC:  Above and below, I explain why — if we use Bible-based logic — our biblical/logical conclusion should be that Conditional Immortality (CI) could occur with either FA or UR, so our meaning for CI should be "either FA or UR".

TRADITION:  In church history, the most common meaning for CI has been only FA.  I think this historical tradition should be considered, as one factor in our defining of CI.  But it should not be the most important factor.  We should not be bound by tradition when there are logical reasons to question the tradition, to examine it and then reject the tradition if this seems wise, if the tradition seems wrong.     {two questions of Tradition-versus-Logic:  when defending EM, and defining CI}

PERSONAL Reasons:  A claim that “CI means only FA” is not justified when we use Bible-based logic, so we have Biblical/Logical Reasons to reject the tradition.  Despite the weak logical support for “CI = only FA” — so appeals to Tradition are necessary — why do defenders of FA argue for “CI is only FA” so strongly?  And why do I strongly argue for “CI is either FA or UR”?  Here are brief descriptions of what I think are Personal Reasons by them, and by me.

their personal reasons:  It seems to me that defenders of FA strongly want CI to mean “only FA”.*  Why?  CI is strongly supported in the Bible, and CI is one of my two main Bible-based reasons for rejecting a claim that God will cause Eternal Misery, so CI is a useful idea, and a persuasive term.  Due to the strong biblical support for Conditional Immortality (and the closely related Death Penalty for Sin), IF we use their restrictive definition (if “CI = only-FA”) this is an implicit “hidden argument” favoring FA (if CI = FA) when it's compared with UR (if CI means not-UR).  As part of an effective rhetorical strategy for making their own view appear to be stronger — when FA is compared with EM and (especially) with UR — proponents of FA should rationally want their own view to “get all of the credit” for the strong arguments-against-EM based on CI, so FA doesn't have to “share the credit” with UR.

Terrance Tiessen, as part of the comments responding to an article he wrote about defining CI, observes — re: the strong commitment to using “CI means only FA” despite its lack of logical support — that he "was not fully aware of the extent of the emotional commitment, of annihilationists who have commented here, to ‘conditional immortality’ as the descriptor of their position."

* They can "want CI to mean only FA" as individuals (with reasons arising from their psychology) and in groups (with reasons arising from their sociology), with complex interactions between these levels of life, affecting motivations that are emotional and also strategic.

my personal reasons:  I also have an "emotional commitment" because — in addition to thinking “CI = either FA or UR” is logically justifiable — I strongly want CI to mean either FA or UR.  Why?  As explained above, "CI is strongly supported in the Bible... so CI is a persuasive term," and I don't want “CI is only FA” to be used as an implicit “hidden argument” for FA (if it's defined to be CI) and against UR (if it's defined to be not-CI) when FA is compared with UR.  A definition of CI as “either FA or UR” also makes it easier for me to explain my semi-agnosticism in two steps:

    Step 1:  First, I explain why EM is not compatible with CI so I think EM probably won't happen in Afterlife,* and this is a strong reason to claim that it will be either FA or UR because both views are compatible with CI, because an Afterlife-with-CI could be either FA (Conditional and non-Universal) or UR (Conditional and Universal).     {* EM also seems much less compatible with the biblically revealed character of God.}
    Step 2:  Second, I've discovered, in my evaluations of FA-versus-UR, that the overall biblical support for FA and UR seems to be similar.
    Combining these two steps — when we first ask "WHAT is the penalty for sin?" and then "Who receives this penalty" — produces a summary of my views:  I'm confident that EM will not happen, but I'm not confident when asking “what will happen? will it be FA or UR?”   I'm a Conditionalist (Step 1) who currently thinks there is not enough evidence to choose (in Step 2) between FA and UR.     /     regarding Universal Reconciliation, I'm Hopeful, and am Optimistic but not Confident:  I think everyone should be a Hopeful Universalist who hopes UR will happen;  and, based on what the Bible teaches, I'm Optimistic in thinking “UR might happen,” but not Confident in claiming “UR will happen.”

Logic versus Tradition:  Earlier, I describe how some prominent defenders of FA appeal to Historical Tradition as a strong reason to conclude “CI is only-FA”.  So should they also claim that Historical Tradition is a strong reason to conclude “the Bible teaches EM instead of FA”?  No.  They rightly want us to focus on Biblical/Logical Reasons to evaluate EM versus FA, and they also should want us to focus on Biblical/Logical Reasons when evaluating the benefits of defining CI as only-FA versus FA-or-UR.

