INMORTALIDAD CONDICIONAL: ¿UNA OPINIÓN ACEPTABLE?

¿Qué afirma y niega la inmortalidad condicional?

Como posición doctrinal cristiana, la inmortalidad condicional afirma que la inmortalidad —vivir para siempre y no morir nunca— es un don de Dios dado solo a los salvos (1 Tim 6:16; Rom 2:7; 2 Tim 1:10; 1 Cor 15:54; Juan 6:50-51; Juan 11:25-26; Lucas 20:36).

También rechaza tácitamente la inmortalidad universal, la opinión de que todas las personas finalmente vivirán para siempre. Dado que este es un principio tanto del tormento eterno como de la salvación universal, el condicionalismo necesariamente niega esas dos posiciones.1 Técnicamente no niega la idea de un alma inherentemente inmortal, ya que esto no es garantía de que una persona finalmente viva para siempre (Dios puede destruir cuerpo y alma en un juicio final).

La inmortalidad condicional, o condicionalismo, se expresa en términos de una recompensa de "vida eterna" para los salvos, y un "castigo eterno" para los finalmente no salvos (Mateo 25:46). El castigo es un “juicio eterno” de muerte en lugar de vida, ya que la paga del pecado es muerte (Heb 6:2; Rom 6:23). Esto requiere una “destrucción eterna” de “cuerpo y alma” (2 Tes 1:9 cf. Mt 10:28).

Aunque la etiqueta bíblica para ese evento es “la segunda muerte”, también puede llamarse aniquilación (el condicionalismo y el aniquilacionismo pueden usarse indistintamente). Mientras que el concepto de muerte indica la pérdida de la vida pero no especifica la duración, aniquilación habla de una muerte que es una pérdida permanente de la vida y la destrucción de la persona en su totalidad. Dado que Dios es la fuente y el sostén de la vida (Hch 17:25; Heb 1:3; Ap 2:7 cf. Gn 3:22), este tipo de fallecimiento puede considerarse una consecuencia de la separación eterna o separación de Dios.

(más…)

References
1 Por lo tanto, el condicionalismo también rechaza la estipulación de la salvación universal de una condición universal para la inmortalidad.

Episode 93: A Consuming Passion Festschrift Special (Part 2)

Rethinking Hell contributor Chris Date continues a series of special episodes celebrating last year’s publication of the ministry’s second book, A Consuming Passion: Essays on Hell and Immortality in Honor of Edward Fudge, by interviewing its authors. In this second episode of the series, Chris interviews Peter Grice and Glenn Peoples.
After the interview, Chris announces the upcoming third annual Rethinking Hell Conference, being held in London on October 7–8.
Continue reading “Episode 93: A Consuming Passion Festschrift Special (Part 2)”

Cross Purposes: Atonement, Death and the Fate of the Wicked (Part 2)

In a recent article, guest contributor Terrance Tiessen, Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology and Ethics at Providence Theological Seminary, explained that after being convinced of conditional immortality he nevertheless thought for a while “that neither traditionalism nor annihilationism gains an apologetic advantage from the doctrine of Christ’s penal substitutionary atonement” because “Jesus neither suffered endlessly nor was annihilated.”1Terrance Tiessen, “What did Jesus suffer ‘for us and for our salvation’?” Rethinking Hell [blog], posted July 17, 2016, https://rethinkinghell.com/2016/07/what-did-jesus-suffer-for-us-and-for-our-salvation/ (accessed July 17, 2016). Upon further reflection, however, Tiessen has come to conclude that “Since the penalty for sin is death, what Jesus suffered as our sin bearer was death,” while “the unrepentant wicked, who must pay the penalty for their own sin, necessarily die the ‘second death.'” He concludes, therefore, that “penal substitutionary atonement accords much better with conditionalism than it does with endless conscious torment.”2Ibid.

Tiessen echoes my own sentiments, captured in the conclusion to my 2012 article “Cross Purposes: Atonement, Death and the Fate of the Wicked.” “Traditionalists say that Jesus died for our sins,” I wrote, “but what they mean is that he suffered pain leading up to his death . . . And because traditionalists don’t believe the bodies of the risen wicked will ever die, their view of eternal punishment is at the very least considerably more unlike the substitutionary death of Christ than [that of conditionalists].”3Chris Date, “Cross Purposes: Atonement, Death and the Fate of the Wicked,” Rethinking Hell [blog], posted August 12, 2012, http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2012/08/cross-purposes-atonement-death-and-the-fate-of-the-wicked/ (accessed July 17, 2016).

However, I also noted the existence of “the reverse challenge from traditionalists who insist that conditionalism must be false because either Christ wasn’t annihilated or because of conditionalism’s allegedly heretical Christological implications,” and I said we at Rethinking Hell would address the challenge in the future.4Ibid. It is to this challenge that I turn now, if belatedly. Continue reading “Cross Purposes: Atonement, Death and the Fate of the Wicked (Part 2)”

References
1 Terrance Tiessen, “What did Jesus suffer ‘for us and for our salvation’?” Rethinking Hell [blog], posted July 17, 2016, https://rethinkinghell.com/2016/07/what-did-jesus-suffer-for-us-and-for-our-salvation/ (accessed July 17, 2016).
2 Ibid.
3 Chris Date, “Cross Purposes: Atonement, Death and the Fate of the Wicked,” Rethinking Hell [blog], posted August 12, 2012, http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2012/08/cross-purposes-atonement-death-and-the-fate-of-the-wicked/ (accessed July 17, 2016).
4 Ibid.