"Indeed Very Many"? The Rise of Proto-orthodox Infernalism (part 4 of 8)

Part 3: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/02/indeed-very-many-part-3-second-century.html

     ‘Universalism is heresy!’ has been the default position of the church for nearly 1500 years, alongside the idea that ‘infernalism (eternal torment) is orthodoxy.’ For this reason, it’s hard for many Christians to fathom a time in which universalism might have been considered orthodox, and the idea of eternal torment heretical. However, the fact is that universalism was actually the majority view for the first four hundred years of the church’s existence. In fact, until the time of Augustine of Hippo, who was one of the first mainstream infernalists, the salvation of all was proclaimed by major champions of early orthodoxy such as Irenaeus of Lyons, the three Cappadocian Fathers, and St. Jerome. This series of posts will go through the history of early church thought on hell and universal salvation.

    As seen in the previous post, the idea of eternal conscious torment was confined to fringe gnostic circles during the second century. The major Greek apologists of the second century — ‘Mathetes’, Irenaeus, Theophilus, and Clement — were universalists who believed that there would be an end to punishment at the consummation (telos). However, at the same time, in the Latin-speaking world a change was occurring. Beginning with Tertullian, the founder of the catechetical school of Carthage, a number of theologians broke away from the orthodox universalism of their time and began to teach infernalism instead. This post will cover the rise of infernalism in the Latin-speaking world, discuss possible reasons for this, and describe Origen of Alexandria’s rebuttal to these Latin infernalists of the late second and early third centuries.

Tertullian and Cyprian of Carthage

Tertullian (c. 155 - 220) was a Latin Christian apologist (and possibly a priest) from Carthage, and a highly prolific writer. Over two dozen of his writings survive to this day, most notably his Apologeticus, which was written near the turn of the second century as an effort to convert the leaders of Carthage to Christianity. There is no doubt that Tertullian was an infernalist. He believed that, contrary to conditionalism, all people including the wicked would be raised to immortality at the Great White Throne judgment, and contrary to universalism, that most would be sent into punishment eternally. His Apologeticus, probably written near the date of his conversion, explicitly sets out this belief:

these have further set before us the proofs He has given of His majesty in His judgments by floods and fires, the rules appointed by Him for securing His favour, as well as the retribution in store for the ignoring, forsaking and keeping them, as being about at the end of all to adjudge His worshippers to everlasting life, and the wicked to the doom of fire at once without ending and without break, raising up again all the dead from the beginning, reforming and renewing them with the object of awarding either recompense. (Apologeticus 18)

Epicurus makes light of all suffering and pain, maintaining that if it is small, it is contemptible; and if it is great, it is not long-continued. No doubt about it, we, who receive our awards under the judgment of an all-seeing God, and who look forward to eternal punishment from Him for sin — we alone make real effort to attain a blameless life, under the influence of our ampler knowledge, the impossibility of concealment, and the greatness of the threatened torment, not merely long-enduring but everlasting, fearing Him, whom he too should fear who the fearing judges — even God, I mean, and not the proconsul. (Apologeticus 45)

When, therefore, the boundary and limit, that millennial interspace, has been passed, when even the outward fashion of the world itself — which has been spread like a veil over the eternal economy, equally a thing of time — passes away, then the whole human race shall be raised again, to have its dues meted out according as it has merited in the period of good or evil, and thereafter to have these paid out through the immeasurable ages of eternity. Therefore after this there is neither death nor repeated resurrections, but we shall be the same that we are now, and still unchanged — the servants of God, ever with God, clothed upon with the proper substance of eternity; but the profane, and all who are not true worshippers of God, in like manner shall be consigned to the punishment of everlasting fire — that fire which, from its very nature indeed, directly ministers to their incorruptibility. (Apologeticus 48)

    Likewise, Tertullian also believed that the punishment meted out by God is retributive in nature, rather than correctional (Against Marcion 1.26-27), contrary to the views of his Greek contemporaries and indeed the testimony of scripture (Job 5:17; Prov. 3:12; Heb. 12:5-6; Rev. 3:19). This idea of eternal torment in hell resonates throughout all of Tertullian’s writings, as it does in much of modern orthodox Christian literature. He even spends two chapters of his treatise On the Resurrection of the Flesh discussing how it is possible for the resurrected body to remain immortal and incorruptible while also experiencing continual death and destruction (35-36).

    The source of Tertullian’s belief in infernalism can likely be traced back to a translational difficulty. As noted by Ilaria Ramelli and David Konstan in their book Terms for Eternity [1], both aiōnios and aidios, which mean ‘eonian’ (age-long) and absolutely ‘eternal’ respectively, are translated into Latin as aeternum (meaning absolutely ‘eternal’) without distinction. Therefore, Tertullian, whose first language was Latin, would not have understood that the words used to describe postmortem punishment in the New Testament don’t necessarily indicate eternality.

    There is also reason to believe that Tertullian’s infernalism may have had a more personal motivation, a desire to see his enemies tortured eternally, albeit probably unconsciously. The final ‘spectacle’ in his work On the Spectacles is the Lake of Fire, into which Tertullian imagines looking on with glee as he watches his political and religious opponents burn in torment:

How vast a spectacle then bursts upon the eye! What there excites my admiration? What my derision? Which sight gives me joy? Which rouses me to exultation? — as I see so many illustrious monarchs, whose reception into the heavens was publicly announced, groaning now in the lowest darkness with great Jove himself, and those, too, who bore witness of their exultation; governors of provinces… in fires more fierce than those with which in the days of their pride they raged against the followers of Christ. What world’s wise men besides, the very philosophers… now covered with shame before the poor deluded ones, as one fire consumes them! Poets also, trembling not before the judgment-seat of Rhadamanthus or Minos, but of the unexpected Christ! I shall have a better opportunity then of hearing the tragedians, louder-voiced in their own calamity; of viewing the play-actors, much more “dissolute” in the dissolving flame; of looking upon the charioteer, all glowing in his chariot of fire; of beholding the wrestlers, not in their gymnasia, but tossing in the fiery billows; unless even then I shall not care to attend to such ministers of sin, in my eager wish rather to fix a gaze insatiable on those whose fury vented itself against the Lord. (On the Spectacles 30)