Peter Grice  —  HOW to define Conditional Immortality?  (and WHY?)

Above is a brief outline of how Peter Grice defends his claim that “CI is only FA” so “UR does not include CI” and “UR is not-CI”.   His defense is based on two evaluation-criteria:  a Primary Meaning that is logically valid, and a Secondary Implication that is questionable, that is the focus of this section.

In January 2016, Peter defends his claims in a 3-part series (1  2  3  and  123), "Conditional Immortality – What it means and why it’s the best label."  Basically, I'm impressed by what he writes about the history of CI, but not about the logic of “CI = only FA”.  Most of what he writes (in Parts 1 & 2, and the middle of Part 3) is about historical uses of the term conditional immortality, and related philosophies & theologies – e.g. about body-and-soul and death.  What he writes about these topics (in history & philosophy) seems fine, so I just read and learn.  But his sections about logic, especially the beginning and ending of Part 3, is where I think he falls short, not due to a lack of intelligence or knowledge or writing skill (he has plenty of all) but because a logically justifiable defense of “CI = only FA” doesn't seem possible.

In the introduction for Part 3, he describes two ways to define conditional immortality, using The Primary Meaning and A Secondary Implication.  I think his Primary Meaning is logically correct, but his Secondary Implication is logically incorrect.  He explains — with his writing quoted in green, with his original emphasis in italics, but bold emphasis added by me, and inside {brackets} are my comments — his logic:

