The entire essay is available here.
What Did the Anabaptists Believe about Hell?
Edward Fudge, in the video presentation I’ve already referenced, 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. The Dordrecht Confession and Menno Simons both make their view quite plain; neither represent Annihilationism. Here is an excerpt from Dordrecht.
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 awaked 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 worm shall not die, nor their fire be quenched, and where they, according to holy Scripture, can nevermore expect any hope, comfort, or redemption.
The Dordrecht Confession, Article 18
Menno Simons speaks of hell multiple times. He says that apostates, if they do not repent, will be “damned in hell for unto eternity.”[1] Here are two more quotes from his writings.
The whole Scriptures testify that they (persecutors) 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.[2]
One would be unmerciful to offer his precious soul (the soul of an impenitent man)…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.[3]
I’m sure it is correct that some of the early Anabaptists taught Annihilationism, but I do not think it was ever the prevailing view. In any case, it didn’t last long.
The more recent Mennonite theologian, J.C. Wenger, wrote this of hell. His position should be our own.
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 theologians. This doctrine is taught simply because it is the clear representation of the New Testament.[4]
Truth has Consequences
So what? What difference does it make if we accept Conditional Immortality? I want to look at this in three categories: orthodoxy, hamartiology, and theology.
First, orthodoxy. As I’ve alluded to, Conditional Immortality is at odds with the majority belief of Christians throughout the last two millennia. Yes, there have been Christians who have believed Annihilationism or Conditional Immortality, but it was never accepted as an orthodox view. 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, used to standing out in a crowd. I think that also makes us gravitate toward novel ideas, preferring something unconventional and a bit unique rather than the same old traditional belief. This penchant for uniqueness at times leads us off the narrow path of biblical faith.
Second, hamartiology.[5] 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. He made us, gives us everything, and provides 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 (cf. James 1). How dreadful it is when we prostitute ourselves with His gifts while mocking the Giver! Eternity in hell is certainly the just consequence for 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. None will suffer beyond what they deserve. Soberingly, sin against God earns eternal judgment.
Third, theology. 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 is Himself just, else the judgment may be beyond what we actually deserve. He has absolute authority to judge as He wills. Some say that means He doesn’t need to execute justice if He wills to save. In a sense that’s true, 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” (Romans 3:26). 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. Christ died as a propitiation that we might be saved, not by the deeds of the law, but by faith, receiving what He offers.
This also means that 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. 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. Yes, He desires to save. So much so that He did everything necessary for us to be saved. We need only receive the gospel in faith. God’s love is experienced within the gospel. Those who reject that gospel have denied God’s love and will experience only His justice.
Is This a Salvation Issue?
Is this a dividing line between true faith and false? Should we consider apostate those who believe conditional immortality? It depends. The answer either is “no” or “yes,” depending on some related factors. Do we need to have a perfect theology to be saved? No, we don’t. We are 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. (1) The Bible only gives one condition for salvation: faith. If we believe in the heart and confess with the mouth, we will be saved (cf. Romans 10). That requires some basic theology (recognition of personal sin, surrendering to Christ, receiving redemption in His blood), but not much beyond that. (2) None of us ever gets our theology entirely correct. We all have blind spots, chinks, unknown (or known) errors in our belief system that need to be conformed to Scripture. And infant Christians are susceptible to being led astray. We are to “uphold the weak.” 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 garment defiled by the flesh.” A person can be misled or deceived and still be considered a true believer.
But the answer is sometimes “yes.” I believe Conditional Immortality departs from Scripture, not only because it mishandles Scripture but also because it does damage to other important doctrines. The theology of Conditional Immortality is incompatible with the gospel of Scripture. Since saving faith includes a surrender to God (which is demonstrated in surrender to His written word), those who resist Scripture are found to be resisting God Himself. 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. If a move toward Conditional Immortality is a move away from God’s word, it is a move that resists God Himself. In this sense, this is a salvation issue. Those who accept Conditional Immortality in rebellion against the Spirit’s conviction and against the authority of Scripture may take no comfort in the gospel.
For this reason we must be stalwart in our defense of the biblical view of hell—eternal, conscious torment. Not because we like it, not because it is the most attractive, but simply because it’s what God has said in His word. If Conditional Immortality is contrary to Scripture (or incompatible with it), it is a heresy indeed. 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. Those who defend or promote Conditional Immortality are outside the biblical bounds. Allowing their ongoing influence can only be a detriment to the church. If a person has bound himself to a false doctrine—this one or any other—we must not hesitate to cleanse the church of their influence. We do not invite heretics to leave, we command them to. No faithful shepherd allows a wolf to mingle with the sheep.
We must be stalwart to protect ourselves and our flocks. We must also stand for the truth for the sake of purity. “A little leaven leavens the whole lump” (Gal. 5:9). If we want the pure gospel—and thus the true gospel, the only one that saves—we need to purge that which pollutes it. We Anabaptists often divide over less significant issues but fail to stand for the central claims of Scripture. We excommunicate over style of clothing or facial hair, but not over issues of truth. When was 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.
Third, we need to defend the truth for the sake of unity. Yes, I do mean we should divide for unity’s sake. 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 relax the truth and experience peace. But is that true peace? In my experience, the greatest unity is found when I and others agree on the truth. True Christian fellowship is birthed from a common faith, a common doctrine, a common love. The depth of unity experienced when we agree on the truth far surpasses the fragile unity experienced when the truth is compromised because we all just want to get along. Let us strive for the “unity of the gospel”—that is, unity in the gospel, not unity that sacrifices it.
[1] The Complete Writings of Menno Simons (Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House, 1984), 414.
[2] Ibid., 585.
[3] Ibid., 921.
[4] John C. Wenger, Introduction to Theology (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1954), 334.
[5] “Hamartiology” is based on the Greek hamartia, meaning “to miss the mark” or more familiarly, “sin.”