    Tertullian not only wishes this fate upon the monarchs and governors that persecuted Christians, but also the philosophers and poets whom he had debated with in the past. According to him, gladiatorial shows, dramas, and other spectacles from his time all catered to the flesh and were not befitting a follower of Christ to watch; the only spectacle worth watching is the eternal suffering of one’s enemies! Obviously, this is a fairly un-Christian view, and certainly goes against the teachings of Christ who exhorts us to love our enemies (Matt. 5:43-48) and of the God who “doth will all men to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4).

    Thus, the source of Tertullian’s unorthodox infernalism was likely an unfortunate mistranslation from the Greek New Testament into Latin, as well as an apparently deep-seated desire to watch his enemies burn eternally in hell. Unfortunately, he passed this belief on to his pupil Cyprian (c. 210 - 258), who became the bishop of Carthage after him, and one of these two seems to have spread it to the Roman clergy as well. In a letter from the Roman clergy to Cyprian, we see that they believed that

[God] has prepared heaven, but He has also prepared hell. He has prepared places of refreshment, but He has also prepared eternal punishment. He has prepared the light that none can approach unto, but He has also prepared the vast and eternal gloom of perpetual night. (Epistles of Cyprian 30.7)

     Similarly, Cyprian believed that once one died, there was no way to repent or be saved from punishment.

What will then be the glory of faith? What the punishment of faithlessness? When the day of judgment shall come, what joy of believers, what sorrow of unbelievers; that they should have been unwilling to believe here, and now that they should be unable to return that they might believe! An ever-burning Gehenna will burn up the condemned, and a punishment devouring with living flames; nor will there be any source whence at any time they may have either respite or end to their torments. Souls with their bodies will be reserved in infinite tortures for suffering… The pain of punishment will then be without the fruit of penitence; weeping will be useless, and prayer ineffectual. Too late they will believe in eternal punishment who would not believe in eternal life. (Address to Demetrianus 24)

    After Tertullian and Cyprian of Carthage’s popularization of infernalism, it spread to become the majority view of the Western, Latin-speaking church. Later Western church fathers, such as Hilary of Poitiers, Arnobius of Sicca, and Augustine of Hippo were all infernalists or conditionalists (excluding Jerome of Stridon, who was an influential Latin universalist in his earlier life). However, at the same time, the Eastern, Greek-speaking church was becoming even more outspoken for universalism.

Origen of Alexandria and the doctrine of apokatastasis

Origen (184 - 253) was a theologian and teacher at the catechetical school in Alexandria. The student of Clement of Alexandria, a well-known universalist, he was a prominent defender of the doctrine of universal salvation. In this respect, he followed his predecessors Clement of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyons, and Theophilus of Antioch. However, unlike them, Origen was the first to officially formulate the doctrine of universal apokatastasis and to completely relate it to the destruction of evil, death, and sin at the consummation (telos).

    Origen’s main work which deals with universalism is called De Principiis, or ‘First Principles’, which he wrote in order to “fix a definite limit and to lay down an unmistakable rule regarding [theological debates]” (Preface, 2). Clearly, he had no issue with the biblical description of punishment as eonian, since in the Preface he describes the sentence of unbelievers as “eonian fire and punishments” (erroneously translated by Rufinus as igni aeterno ac suppliciis). This is further evidence that the Latin rendering of aiōnios as aeternum is mistaken, which may have led Tertullian astray.

    Throughout De Principiis, Origen develops the idea of the apokatastasis as an event which will occur at the consummation of the ages, in which all creatures will be reconciled back to God and all death and sin will be done away with. This is largely based upon his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, which describes the destruction of death and God’s becoming “all things in all”.

The end of the world, then, and the final consummation, will take place when every one shall be subjected to punishment for his sins; a time which God alone knows, when He will bestow on each one what he deserves. We think, indeed, that the goodness of God, through His Christ, may recall all His creatures to one end, even His enemies being conquered and subdued… “For all things must be put under Him.” What, then, is this “putting under” by which all things must be made subject to Christ? I am of opinion that it is this very subjection by which we also wish to be subject to Him, by which the apostles also were subject, and all the saints who have been followers of Christ. For the name “subjection,” by which we are subject to Christ, indicates that the salvation which proceeds from Him belongs to His subjects, agreeably to the declaration of David, “Shall not my soul be subject unto God? From Him comes my salvation.” (De Principiis 1.6.1)

Let us see now what is the freedom of the creature, or the termination of its bondage. When Christ shall have delivered up the kingdom to God even the Father, then also those living things, when they shall have first been made the kingdom of Christ, shall be delivered, along with the whole of that kingdom, to the rule of the Father, that when God shall be all in all, they also, since they are a part of all things, may have God in themselves, as He is in all things. (De Principiis 1.7.5)

I am of opinion that the expression, by which God is said to be “all in all”, means that He is all in each individual person. Now He will be all in each individual in this way: when all which any rational understanding, cleansed from the dregs of every sort of vice, and with every cloud of wickedness completely swept away, can either feel, or understand, or think, will be wholly God… So then, when the end has been restored to the beginning, and the termination of things compared with their commencement, that condition of things will be re-established in which rational nature was placed, when it had no need to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; so that when all feeling of wickedness has been removed, and the individual has been purified and cleansed, He who alone is the one good God becomes to him all, and that not in the case of a few individuals, or of a considerable number, but He Himself is “all in all.” And when death shall no longer anywhere exist, nor the sting of death, nor any evil at all, then verily God will be “all in all.” (De Principiis 3.6.3)