    ... In the plainest terms immortality means “will live forever” and conditional means “subject to a condition.”  Narrowly expressed, that’s primarily what we mean by the words conditional immortality. {it's THE PRIMARY MEANING - “IFF (i.e. IF and ONLY IF) saved, THEN Immortal” - that is defined by The Condition} ... [but you should] appreciate the secondary sense of conditional that we are also invoking.” {it's A SECONDARY IMPLICATION, with no logical connection to The Condition}
    A second sense of conditional, denying universal and absolute:  In theological labeling convention, conditional is a technical term implying that conditions will not be universally met (i.e. rendered absolute).  {this is the logically unjustifiable SECONDARY IMPLICATION, claiming “if Conditional, then not-Universal”}  The reason for this is that it’s not merely the fact of a condition that is in view, but rather the interesting question of scope.  {yes, this question is interesting and important, because although a Bible-based UR agrees with FA that The Penalty for Sin is Death, UR and FA disagree about the scope of salvation when we ask if the sacrificial substitutionary atonement of Jesus will be effective for all people or only for some}  {but what exactly does Peter mean when he claims that, with Conditionalism, "conditions will not be universally met"?  would a non-universal semi-Universalism be accepted as Conditionalism if only 20% are saved? or if it's 51, 80, 98, or 99.99999%?  or does The Condition become a Non-Condition only if 100% satisfy The Condition?  i.e., where do advocates of “UR is not-CI” want to draw the line?} 
    In an effort to logically support his claim that “if Conditional, then not-Universal”, he says:  If you wanted to announce a universal scope, you would call your position universal {if he said “you could” this is logically true, but claiming "you would" is logically false, because Unconditional is sufficient to guarantee Universal, but is not necessary, because Universal could occur either with either Unconditional or Conditional;  although it's true that “if Unconditional, then Universal”, his claim for the reversed form (“if Universal, then Unconditional”) is false} or unconditional.  {this claim — about "universal or unconditional", with "or" implying that “Universal and Unconditional mean the same thing”, that “Universal = Unconditional” — is false, because it fails to acknowledge the important distinctions (linguistic & logical) between universal and unconditional }
    Also, this error does not allow accurate descriptions of reality, because Universal Immortality could happen in 3 ways — described here in one yellow cell (it's biblical because it's Conditional, is consistent with The Condition) and two gray cells (unbiblical, Unconditional without The Condition) — and the 3 possibilities (whether these occur with or without people meeting The Condition, whether producing eternal Joy or eternal Misery) cannot be fully distinguished if we use Peter's “universal = unconditional” when trying to describe what will happen in Afterlife.  But if we correctly distinguish between Universal and Unconditional — which lets us recognize that CI can occur in two ways, either Conditional and non-Universal or Conditional and Universal, so “CI is either FA or UR”, plus two non-CI possibilities, either Unconditional and Universal-UR or Unconditional and Universal-EM — we can have accurate descriptions of possible Afterlife-Realities}   {as described here, defenders of FA who want Conditional Immortality to mean “only FA” can describe their claim for A SECONDARY IMPLICATION in (at least) two ways, by claiming that “IF Conditional Immortality, THEN not Universal Immortality”, and also that “IF Universal, THEN Unconditional”.  But with either formulation their claim is logically unjustifiable, is false."}  {MORE about this logic with tables showing the logical possibilities}
    a confession:  I'm confused, wondering “am I missing something?”  Am I ignorant because I don't know about the "theological labeling convention" that would make everything clear to me?  or am I over-estimating the importance of Logic, compared with Tradition and Personal Reasons?   It really is difficult for me to understand why Peter thinks there are valid Logical Reasons to claim “CI = only FA”, unless his arguments are based mainly on Tradition (not Logic) and it's seems difficult to imagine how a person who carefully analyzes his reasoning (so it's clearly understood) can justify-and-accept this reasoning unless they have Personal Reasons for wanting to believe “only FA”.  Maybe the logical weakness of his claim — that The Primary Meaning of CI should be supplemented by A Secondary Implication of CI — is acknowledged by Peter when he says...
    But isn’t a condition that is universally met still a condition?  Technically, yes. {which means Logically, yes;  here, he is acknowledging the logical Primary Meaning and describing a reason to reject his Secondary Meaning, because he is intelligent and has thought about this question}  {but then he shifts modes, moving away from “logical philosopher” into “persuading lawyer” so he can try to show that in spite of this logical Primary Meaning, we should define CI to be “only FA”}  However, in that case, the condition has become redundant.  As such, it would be trivial — even potentially misleading — to point to it as significant.  When choosing the best label for a position, it is important to avoid redundant, trivial technicalities!  {is it "trivial" to declare, by contrasting conditional with unconditional, that (because of the condition in CI) nobody gets into the Heaven-Kingdom unless they have repented, are believing, have gratefully accepted the Substitutionary Atonement provided by Jesus Christ, as a divine gift of grace?}  {and is it "redundant" if a biblical/logical definition of CI (as “either FA or UR”) lets us have accurate descriptions of possible Afterlife-Realities?}  To object to our label on the basis of the notion of universally met conditions is therefore to nitpick and obfuscate, denying the actual conditionalist view its theological import."  {he assumes, despite the logic, that "the actual conditionalist view" is only his own view, Annihilationism;  but logically, a similar "significant... theological import" occurs in both views, in Final Annihilation and also Universal Reconciliation, because in both views only those who meet the Condition (by believing-and-repenting so they “pass their tough Final Exam (that is a Condition-Exam)”) are given Immortality, so both views are Conditional Immortality}

my summary:  A proposal that “CI should mean only FA, instead of either FA or UR” is not logically supported in this article.  Why not?  Because The Primary Meaning of CI — which is logically true when we accept The Condition of Conditional Immortality — is consistent with both FA and UR, supporting a definition of CI as “either FA or UR”.  By contrast, defining CI as “only FA” requires A Secondary Implication of CI that is logically false when the important differences between unconditional and universal are acknowledged.

In the next three sections of this third article, Grice describes historical uses of conditional immortality (in 1857, 1892, 1708) and in doing this he is appealing to TRADITION, not LOGIC.  But an illogical defining of CI in the past is not a good reason to define CI illogically now.  For example, re: John Turner in 1708, Peter says: "His language illustrates {illogical} conventions of the time and the contrast between ‘conditional’ and ‘universal’. ... This demonstrates again that a position is called conditional if it denies the unconditional stance, or in other words, the universal or absolute. {but although “if unconditional then universal” is true, claiming the reversed “if universal then unconditional” (which is required for claiming “UR is not-CI”) is false because unconditional is sufficient for universal, but is not necessary}  It indicates that the situation is not universal."  A failure to logically distinguish between unconditional and universal was incorrect in 1708, and it remains incorrect in 2016 (when I originally wrote this page), so an appeal to Illogical Tradition should not be accepted now.   {Reasons for Choices: LOGIC, TRADITION, PERSONAL}

