Letter to an Amish Bishop

Dear John, 

Thank you for making the effort to respond to the questions I have raised concerning “conditional immortality”- i.e., that only those in Christ receive the gift of eternal life, while all others truly perish (John 3:16; 10:28; Rom. 6:23; etc.). Your willingness to sincerely respond deepens my abiding appreciation and respect for your integrity and friendship.

You are right to say that “the question that needs to be answered is when the Bible talks about death, perish, and destruction, does it means bringing to an end, or does it use those words to describe the awfulness of hell, in a place that will never change.”  

In my search to answer that very question I have found that of the 154 times the Bible uses some form of the word "perish" it never indicates a process without an understood end. I am including the complete list entitled “perish as defined in Scripture" (see in a separate post). 

The Bible often defines its own terms by clear usage within an explanatory context, and by parallels or contrasts to other understood words. Webster’s tells us that perish means “to be utterly destroyed or ruined; end.” God’s built-in dictionary tells us the same thing.  

Notice carefully what perish is illustrated by (turning again to dust, consuming into smoke, melting wax, destroyed beasts, etc.), paralleled with (cut off, consumed, vanish, go to nothing, utterly wasted, etc.), and contrasted to (being alive, prolonging days, enduring, having no end, everlasting life, etc.).  

A child who did not know what perish meant would have no difficulty in figuring it out by reading the persistent and consistent way it is used in Scripture.

Thankfully, you “would be glad if there was an end, and their souls would be no more.” Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful (Luke 6:36). I’m glad to tell you that the very words you have used are the words God has used to describe the final fate of the wicked: end and be no more.   

You “suppose God would be able to do that, and if he does, well, but we must study the Scriptures (God’s Word) to see if these things are so.”  

God’s Word tells us, Fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Matthew 10:28). The Scriptures tell us that God is able, and that the wicked will be destroyed by means of fire (Psa. 37:20; Mal. 4:1,2; Matt. 3:12; 13:40; 2 Thess. 1:7-10; 2 Pet. 3:7-10; Rev. 20:14, 15, etc.).

You cite Mark 9:43 concerning the undying worm and unquenchable fire. Christ is quoting from the very last verse in Isaiah (66:24), a verse that speaks of “carcases,” and a context that speaks of the Lord coming with flames of fire (vv. 15, 16), and that all the wicked will “be consumed together” (v. 17). The consumption of the wicked by fire, and the viewing of their carcases being eaten by worms, does not bear witness to endless torment, but rather to complete destruction.  

And that is the contrast Christ is making: “It is better to enter into life” than to face the end of life by being destroyed in Hell.

You then ask, “When is the fire to stop?” Truly, the Scriptures describe the judgment fire as eternal, everlasting, and unquenchable. This we do not deny. But these words describe the fire, not what’s put in the fire.  

What do these same Scriptures say that such fire has done or will do to what’s in it? John the Baptist said that Christ “will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire” (Matt. 3:12). Fire that cannot be put out means that whatever is in it will certainly burn up.  

The fire that “shall not be quenched night nor day” and the smoke that “shall go up for ever” turned Idumea into a desolate waste (Isa. 34), and “eternal fire” turned Sodom and Gomorrah to “ashes” (2 Peter 2:6; Jude v. 7), and “destroyed them all” (Luke 17:29).  

Thus we have three clear illustrations of what such fire can and will do. Can you give me any example from Scripture where fire so powerful as to be unquenchable, eternal, or everlasting is yet not able to or does not burn up, consume, or destroy its prey, especially when that prey is likened to chaff, stubble, tares, cut thorns, dried branches, lime, etc.?  

But somehow such descriptions have been interpreted just opposite of how I believe they were clearly intended. Fire that cannot be put out will certainly burn up chaff! John the Baptist says so.  

Fire that burns like an oven will surely burn up stubble. Malachi says it’s true.  

Fire that is eternal will reduces it victims to ashes. Peter and Jude agree.  

Unquenchable fire would consume wet wood - how much more dried branches or cut thorns? If the local Burkesville Fire Department could not quench a fire raging out of control on your neighbor’s farm, I guarantee you no one would suppose that his barn would burn on and on, but everyone would know without doubt that his barn would burn up! 

Matthew 25:46 tells us that the punishment will be everlasting, but it does not say what that punishment is. The traditional assumption is that it is torment, but the testimony of the whole of Scripture says the punishment is destruction. I am including a separate article concerning this text (see "Everlasting Punishment"). 