Into this condition, then, we are to suppose that all this bodily substance of ours will be brought, when all things shall be re-established in a state of unity, and when God shall be all in all. And this result must be understood as being brought about, not suddenly, but slowly and gradually, seeing that the process of amendment and correction will take place imperceptibly in the individual instances during the lapse of countless and unmeasured ages, some outstripping others, and tending by a swifter course towards perfection, while others again follow close at hand, and some again a long way behind; and thus, through the numerous and uncounted orders of progressive beings who are being reconciled to God from a state of enmity, the last enemy is finally reached, who is called death, so that he also may be destroyed, and no longer be an enemy. (De Principiis 3.6.6)

    Likewise, Origen thought that all punishment was for the ultimate purpose of restoration back to God, and that once one’s soul felt the torture of being separated from God, they would return to Him of their own free will:

Now I am of opinion that another species of punishment may be understood to exist; because, as we feel that when the limbs of the body are loosened and torn away from their mutual supports, there is produced pain of a most excruciating kind, so, when the soul shall be found to be beyond the order, and connection, and harmony in which it was created by God for the purposes of good and useful action and observation, and not to harmonize with itself in the connection of its rational movements, it must be deemed to bear the chastisement and torture of its own dissension, and to feel the punishments of its own disordered condition. And when this dissolution and rending asunder of soul shall have been tested by the application of fire, a solidification undoubtedly into a firmer structure will take place, and a restoration be effected. (De Principiis 2.10.5)

    Origen believed that evil could not be inherent to the creation, or else God could be considered evil for creating it (Homily 1 on Psalms 37.4). Therefore, in his estimation, it is only possible to choose sin out of a place of ignorance rather than from an evil nature; every person believes that their actions are good and beneficial, if only for themselves, even when they are detrimental and sinful. Because of this, he says, once we see God clearly and without all of the worldly things which blind us, every person will choose Him necessarily of their own free will (De Principiis 3.5.8).

    Rather than developing this idea of his own ‘heretical’ thinking, as is often claimed by modern Christian infernalists who wish to minimize the amount of universalism in the early Church, it is clear that Origen was only delivering the doctrine that had been passed on to him by previous Christian writers. The idea that God has justified all people appeared already in Clement of Rome’s writings, whereas the emphasis on “destruction of death” is evident in the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch. The apologist Theophilus of Antioch combines the idea of universal salvation along with apokatastasis as restoration to the beginning, which is prominent in Origen’s writings. Irenaeus of Lyons, the champion of orthodoxy of the late second century, believed in the universal apokatastasis and related it to the eventual consummation; and finally, Origen’s teacher Clement of Alexandria developed the apokatastasis as the natural result of God’s goodness and free will. There can be no doubt that, although Origen was the first to combine all of these ideas into one doctrine, universal apokatastasis was believed by many members of the early Church prior to him.

    Conclusion

At the turn of the second century, the Latin Church father Tertullian introduced the idea of infernalism into the proto-orthodox community. Despite the fact that his belief was likely caused by a mistranslation (as well as, apparently, a desire to watch his enemies burn for all eternity), belief in eternal torment quickly spread to his pupil Cyprian of Carthage and the rest of the Latin-speaking church. At the same time, Origen of Alexandria cogently defended the belief in universal salvation passed down to him by his orthodox predecessors. He demonstrated both from scripture and with logical arguments that all people would be saved at the consummation. The next post will examine the Greek Church fathers of the fourth century, and show that although infernalism continued to be taught in the Western church, the Eastern church remained solidly universalist in its theology.

Part 5: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/02/indeed-very-many-part-5-fourth-century.html

______________________________

[1] Ramelli, Ilaria, and David Konstan. Terms for Eternity: Aiônios and Aïdios in Classical and Christian Texts. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2013.

"Indeed Very Many"? Second-Century Apologists (part 3 of 8)

Part 2: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/02/indeed-very-many-part-2-apostolic.html

     ‘Universalism is heresy!’ has been the default position of the church for nearly 1500 years, alongside the idea that ‘infernalism (eternal torment) is orthodoxy.’ For this reason, it’s hard for many Christians to fathom a time in which universalism might have been considered orthodox, and the idea of eternal torment heretical. However, the fact is that universalism was actually the majority view for the first four hundred years of the church’s existence. In fact, until the time of Augustine of Hippo, who was one of the first mainstream infernalists, the salvation of all was proclaimed by major champions of early orthodoxy such as Irenaeus of Lyons, the three Cappadocian Fathers, and St. Jerome. This series of posts will go through the history of early church thought on hell and universal salvation, with this post focusing on the beliefs of the 2nd-century apologists.

    During the 2nd century, a number of disciples of the apostolic fathers as well as pagan converts began to formulate a systematic theology for Christianity. At the same time, a number of proto-‘heresies’ began to arise in opposition to the proto-orthodoxy. These included gnosticism, docetism, Sabellianism (modalistic monarchianism), and several others. This post will examine the beliefs of several prominent second-century individuals, including both orthodox apologists and gnostics, regarding the eschatological fate of unbelievers.

    Justin Martyr

Justin Martyr (c. 100 - 165) was one of the first Christian apologists. Justin grew up with pagan beliefs and was converted to Platonism at a young age (Dialogue with Trypho 2), until he met an old man who converted him to Christianity. In his later life, Justin was a prolific writer, although unfortunately only three of his works survive: two Apologies and a book called Dialogue with Trypho which details Justin’s attempt to convert Trypho the Jew (who may or may not have actually existed). He was martyred in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, from which he obtained the posthumous name Martyr.