He then describes some philosophical/theological questions associated with "the doctrine of an innately immortal soul."  And in his excellent final section he describes the "theological import" of the conditionalism that both CI-compatible views (FA & UR) can adopt – and should adopt – even though he (in his articles) and other prominent defenders of FA (in their comments) seem to want UR to maintain its unbiblical “historical” foundation in non-conditionalism instead of adopting a Bible-based conditionalism that would make their UR more biblical.  He says,

    In conclusion, there is a primary and secondary sense of our term conditional immortality.  It means {logically} “living forever depends upon a condition” and implies {illogically} “living forever is attained only by some.”

He then returns to the "significant... theological import" of conditional immortality that can be adopted – and should be adopted – by both FA and UR:

    Adam’s sinful disobedience was remedied by Christ’s righteous obedience.  Adam’s sin led to death;  Christ’s victory over death leads to everlasting life. {yes, but do both of these results (death & everlasting life, due to Adam & Christ) occur for "all" – as declared by Paul in Romans 5:18 – or only for some?}  In other words, from our statement, conditional immortality is succinctly this:  "... the view {compatible with both FA & UR} that life or existence is the Creator’s provisional gift to all, which will ultimately either be granted forever on the basis of righteousness (by grace, through faith), or revoked forever on the basis of unrighteousness."

Chris Date & Glenn Peoples  —  HOW to define Conditional Immortality?  (and WHY?)

Chris Date and Glenn Peoples are leaders (along with Peter Grice) in the community of RethinkingHell.com* and are frequent contributors, including the first two "featured episodes" for the website-podcasts (usually hosted by Date), and are highly respected.  To see why, you can hear-and-read about them, and from them:

    In a video about the Rethinking Hell Project, Greg Stump describes the history of RH (2:30-5:54) with major roles played by Peter Grice as founder (3:04-3:24) and Chris Date as spokesman (3:41-4:08).  In another video Peter describes (5:30 to end) why-and-how he started RH.   You can hear them (Date, Peoples, Grice) in a podcast.  And you can find videos by searching for names – chris date, glenn peoples, rethinking hell - in youtube.   {their brief bios, as contributors in RH}  

* The community of Rethinking Hell is highly skilled at promoting high-quality respectful discussions about the nature of hell, and promoting their own view.  I define their view as Annihilationism, but they want to call it Conditional Immortality. 

note:  As above, below in the quotations (green text) the bold-emphasis is added by me;  the black text and {comments inside brackets} also are mine.

In December 2013, Terrance Tiessen (what is his relationship to Annihilationism and Rethinking Hell?) wrote a blog-post about names for views, to describe Another reason why “annihilationism” is a better name than “conditionalism” – evangelical universalism is a form of conditionalism because...

Like evangelical annihilationists, evangelical universalists believe that only those who believe live forever.  Thus, both positions {that I'm calling FA and UR} are forms of “conditional immortality.”

Tiessen is claiming that, if we want to define CI logically, “CI is either FA or UR”.  But prominent members of Rethinking Hell (including Chris Date & Glenn Peoples, and Peter Grice) disagree.  Instead, they claim “CI is only FA”.  Why?

Below are excerpts from 9 comments by Chris Date (6) and Glenn Peoples (3) that were part of the 32 comments responding to Tiessen's article.  Recent website-evidence shows that their main claim in these comments (that “CI is only-FA”) has not changed from then until now.  In their comments and {mine}, many of our disagreements involve a Secondary Implication of CI that is not logically based on The Condition of Conditional Immortality, that instead appeals to Historical Tradition:

    * Earlier, I examine (briefly and in depth) an explanation by Peter Grice, who claims that "conditional immortality... means {in The Primary Meaning of CI} “living forever depends upon a condition” and {in A Secondary Implication of CI} implies “living forever is attained only by some.”  His claim about the Secondary Implication appeals to Logic, but this fails because he ignores the important logical distinctions between universal immortality and unconditional immortality.  He also appeals to the Historical Tradition of a "labeling convention" by saying "in theological labeling convention, conditional is a technical term implying that conditions will not be universally met" so “UR cannot be CI” because with UR the Salvation/Reconciliation is Universal, and this violates the Secondary Implication that is used by him, and also by Chris Date and Glenn Peoples.
    Our Reasons can be Logical, Historical-Traditional, and/or Personal

Here are excerpts — selected from comments by Chris Date & Glenn Peoples, plus Terrance Tiessen — that I've arranged topically, which sometimes isn't the chronological sequential order in which they were posted.