Next, you mention the account of the rich man and Lazarus with the question “Is there any indication given that his status will change?” I suppose that you yourself believe that his location will at least temporarily change for he will surely be resurrected when hell will deliver up its dead, and he, with all the dead, small and great, will appear before God at the Great White Throne Judgment (Rev. 20).  

I am fully persuaded that this story is not a newspaper account, but rather a pointed parable rebuking covetous Pharisees who were flaunting their kinship to Abraham and allegiance to Moses but were nonetheless serving mammon instead of God and would not be granted entrance into the kingdom with Abraham.  

They did not really hear Moses, they would not receive Christ, and they did not believe though a Lazarus did rise from the dead (John 11).  

If it is an actual account, however, it still does not refer to the final judgment, nor does it make any utterance as to eternal duration. Such could be read into the text based on creedal assumptions, but such cannot be read in the text.

The contrast of “the resurrection of life” and “the resurrection of damnation” in John 5:29 that you bring up is further evidence of the truth of conditional immortality. 1 Corinthians 15 tells us that “they that are Christ’s at his coming” will “be made alive” (vv. 22, 23), “put on immortality” (53), receive glorified bodies (43), inherit the kingdom of God (50), and have victory over death (54-57). Without any question in my mind, 1 Corinthians 15 speaks of the resurrection of life! This is the everlasting life of John 3:16, the shall never perish of John 10:28, the mortality swallowed up of life of 2 Cor. 5:4.  

But what saith the Scripture concerning unbelievers? They perish (John 3:15, 16), shall not see life (John 3:36), hath not life (1 John 5:11, 12), and lose life (Matthew 10:39). The broad way they are on does not lead to life, but to destruction (Matt. 7:13, 14). They do not of the Spirit reap life everlasting, but reap corruption (Galatians 6:8). For the believer “this corruptible shall have put on incorruption” (1 Cor. 15:54).    

“And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:15). We know that such a fate is twice called “the second death” (Rev. 20:14; 21:8), but that “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power” (20:6).  

Why? Because they have put on immortality: im- not; mortal- subject to death.  

Thus we see that only those in Christ receive eternal life, that this life is a gift from God received through salvation and bestowed by resurrection at His coming, but that though unbelievers will also certainly be raised (Acts 24:15), it is the resurrection of damnation, not life, and they will not receive immortality, but will perish by being destroyed in fire.  

This is completely consistent with the contrast made in Daniel 12:2 of “some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Some receive everlasting life - the others do not!  

This is completely consistent with the contrast made in Romans 2:5-12 that some receive “eternal life” and others receive “indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish,” and “perish.”  

You also bring up that some will be beaten with many stripes, others with few (Luke 12:48). I would challenge you to explain how any idea of an eternity of any semblance of torment in any kind of fire could be described as “few stripes.”  

Luke 10:14 says it will be “more tolerable” for some. Try to reconcile few and tolerable with endless and torment and you make a mockery of language and a caricature of justice. It is not less stripes, but few, and it is not more horrible, but more tolerable. 

You connect the fate of the evil angels with “Does that have anything to do with our living down here?” Your point is that “We are not told everything” and “We dare not speculate.” I wholeheartedly agree. That is why I maintain my position solely on the plain wording of the Word, and the clear pictures in the Scriptures, not the foggy notions of creeds. I have genuinely endeavored to say no more or less than what thus saith the Lord!  

But your conclusion seems to be that this issue is really not that important anyway - you say, “What do we make of these things? Answer: we don’t. We only give our whole self in response to the salvation that is offered us in Christ Jesus our Lord.”  

I would simply ask, if we give our whole self in response, would we not say with David, “I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way” (Psalm 119:128)? Would we not, as you have advocated, search the scriptures to see whether those things are so? Would we not study to show ourselves approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth? Would we not desire to hold forth the word of truth, and be able by sound doctrine to exhort and convince the gainsayers?  

Could we give our whole self in response and do any less?  

Should God have only written a gospel tract instead of a Bible containing 66 books? If the Divine Author continually employs the Inspired Vocabulary to say that the wicked perish, and that the righteous live eternally, is it “speculation” to believe such says exactly what it means and means exactly what it says?         

You then give a strong admonition concerning “adding to and taking away” from Scripture and that I should stop teaching “that there is no eternal hell.” “Will God wink at it?” you ask. I commend you for your willingness to make such an admonition.  