    Unfortunately, the beliefs of Justin Martyr on the fate of unbelievers are unclear, not because he failed to explain them but because he gave conflicting opinions throughout his writings. However, the old man who converted him was plainly an annihilationist, as he believed that the soul was not inherently immortal and that unbelievers would be annihilated after a set time of punishment:

“Nor ought [the soul] to be called immortal; for if it is immortal, it is plainly unbegotten... But I do not say, indeed, that all souls die; for that were truly a piece of good fortune to the evil. What then? The souls of the pious remain in a better place, while those of the unjust and wicked are in a worse, waiting for the time of judgment. Thus some which have appeared worthy of God never die; but others are punished so long as God wills them to exist and to be punished.” (Dialogue with Trypho 5)

    Likewise, elsewhere in the Dialogue with Trypho, Justin seems to adhere to a conditionalist belief. He states in chapter 45 that he believes only the righteous will receive immortality, whereas the devil and his angels along with sinners “may be destroyed... and be no more, when some are sent to be punished unceasingly into judgment and condemnation of fire; but others shall exist... in immortality”. Because of the emphasis on destruction and annihilation, it is highly likely that Justin had conditional immortality in mind here rather than infernalism or universalism.

    However, there are also many passages from Justin’s First Apology that seem, rather, to support infernalism instead of annihilationism:

And Plato, in like manner, used to say that Rhadamanthus and Minos would punish the wicked who came before them; and we say that the same thing will be done, but at the hand of Christ, and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo eonian punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years. (First Apology 8)

For reflect upon the end of each of the preceding kings, how they died the death common to all, which, if issued in insensibility, would be a godsend to all the wicked. But since sensation remains to all who have ever lived, and eonian punishment is laid up, see that you neglect not to be convinced, and to hold as your belief, that these things are true. (First Apology 18)

First of all, we must note where Justin’s apparent belief in infernalism came from. It did not spring from the convictions of the old man who converted him, who was a conditionalist and not an infernalist. Instead, it apparently came from his former Platonism, since in the first quote, he clearly attributes the origin of his belief in this doctrine to Plato; however, instead of being at the hands of Rhadamanthus and Minos, it will be at the hand of Christ, and instead of being a thousand years, it will be eonian.

    Second, note that however damning these passages may seem against Justin’s previous acceptance of conditionalism in Dialogue with Trypho, he never actually states that the punishment will be absolutely eternal — that is, in Greek, aidios — but instead says that it will be ‘eonian,’ aiōnios. The ‘thousand years’ likely refers to Christ’s Messianic kingdom, which Justin did believe would last for a literal millennium (Dialogue with Trypho 80-81), and so he could simply be refuting the belief that the punishment would last for the Millennium and no longer.

    Moreover, these passages are in a pastoral context and not a pedagogical one; Justin is attempting to convert people from paganism to Christianity, and so of course he would make the condemnation of unbelievers seem worse than it actually will be, which is also a device used in the contemporaneous Apocalypse of Peter as described earlier. Therefore, we cannot be sure whether Justin believed in infernalism or annihilationism, although he almost certainly did not believe in universalism.

Tatian the Assyrian

Tatian (c. 120 - 180) was a Gnostic apologist who helped to form the first Syrian church. Although he was originally an orthodox Christian and a disciple of Justin Martyr, his contemporary Irenaeus says that after Justin’s martyrdom, Tatian left the Church and began to associate with Gnostic ideas like those of the early second-century heretic Valentinus, a conditionalist (Against Heresies 1.28.1). Several of his works survive today, most notably the Diatesseron (a harmony of the four Gospels) and his Address to the Greeks.

    Tatian came up with his doctrine on the fate of unbelievers, a particularly undesirable form of infernalism, as a bastardization of the gnostic infernalism of Valentinus and the (possibly annihilationist) eschatology of his teacher Justin Martyr. He agreed with Valentinus’ division of humanity into three classes: the material class (unbelievers), the psychic class (Christians), and the spiritual class (gnostics). The material class, according to Tatian, would not have immortal souls; instead, their souls would die at the death of their body, only to be raised up again in immortality for punishment.

The soul is not in itself immortal, O Greeks, but mortal. Yet it is possible for it not to die. If, indeed, it knows not the truth, it dies, and is dissolved with the body, but rises again at last at the end of the world with the body, receiving death by punishment in immortality. But, again, if it acquires the knowledge of God, it dies not, although for a time it be dissolved. (Address to the Greeks 13) 

And as we, to whom it now easily happens to die, afterwards receive the immortal with enjoyment, or the painful with immortality, so the demons, who abuse the present life to purposes of wrong-doing, dying continually even while they live, will have hereafter the same immortality, like that which they had during the time they lived, but in its nature like that of men, who voluntarily performed what the demons prescribed to them during their lifetime. (Address to the Greeks 14)

    However, for his particularly gnostic form of infernalism in which all ‘material’ men would be eternally punished, Tatian was condemned by the orthodox and universalist apologist Irenaeus of Lyons:

[Tatian] entangled himself with all the heretics... endeavoring from time to time to employ sayings of this kind often by Paul: “In Adam we all die,” ignorant, however, that “where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.” (Against Heresies 3.23.8)

Tatian clearly believed in infernalism and followed his gnostic teacher Valentinus in this respect. However, this same infernalism put him outside the accepted orthodoxy of his day.