Date:  “Conditional immortality” is not *merely* the doctrine that immortality is conditional upon God giving it. {this dependence should be claimed by all views, by Eternal Misery & Final Annihilation & Universal Reconciliation, by EM & FA & UR;  but this Dependent Existence (that could become Dependent Immortality) is not Conditional Existence (that could become Conditional Immortality) because dependent and conditional are different yet related because dependence allows divine control so God can make our existence conditional}  It’s *additionally* that immortality will only be given to those who express faith in Christ {this is THE PRIMARY MEANING - it's The Condition}, and {claiming A SECONDARY IMPLICATION that goes beyond The Condition, and is not justifiable by LOGIC} that only some will do so.  Therefore, even novel universalists who claim that they believe immortality is conditional do not qualify as conditionalists {so “UR is not-CI”}, because they believe everyone will meet that condition {and if this happened it would violate his Secondary Implication that logically should not be claimed because it isn't included in The Condition and, more important, because it is logically false}.

Tiessen:  Chris, I don’t understand why a condition that is universally met would fail to be a condition. {his response about The Primary Meaning is based on correct LOGIC, because Date's claim for A Secondary Implication (claiming that "only some will do so") is independent from The Condition, so it cannot convert The Condition into A Non-Condition}  So long as it is true that one cannot be saved without repentance and faith, these are {primary} conditions for immortality/eternal life, regardless of how many or few people meet the {primary} conditions.  {yes – here, Thiessen agrees with my earlier questions that are repeated here because I don't think “CI = only-FA” can propose a satisfactory answer}  {does The IFF-Then Condition, in its Primary Meaning, "fail to be a condition" if with semi-Universal Reconciliation 20% of people eventually – because they are saved by God in Life or Afterlife – satisfy The Condition? or if it's 51% or 80%? or it's almost-UR with 98% or 99.99999%? or does it only "fail to be a condition" when the condition-satisfiers go from almost 100% to exactly 100% in UR?  i.e. where do defenders of “only FA is CI, so UR [or semi-UR?] is not-CI” want to draw the line?}

{The possibilities for situations in Afterlife can be difficult to imagine, so here are some non-theological everyday examples where policy-Conditions are universally satisfied.  Imagine these situations:  the policy of a college is that “if you pass your courses, then you can play on our basketball team,” and all 15 roster-players pass their courses;  the policy of Megabus is “if you buy a ticket, then you can ride on our bus,” and all 40 passengers buy a ticket;  the owner/pilot of a skydiving plane has a policy, “if you pay the fee and sign the liability waiver, then you can ride on my plane and jump from it,” and all 20 skydivers pay-and-sign;  the policy of a concert promoter is that “if you buy a ticket, then you can attend,” and all people who attend bought a ticket;  in these situations — with Conditional Playing, Conditional Riding, Conditional Jumping, Conditional Attending — does the policy-Condition "fail to be a Condition" because everyone met the Condition?  if you say “of course not” for these situations, why should you say “there is no Condition” for a divine policy of Conditional Immortality if the Condition-satisfying is 100%? or 99.99999% or 51%, or...?  why (and how) would too many people “successfully meeting a condition” convert the condition into a non-condition?  is there a logical explanation for why “unless a condition eliminates some people, it isn't a condition”?  Along with Terrance, "I don't understand why" although maybe I'm missing something?  –  more:  A Tale of Two Concerts - with Conditional Attending and Unconditional Attending }

{as explained earlier, I have "topically arranged" the responses}  {the topic now shifts from mainly LOGIC (above) to mainly historical TRADITION (below)}

Date:  The phrase “Conditional Immortality” is a specific reference to that view {appealing to TRADITION for his definition of CI}* which entails {in The Primary Meaning, based on The Condition} that immortality in the sense of ongoing physical life and insusceptibility to physical death {this "insusceptibility" was emphasized by Chris in Podcast 77 (made in late 2015, with Chris, Nick Quient, Allison Quient) beginning at 8:28, in a segment from 2:45-10:12 that ends with Chris & Allison stating that Universalists who claim they are Conditionalists actually are not, and their claim (that is my claim) shows they don't understand what Conditionalism means} is a gift given only to those who express saving faith in Jesus Christ, and {in A Secondary Implication, not based on The Condition} that not all human beings will express that kind of faith.