Is your admonition not equally valid for those who teach that God will eternally torment His creation if indeed He will not? Will God wink at those who would so grossly slander His character and misinterpret His Word if endless torment is not so?  

Should I stop teaching that “whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”? Should I stop teaching that there are those whose “end is destruction”? Should I stop teaching that the broad way leads to destruction? Am I duty bound for the sake of being “guiltless on the day of our Lord Jesus” (as you genuinely caution) to carefully explain to my listeners that perish, die, and destroy does not mean what they ordinarily mean or how they are consistently employed?  

Will I be guilty if I allow them to think they mean what they sound like they mean? Should I say things like “You will live for ever somewhere - heaven or hell” when Scripture says you will have life in Christ or not have life, have everlasting life or perish, receive eternal life, the gift of God, or death, the wages of sin?  

Should I use the phrases of the creeds – “the soul is immortal;” “torment is endless” – or the phrases of Scripture – “sin when it is finished bringeth forth death;” “he that converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death;” “who is able to destroy body and soul in hell;” “whose end is destruction”?  

Should I scrap Malachi’s message that “the day that cometh shall burn them up,” or abandon John the Baptist’s warning that Christ “will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire,” or deny Peter’s word that everything will be “burned up” on “the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men”?  

Will I be in trouble with God if I do as Jude and tell people that what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah is an example of what will happen to them? Should I tell my listeners that they will be like lava rocks, or gold, or brass, in the final fire of judgment, or may I tell them that God says they will be like highly flammable and extremely combustible items, such as chaff, tares, and stubble?

Verily, I do “show that there are Scriptures that indicate that hell is eternal,” but I do not corrupt the Word of God to make anyone think that the soul is eternal, or that the wicked are eternal, or that mortal souls could eternally endure a consuming fire. Nay, the soul that sinneth, it shall die, and the wicked are likened to chaff, stubble, tares, cut thorns, and dried branches.  

Your warning concerning “deceivers” is taken as coming from a caring brother and conscientious elder, and though I disagree with your understanding of the extent of an overseer’s authority, I do esteem you “very highly in love” for your work’s sake, and accept your counsel as from a spiritual elder.  

I did not read any Seventh Day Adventist literature before or during my search. But if conditional immortality is true, it’s true no matter who believes or disbelieves it. I read some good Amish and Mennonite literature (even some that you wrote) that helped me see the truth of Scripture on many subjects.  

The Catholics, advocates of endless torment, limbo, and purgatory, are also strong supporters of the virgin birth and deity of Christ. The Primitive Baptists, staunch Calvinists, practice foot washing, a capella congregational singing, and an unsalaried plural ministry, like the Amish. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are non-resistant. God is not in anyone’s box, and all truth is not in anyone’s corner.   

Thank you for the confidence you express when you say, “As far as I know you have a reasonable good hold on Bible truth except for that, but one thing often leads to other things.” The same process of searching the Scriptures that has convinced me of many other truths that you and I mutually hold dear, is the one thing that has led to this other.  

Pursuit of truth, truth itself, not any enamoring with a certain sect or admiration of a gifted leader, has led me to espouse that “whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”  

I accept your exhortation to admit that I could be wrong, but I cannot tell anyone that the Divine Author has used the Inspired Vocabulary to mean just the opposite of what it says. I hope you will also be able to admit that you could be wrong, and be willing to “buy the truth, and sell it not.”  

I hope that you love God enough to cease to slander His character if you ever become persuaded by His Word that He has neither authored, allowed, nor will administer perpetual torture to His creation.  

As to your personal notes, it was good to see you again as well… Your life and testimony has had a positive impact on my family. They know that I fondly remember our times together and continue to hold you in high esteem… 

I am glad you enjoyed the poems. I understand what you mean when you say “but feel they are somewhat pointed.” I confess they were meant to be more than “somewhat” pointed. Though I don’t try to intentionally offend, I do try to tenaciously make the point. Too many practice “the art of almost saying something.” I want to make sure the reader gets it.  

If I did not feel “there are sincere Christians with the Amish,” and “some real values” I wouldn’t bother to try to provoke their thought. “To whom much is given, much is required.”  

I hope I’m not simply reacting to “their weaknesses and failures,” but rather responding to truth that could correct both theirs and my weaknesses and failures. Exposing error does not necessarily reveal truth, but revealing truth always exposes error.