Irenaeus of Lyons

Irenaeus (c. 130 - 202) was a bishop of Lyons in modern-day France, a prominent Christian apologist who helped to formulate the proto-orthodoxy of his day. His major work Against Heresies was monumental in combating the growing gnostic heresy as well as a number of other heterodox doctrines. Unfortunately, very few fragments of the original Greek text of this work are available, and most of it is only available in Latin or Armenian, which creates ambiguity as to whether, for example, Irenaeus used the word aiōnios (‘eonian’) or aidios (‘eternal’) to refer to punishment, both of which are translated into Latin as aeternum.

    It is sometimes said that because Irenaeus used the terms ‘eonian punishment,’ ‘eonian fire,’ ‘furnace of fire,’ ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth,’ etc., that he must have been an infernalist. However, this ignores the fact that all three competing soteriologies — infernalism, conditionalism, and universalism — believe that these biblical terms are compatible with, or even better suited to, their own beliefs. Therefore, these terms cannot be used to show that Irenaeus believed in any one of these three views, since he was merely quoting these terms from the Bible, which all three views agree is inspired.

    Apart from this, there are two main passages from Against Heresies that are often used to support the idea that Irenaeus was an infernalist or a conditionalist:

For life does not arise from us, nor from our own nature; but it is bestowed according to the grace of God. And therefore he who shall preserve the life bestowed upon him, and give thanks to Him who imparted it, shall receive also length of days for the age of the age. But he who shall reject it, and prove himself ungrateful to his Maker, inasmuch as he has been created, and has not recognised Him who bestowed, deprives himself of continuance for the age of the age. And, for this reason, the Lord declared to those who showed themselves ungrateful towards Him: “If you have not been faithful in that which is little, who will give you that which is great?” indicating that those who, in this brief temporal life, have shown themselves ungrateful to Him who bestowed it, shall justly not receive from Him length of days for the age of the age. (Against Heresies 2.34.3)

Those, therefore, who cast away by apostasy these forementioned things, being in fact destitute of all good, do experience every kind of punishment. God, however, does not punish them immediately of Himself, but that punishment falls upon them because they are destitute of all that is good. Now, good things are eonian and without end with God, and therefore the loss of these is also eonian and never-ending. It is in this matter just as occurs in the case of a flood of light: those who have blinded themselves, or have been blinded by others, are for ever deprived of the enjoyment of light. (Against Heresies 5.27.2)

    The first passage is often interpreted by annihilationists as stating that unbelievers will be annihilated for “ever and ever.” This is a misunderstanding, however, of the Latin underlying the passage, which says “juste non percipient ab eo in saeculum saeculi longitudenum dierum”; the phrase “in saeculum saeculi” is a literal rendering of the Greek phrase eis ton aiōna tou aiōnos, ‘for the age of the age.’ This is interpreted by some as referring to the Messianic Age (cf. Hebrews 1:8), echoing the biblical truth that unbelievers will not be resurrected until after that Age (Revelation 20:4-6), which would be entirely compatible with the other passages from Irenaeus demonstrating universalism.

    The second passage is more difficult to reconcile with the other universalist passages from Against Heresies. The underlying Greek text which is available for this fragment describes the punishment of unbelievers as aiōnios (‘eonian’) and ateleutētos (‘without end’). Although the word ‘eonian’ does not describe eternality and is often used in the LXX and New Testament to refer to temporal things, ateleutētos does carry with it a sense of eternality. What Irenaeus meant when writing this passage can’t be determined for sure, but it should be interpreted in light of the many universalist passages in Against Heresies cited below.

    Apart from the two passages above, Irenaeus in Against Heresies is overwhelmingly universalist in his theology. A few of the passages that support this are quoted below.

There is therefore, as I have pointed out, one God the Father, and one Christ Jesus, who came by means of the whole dispensational arrangements, and gathered together all things in Himself… so that as in super-celestial, spiritual, and invisible things, the Word of God is supreme, so also in things visible and corporeal He might possess the supremacy, and, taking to Himself the pre-eminence, as well as constituting Himself Head of the Church, He might draw all things to Himself at the proper time. (Against Heresies 3.16.6)

Now Adam had been conquered, all life having been taken away from him: wherefore, when the foe was conquered in his turn, Adam received new life; and the last enemy, death, is destroyed, which at the first had taken possession of man. Therefore, when man has been liberated, “what is written shall come to pass, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your sting?” This could not be said with justice, if that man, over whom death did first obtain dominion, were not set free. For his salvation is death’s destruction. When therefore the Lord vivifies man, that is, Adam, death is at the same time destroyed. (Against Heresies 3.23.7)

Note: this verse only refers to the salvation of Adam, but it is interpreting Adam as the federal head of all of humanity, by which therefore all will be saved at death’s destruction (1 Cor. 15:26, Rev. 20:14): “we are all from him; and as we are from him, therefore have we all inherited his title” (Against Heresies 3.23.2).

...although some, not knowing the power and promise of God, may oppose their own salvation, deeming it impossible for God, who raises up the dead, to have power to confer upon them eternal duration, yet the scepticism of men of this stamp shall not render the faithfulness of God of none effect. (Against Heresies 5.5.2)

And undoubtedly the preaching of the Church is true and steadfast, in which one and the same way of salvation is shown throughout the whole world. For to her is entrusted the light of God; and therefore the wisdom of God, by means of which she saves all men (Against Heresies 5.20.1)

He has therefore, in His work of recapitulation, summed up all things, both waging war against our enemy, and crushing him who had at the beginning led us away captives in Adam… in order that, as our species went down to death through a vanquished man, so we may ascend to life again through a victorious one; and as through a man death received the palm against us, so again by a man we may receive the palm against death. (Against Heresies 5.21.1)

    An even more clearly universalist passage written by Irenaeus can be found in the Fragments attributed to him. This passage not only describes universal reconciliation in no uncertain terms, but relates it to the consummation (telos) of the ages, just as Paul did in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 and as Origen later did.