Peoples:  conditional immortality has always maintained {definitely appealing to TRADITION} that not everyone *will* receive immortality ... {because the defenders of “CI = only FA” are} maintaining {in their Secondary Implication, which is not justifiable using LOGIC} that immortality will come to some and not all. 

Date (in a comment quoted above):  even novel universalists who claim that they believe immortality is conditional {this is biblical, so why should it be "novel"?  instead, all defenders of UR should propose CI because it's biblical, and they can propose CI-with-UR because with UR (as with FA) only people who have been saved by God — because they repented-and-believed so they passed Their Final Exam that is Their Condition-Exam — will be made immortal by God} do not qualify as conditionalists.   * {evidently, TRADITION is a reason to continue defining CI as it has been defined by many universalists (but not all) in the past, and also to avoid revising UR even when this would make UR more biblical, as with proposing a CI-based UR}

{when Chris calls this proposal for UR-with-CI "novel" — thus implying that it isn't authentic universalism (because it isn't historical “traditional universalism ” if it's been revised, in order to make it more biblical, by claiming CI?) — is he trying to force UR to stay locked within a doctrinal prison that makes it weaker and less-biblical, so it's a weak strawman-UR that is easier to refute?  But I don't think this is who Chris is, it isn't what he wants.  Instead I prefer the ideas-and-actions of Chris Date when he was chosen to give the opening plenary lecture – "A Seat at the Table: An Appeal for Dialogue and Fellowship" – for the Rethinking Hell Conference in 2015.  His excellent talk (summarized by Jason & Alex) was intended to "set the tone and agenda for this conference."  He explained that his goal (and the goal of others in the community of Rethinking Hell) is to discover truth.*  If anyone claims there is weakness in any part of his own views, he wants to know what they think, so he can think more carefully and perhaps change his thinking (and that of others) so it's closer to truth.  In his talk, he says (at 15:49-16:39), "I am at this point convinced that the Bible clearly and consistently teaches Conditional Immortality,...  But I realize that I'm fallible, and I could thus be wrong.  And if I am wrong, I want to know it. ... I want to know if I'm wrong, because I care deeply about truth.  And if I am wrong, I want my fellow conditionalists to know it, because I care deeply about them.  I think it's important that all of us accept and believe what is true, whether we like it or not.")}  {this is an excellent attitude for all seekers-of-truth, whatever views they propose, so he (and we) also should apply his goal-of-improving to UR, by encouraging UR to change in ways that improve it, instead of criticizing these changes because they are not preserving a less-biblical "traditional" universalism}

{* To "discover truth" is what the community of RH wants, so they encourage open dialogue, with accurate representations of all views.  Chris is helping this happen.  In his conference lecture and in his podcasts, he is consistently fair to other views (including UR) even when he is criticizing their arguments.  He wants to avoid arguing against a distorted strawman view that, due to the fallacy of making it into a strawman, has been made to appear weaker (than it actually is) so it's easier to “win” the argument.  So when he criticizes UR, he wants to avoid the errors described by Robin Parry in 7 Myths about Christian Universalism.}

{As part of a search for truth, Chris usually applauds efforts to improve the quality of all views.  Therefore, I would expect him to simply say “hooray” when a defender of UR changes their view with a "novel formulation" that makes their UR more biblical because they are accepting Conditional Immortality instead of rejecting it.  I would expect him to want this more-biblical "novel formulation" to become the “mainstream formulation.”  Instead he seems to be yearning for “the good old days” when “historical” UR claimed unbiblical Unconditional Immortality, so it was easier to argue against.  Instead of encouraging all views to improve, is he adopting a different attitude — by not wanting UR to improve its quality — when the topic is “how should we define CI?”  And if yes, why? }

{maybe when we're asking this question about CI, there is a difference for Chris – plus Glenn, Peter, and others – that is partly due to PERSONAL Reasons?}

Tiessen:  I was not fully aware of the extent of the emotional commitment of annihilationists who have commented here to “conditional immortality” as the descriptor of their position.  {he thinks their responses indicate PERSONAL Reasons for wanting “CI = only FA”}

{I.O.U. - Later, after asking Chris (and Peter) “what do you think?”, I will revise what I've written above, if they think I'm being un-gracious about the motives of Chris & others;  or if, as I think is probable, there now is TMI about Chris, I'll cut some of it and just keep the essence, will show "the long version" to Chris for two-person conversations between us.}  {and I'll "make it shorter overall" above & below, partly by reducing duplications where I've said the same idea several times}

Peoples:  I usually describe my view as annihilationism, because that is what specifies my view on “hell.” {this "usually" is beneficial, but... instead of "usually" it should be "always" because annihilationism should NEVER be called conditionalism, thus making a claim that “CI is FA, and only FA, so UR cannot be CI”;  when asking “how should we define CI?” we should say “so what?” if defenders of FA use both terms to describe their view – if sometimes the view is called annihilationism but sometimes (instead of never) it's conditionalism }

Date:  I don’t really prefer one term over the other.  I’m perfectly happy being called, and calling myself, an annihilationist.  {again, “so what?” because if he sometimes says annihilationism is conditionalism, he is claiming “CI = FA, and only FA” despite the much stronger logical support for “CI = either FA or UR”;  the only way to improve our terminology is for proponents of Annihilationism to stop calling their view Conditionalism so CI can be correctly defined, logically, as “either FA (this is Conditionalism-AND-Annihilationism) or UR (this is Conditionalism-AND-Universalism)”}

Date:  universalists could hold that God will utterly destroy, in body and soul, those who are not saved, because they believe everyone will be saved!  Therefore, universalists could be annihilationists, too!  {yes – in fact, Chris is describing the two-step process that I (and some others) propose:  first, in Step 1 we ask “What is The Penalty for Sin?” (it’s Death), then in Step 2 we ask “Who will pay this Death Penalty?” (either some with FA or semi-UR, or none with UR)} 

Peoples:  I would also ask that if, on learning that someone is a conditionalist {Step 1 in my two-step process}, you then press further {in a Step 2 that should occur} to find out whether or not they are a universalist.  If not {and why would you stop after Step 1?  only if you are assuming “CI = only FA”?}, then it would appear that the term is helpful after all.  {yes, I think CI is "helpful" because CI eliminates EM from serious consideration in a Step 1 that lets us first conclude “instead of EM, it's either FA (Conditional and non-Universal) or UR (Conditional and Universal)” and then, in Step 2, we can evaluate FA-versus-UR}

Peoples:  traditionalists and universalists both believe in universal immortality.  {yes, this is true;  but Universal-with-EM violates CI, while (in a huge difference between EM & UR) Universal-with-UR is compatible with CI.   /   also, Universal does not require Unconditional - Universal can be Conditional so the Secondary Implication is not justified – this is the "sufficient but not necessary" distinction described earlier.

Date:  Historically, traditionalists and universalists have affirmed that human beings are immortal even before they are saved. … It is only the modern, novel formulations of traditionalism and universalism that claim to hold that immortality is only given at the point of glorification.  But even if one were to grant (which I don’t) that these modern, novel formulations do believe immortality is not received until glorification, “conditional immortality” would still be a helpful term, because  (a) it’s what the position {of CI} has historically gone by {appealing to TRADITION}, and  (b) it’s the position that immortality *in the sense of ongoing physical life* is given only to the saved {this is The Primary Meaning, is logically correct}, and {in A Secondary Implication, with incorrect LOGIC if Chris is claiming that only his view (FA) should be called CI, if he is not merely claiming “CI is the name traditionally used for my position”} that not all will be saved.