Christ, who was called the Son of God before the ages, was manifested in the fullness of time, in order that He might cleanse us through His blood, who were under the power of sin, presenting us as pure sons to His Father, if we yield ourselves obediently to the chastisement of the Spirit. And in the end [telos] of time He shall come to do away with all evil, and to reconcile all things, in order that there may be an end of all impurities. (Fragments 39)

Therefore, despite the handful of passages which are sometimes used to argue that Irenaeus was actually an infernalist, we can be almost certain that Irenaeus believed in a universal reconciliation at the consummation of the ages. This is highly significant, since he was the champion of orthodoxy in his day; if he believed in universalism, then it must have been an orthodox doctrine during the second century.

Theophilus of Antioch

Theophilus (d. 183) was a patriarch of the city of Antioch and an early Christian apologist, alongside Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Only one of his works survives to this day, his Apology to Autolycus, although he was said to have written numerous anti-heresy works and commentaries.

    Theophilus repeatedly refers to the righteous judgment of God which He will send upon the wicked and unbelieving (Apology to Autolycus 1.7, 1.14, 2.37), and that He uses the eonian fire to carry out this punishment. However, as stated previously, this is merely biblical terminology which is used and agreed upon by infernalism, conditionalism, and universalism alike. Moreover, he appears to suggest that it will be possible, though undesirable, for his readers to repent afterward:

Admitting, therefore, the proof which events happening as predicted afford, I do not disbelieve, but I believe, obedient to God, whom, if you please, do you also submit to, believing Him, lest if now you continue unbelieving, you be convinced hereafter, when you are tormented with eonian punishments (Apology to Autolycus 1.14)

    Theophilus also believes that all those who do not repent in this life will eventually be saved in the next. In the second book of his Apology, he exegetes Genesis 1-3 using an allegorical hermeneutic by which he interprets each day of creation as a type of unbelievers and/or salvation. In his interpretation of the sixth day of creation, and the formation of wild beasts, Theophilus says that they are a type of unrepentant sinners who will nevertheless be restored in the end.

The quadrupeds, too, and wild beasts, were made for a type of some men, who neither know nor worship God, but mind earthly things, and repent not… And the animals are named wild beasts, from their being hunted, not as if they had been made evil or venomous from the first — for nothing was made evil by God, but all things good, yea, very good — but the sin in which man was concerned brought evil upon them. For when man transgressed, they also transgressed with him… When, therefore, man again shall have made his way back to his natural condition, and no longer does evil, those also shall be restored to their original gentleness. (Apology to Autolycus 2.17)

Another interesting takeaway from this passage is that Theophilus seems to have a similar take on the problem of evil as the later Origen, who believed that evil was not something inherently created by God, but merely the absence of the goodness of God, and so would be annihilated when God became “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28).

    Later in book two of the Apology, Theophilus interprets Adam’s expulsion from the Garden of Eden as an act of mercy, by which humanity would later be restored to its original goodness — another important foundation of the doctrine of universal restoration which would later be completely expounded by Origen. He also states that man is in a way ‘remolded’ and ‘made whole’ through death and judgment, which is very clearly a description of restorative and corrective judgment and not the hopeless, retributive judgment of infernalism.

And God showed great kindness to man in this, that He did not allow him to remain in sin for ever; but, as it were, by a kind of banishment, cast him out of Paradise, in order that, having by punishment expiated, within an appointed time, the sin, and having been disciplined, he should afterwards be restored. Wherefore also, when man had been formed in this world, it is mystically written in Genesis, as if he had been twice placed in Paradise; so that the one was fulfilled when he was placed there, and the second will be fulfilled after the resurrection and judgment. For just as a vessel, when on being fashioned it has some flaw, is remoulded or remade, that it may become new and entire; so also it happens to man by death. For somehow or other he is broken up, that he may rise in the resurrection whole; I mean spotless, and righteous, and immortal. (Apology to Autolycus 2.26)

Therefore, Theophilus also believed in universalism and was in good company with his universalist contemporaries, the apologists Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria.

Clement of Alexandria

Clement (c. 150 - 215) was a theologian and teacher of the Christian ‘school’ at Alexandria. He is widely regarded today as a universalist, and Origen of Alexandria, the first to officially formulate the doctrine of universal restoration, was his pupil. Three of his major works survive today, the Protrepticus, Paedagogus, and Stromata, as well as a short treatise called Who is the rich man that shall be saved?

    Throughout Clement’s writings, especially his Stromata, there is a clear theme of universal salvation. In Clement’s view, because evil cannot be inherent to the creation lest God be evil, anyone who sins does so out of ignorance and bondage to sin; only those who have been freed from sin, i.e. Christians, can voluntarily sin, and yet their sins are not imputed to them because they have been pardoned (Strom. 2.15). Therefore, anything short of a universal restoration to goodness would be contrary to God’s just nature.

Wherefore also all men are His; some through knowledge, and others not yet so; and some as friends, some as faithful servants, some as servants merely. This is the Teacher, who trains the Gnostic by mysteries, and the believer by good hopes, and the hard of heart by corrective discipline through sensible operation. Thence His providence is in private, in public, and everywhere… And how is He Savior and Lord, if not the Savior and Lord of all? But He is the Savior of those who have believed, because of their wishing to know; and the Lord of those who have not believed, till, being enabled to confess Him, they obtain the peculiar and appropriate boon which comes by Him... Now everything that is virtuous changes for the better; having as the proper cause of change the free choice of knowledge, which the soul has in its own power. But necessary corrections, through the goodness of the great overseeing Judge, both by the attendant angels, and by various acts of anticipative judgment, and by the perfect judgment, compel egregious sinners to repent. (Stromata 7.2)

    Elsewhere also, Clement interprets the eonian fire as a judgment meant to correct, not as a retributive or hopeless judgment:

But we say that the fire sanctifies not flesh, but sinful souls; meaning not the all-devouring vulgar fire but that of wisdom, which pervades the soul passing through the fire. (Stromata 7.6)

For there are partial corrections, which are called chastisements, which many of us who have been in transgression incur, by falling away from the Lord’s people. But as children are chastised by their teacher, or their father, so are we by Providence. But God does not punish, for punishment is retaliation for evil. He chastises, however, for good to those who are chastised, collectively and individually. (Stromata 7.16)

    Finally, just as Irenaeus of Lyons and later Origen did, Clement connects the eventual universal restoration to the consummation:

And the apostle [Paul], succinctly describing the consummation, writes in the Epistle to the Romans: “But now, being made free from sin, and become servants to God, you have your fruit unto holiness, and the end eonian life.” And viewing the hope as twofold — that which is expected, and that which has been received — he now teaches the consummation [telos] to be the hoped-for restoration [apokatastasis]. (Stromata 2.22)

Therefore, we can be sure that Clement of Alexandria was a universalist. His pupil Origen seems to have derived much of his doctrine from Clement’s ideas, as well as possibly Irenaeus of Lyons and Theophilus of Antioch as well.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, space did not permit me to write about all of the Christian teachers and apologists of the second century. Otherwise, I might have talked about the apologist known as ‘Mathetes’, one of the last apostolic fathers, who wrote that he believed the eonian fire would afflict “until the consummation [telos],” or Bardaisan, the Syrian pseudo-gnostic who taught universal restoration and was a major influence on Origen of Alexandria. [1] However, this short rundown of prominent second-century Christian individuals should still give the reader a good idea of how prevalent the idea of universalism was in the early Church, and how it was considered orthodox.

    In summary, although annihilation remained popular among some holdouts from the apostolic age, such as the old man and possibly his disciple Justin Martyr, who likely followed the apostolic fathers Polycarp and (possibly) Ignatius in their conditionalism, Christian universalism became far more prevalent in the second century. Irenaeus of Lyons, the bastion of orthodoxy in his day, was a prominent and outspoken universalist, as were his contemporaries Theophilus of Antioch and Clement of Alexandria. A nascent belief in infernalism and eternal torment remained confined to fringe gnostic sects, primarily those of Valentinus and Tatian. As we shall see in the next post, infernalism only spread to some orthodox communities in the third century, and even then remained a fringe belief.

Part 4: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/02/indeed-very-many-part-4-rise-of-proto.html

______________________________

[1] Ramelli, Ilaria. The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena. Leiden: Brill, 2013. p. 110-119.

"Indeed Very Many"? The Apostolic Fathers (part 2 of 8)

Part 1: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/02/indeed-very-many-part-1-apocryphal.html

     ‘Universalism is heresy!’ has been the default position of the church for nearly 1500 years, alongside the idea that ‘infernalism (eternal torment) is orthodoxy.’ For this reason, it’s hard for many Christians to fathom a time in which universalism might have been considered orthodox, and the idea of eternal torment heretical. However, the fact is that universalism was actually the majority view for the first four hundred years of the church’s existence. In fact, until the time of Augustine of Hippo, who was one of the first mainstream infernalists, the salvation of all was proclaimed by major champions of early orthodoxy such as Irenaeus of Lyons, the three Cappadocian Fathers, and St. Jerome. This series of posts will go through the history of early church thought on hell and universal salvation, with this post specifically looking at the beliefs of the 1st- and early 2nd-century ‘apostolic fathers.’

    In the late 1st century and early 2nd century, the earliest evidence for the Church can be found in the writings of the apostolic fathers. These are very early theologians and Church leaders who had seen, heard, and even been taught by the apostles in their youth: Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Papias of Hierapolis, and some also add Quadratus of Athens to this list. Of these five, we unfortunately do not have enough of the writings of Papias of Hierapolis and Quadratus of Athens to determine their views on the ultimate fate of unbelievers. The views of the other three fathers will now be examined in turn.

Clement of Rome

Clement of Rome was a bishop of Rome who lived from circa 35 AD until 99. Some consider him to be the same Clement who was mentioned in Philippians 4:3, in which case he was a disciple of Paul. However, this is not at all certain, as Clement was a very common name in the 1st century. Only one of his works survives to this day, an epistle to the Corinthian church which is often referred to as 1 Clement (although some other writings have been attributed to him, they are now recognized to be spurious second-century pseudepigrapha).

    In this epistle, there is fairly little regarding the eventual fate of unbelievers and whether he believed in infernalism, conditionalism, or universalism. However, there is a passage which seems to suggest that Clement believed all people had been saved through Christ’s work on the Cross:

All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which Almighty God has justified all men from the ages; to whom be glory to the ages of the ages. Amen. (1 Clement 32:3-4)

In this passage, Clement seems to claim that all people had been justified by Christ’s faith. Although it could perhaps be objected that the ‘faith’ referred to is the faith of believers, and so Clement only thought that believers would be saved, this seems unlikely in light of the Christ- and God-centered view of salvation of this passage. He would not have been referring to any action or belief unique to believers that God used to justify men, since he had just said that “we... are not justified by... our own wisdom or understanding.”

    Moreover, even if Clement of Rome was not expressing universalistic thought in this passage, he was still viewed as a universalist by other Church fathers as late as the fifth century. During the fifth century Origenist controversy, Rufinus cited a number of earlier Christian writers who believed in universalism as a polemic against (the former universalist) St. Jerome of Stridon, including Clement of Rome:

[Referring to the Origenist doctrine of universal apokatastasis:] These things which you have said are read by all who know Latin, and you yourself request them to read them: such sayings, I mean as these: that all rational creatures, as can be imagined by taking a single rational animal as an example, are to be formed anew into one body... this one body made up of all things you call the original church, and to this you give the name of the body of Christ; and further you say that one member of this church will be the apostate angel, that is, of course, the devil, who is to be formed anew into that which he was first created...