Date:  A change in terminology isn’t really necessary to begin with.  “Conditionalism” and “Conditional Immortality” have historically described the view {appealing to historical TRADITION};  you can go back to at least the 19th century to see that this is the case.  The effort, to urge adoption of the {historically} more novel label “annihilationism,” seems to me to be somewhat pedantic. {is it pedantic because it's supported by LOGIC instead of TRADITION?} ..... if you can come up with some re-tooled sense of the term conditionalism so that it includes universalists, great, but it’s hardly legitimate to ask that everyone else take part in that ahistorical convention. {appealing to TRADITION, giving it priority over LOGIC}

How Conditional Immortality is Defined — in Rethinking Hell and Beyond

Many defenders of FA agree with claims — made by Peter Grice and Chris Date & Glenn Peoples and others — that CI is only-FA.*  The 3-part series by Grice is on the excellent website of Rethinking Hell, a community founded by Grice, that argues for FA.  They also argue for CI meaning only-FA, as shown by:

    The top-of-page title banner on their homepage, declaring that the website is "Exploring Evangelical Conditionalism."  Their Statement on E.C. (= Evangelical Conditionalism) is a "statement prepared by Rethinking Hell, a non-profit organization promoting conditional immortality and respectful dialogue on the topic of Hell."  These three uses of conditionalism, to describe their own view of FA, are their official claims that CI means only-FA.
    Their Hell Triangle — a diagram comparing "three views of final punishment," summarizing their similarities & differences — defines the "three views" as Traditionalism [EM], Conditionalism [instead of Annihilationism, FA], and Universalism [UR].  They call their own view Conditionalism, thus claiming that “only FA is CI” so “UR is not-CI”.
    And their homepage-tab for "About" has links not just to their "Statement on E.C." but also to the 3-part article ("Conditional Immortality: What does it mean, and why this label?") written by Grice (which concludes by referring to "our statement [about E.C.]"), and to his new article "...An Acceptable View?"  Therefore his claim that “CI means only-FA” is approved by the website;  in fact, he is writing for the website.

* Also, in comments responding to Terrance Tiessen's second blog-post in December 2013, two prominent leaders in RethinkingHell (Chris Date, Glenn Peoples) objected to Tiessen's logic-based proposal that CI should mean either FA or UR.  At that time there may have been some discussion on the Facebook page of RethinkingHell, but I haven't found a way to easily get back to the discussions of late 2013.  But in early 2016 when Peter Grice published his 3-part article, there was no Facebook discussion about what he wrote.

In the forums of rethinkinghell.com, searching for "grice" (or "tiessen") doesn't lead to any discussions of their claims, so asking “what is the meaning of CI?” doesn't seem to be a question that is discussed much within their community.  Or, more likely, I just don't know about their discussions.

I don't know the views of Annihilationists outside Rethinking Hell, but I know that many of them sometimes (or always?) call their view Conditional Immortality.  And although the official public policy of Rethinking Hell is “FI = only FA”, I don't know what might be happening in private with individuals.  Is anyone in their community, or outside it, wondering “why are we claiming that CI is only-FA, even though this is logically unjustifiable, is logically false?  should we stop making this illogical overly-restrictive claim?”

* My 2 reasons could be expanded to 3, by adding a reason described by Glenn Peoples in a podcast he made for Rethinking Hell.  Glenn's 3 reasons are:  Conditional Immortality (biblical UR agrees);  The Final State of Afterlife (biblical UR agrees – but this Final State is an important result of CI, so so instead of describing it as another reason, I consider it to be part of the “package deal” of Conditional Immortality, so it's included in 4 biblical reasons (all connected with CI) to reject EM);  and the biblical meaning of "destruction" (for this there is disagreement between FA and biblical UR).

Terrance Tiessen and Rethinking Hell

I.O.U. -- Later, I'll revise this section.

In July 2014, Terrance Tiessen was continuing to move further along the path in his 5-part journey in quest of an answer and he was "believing that annihilationism is what the Bible teaches, but formally agnostic about the nature of hell."  Later, in 2015 he "had moved on from the ‘agnosticism’ [of 2014] concerning the nature of hell" and "had become thoroughly convinced [how? why?] of the truth of annihilationism."

Earlier, in December 2013, he wrote his second blog-post about names for views, about Another reason why “annihilationism” is a better name than “conditionalism” - evangelical universalism is a form of conditionalism because...

two blog-posts by Terrance Tiessen (A  B)

{Tiessen also defends the rationality of claims that “CI also includes EM” — if we allow a change in the essential meaning of immortal – but I don't think we should – so being miserable (in EM) would prevent being alive with everlasting conscious existence from being immortal — but I think this re-defining is unbiblical so it should be rejected.} @ur2+ur2ci2 for re-definitions of life/death

In addition, there is an appendix-page for sections that were cut from this page.