Then you [Jerome] speak thus to us: “O multitude of the faithful, place no faith in any of the ancients. If Origen had some thoughts about the more secret facts of the divine purposes, let none of you admit them. And similarly if one of the Clements said any such things, whether he who was a disciple of the apostle or he of the church of Alexandria who was the master of Origen himself; yes even if they were said by the great Gregory of Pontus, a man of apostolic virtues, or by the other Gregory, of Nazianzus, and Didymus the seeing prophet, both of them my teachers, than whom the world has possessed none more deeply taught in the faith of Christ. All these have erred as Origen has erred” (Apology Against Jerome 1.43)

As you can see, Rufinus places Clement of Rome (the “disciple of the apostle”) in a category with such proponents of universalism as Clement of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria, Gregory Nazianzen, and Didymus the Blind (all of whom were well-known universalists), and even says that he believed the devil would eventually be saved as well. Therefore, as Clement was still accepted as a universalist even by the nascent infernalist St. Jerome in the 5th century, we can be almost certain that he did indeed openly believe in universalism.

Ignatius of Antioch

Ignatius of Antioch (d. 108) was a disciple of the apostle John and an early bishop of the city of Antioch. Only seven legitimate epistles of his have survived to this day, in three different forms: the short, middle, and long recensions. The middle recension of these epistles are usually regarded as genuine, whereas the short recension seems to be an extract from the original, and the long recension contains fourth-century interpolations. Therefore, only the middle recension of Ignatius’ epistles will be considered here.

    There is only one statement in Ignatius’ epistles which contains universalist thought, in a similar fashion to the Origenian apokatastasis:

Every spell of evilness has been destroyed, every chain of evilness has disappeared; ignorance has been swept away; the old kingdom has fallen into ruin, when God appeared in human form for the novelty of the life that is absolutely eternal. What was established by God has begun: since then, all beings have been set in motion for the providential realization of the destruction of death (Epistle to the Ephesians 19; translation by Ilaria Ramelli [1])

This passage could be understood as supporting the idea of universalism, especially as it seems to reference 1 Corinthians 15:26, a common prooftext for Pauline universalism among both ancient and modern supporters. However, it must be read in light of other passages which seem to suggest that Ignatius believed in conditionalism, that unbelievers would either not be resurrected to life or be annihilated forever:

Seeing, then, all things have an end, these two things are simultaneously set before us — death and life; and every one shall go unto his own place. For as there are two kinds of coins, the one of God, the other of the world, and each of these has its special character stamped upon it (Epistle to the Magnesians 5)

Be sober as an athlete of God: the prize set before you is immortality and eonian life, of which you are also persuaded. (Epistle to Polycarp 2)

    Although these passages seem to show that Ignatius believed in conditionalism, statements like this have also been made by known universalists both ancient and modern. This could be viewed in light of the Apocalypse of Peter, which, as seen in the previous post, exhorts universalists not to share their beliefs with the larger population lest they choose to sin freely. It could be significant that the passage from Epistle to the Magnesians is in a pastoral context (warning bishops from the Magnesian church to avoid false doctrines), rather than a pedagogical one.

    Unfortunately, in lieu of any clear statements in favor of one view or the other, we cannot be truly certain whether Ignatius believed in universalism or conditionalism.

Polycarp of Smyrna

Polycarp of Smyrna (69 - 155) was an early bishop of Smyrna and a fellow disciple of John the apostle with his colleague Ignatius of Antioch. The later apologist Irenaeus of Lyons claimed to have heard him preach as a youth, and so claimed apostolic authority (Against Heresies 3.3.4), although unfortunately this claim is not independently verifiable. Of Polycarp’s writing, only one letter survives, an epistle to the Philippian church.

    Only one passage in this epistle could be understood as referring to the fate of unbelievers:

His blood will God require of those who do not believe in [Christ]. But He who raised Him up from the dead will raise us up also, if we do His will, and walk in His commandments, and love what He loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness, covetousness, love of money, evil speaking, false witness (Epistle to the Philippians 2:1-2)

Because Polycarp states that our resurrection is conditioned on whether we walk in God’s will and His commandments, this passage could be construed as expressing a belief in conditionalism. However, it is also possible that Polycarp is merely referring to the ‘first resurrection’ which only believers take part in (Revelation 20:5-6), in which case his beliefs on the fate of unbelievers remain indeterminate. The most that we can say about Polycarp is that he was probably a conditionalist.

Conclusion

The apostolic fathers seem to have had a fairly wide range of views on the issue of the eschatological fate of unbelievers. Clement (a 1st-century bishop of Rome) was clearly a universalist and was known to be one as late as the 5th century. Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna, both disciples of the apostle John, were unclear as to their beliefs: Ignatius may have been either a universalist or a conditionalist, and Polycarp was probably a conditionalist.

    Overall, the beliefs of the apostolic fathers line up well with the beliefs expressed in first-century Christian literature as seen in the previous post. Both universalism and conditionalism seem to have been common beliefs in the very early Church, whereas infernalism, the idea that unbelievers would be tormented for eternity in hell, is nowhere to be found. In the next post, we will see that although belief in conditionalism seems to have largely disappeared by the late second century, infernalism rose up to take its place, in opposition to the majority view of universalism.

Part 3: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/02/indeed-very-many-part-3-second-century.html

______________________________

[1] Ramelli, Ilaria. The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena. Leiden: Brill, 2013. p. 63.

"Indeed Very Many"? Apocryphal Literature (part 1 of 8)

     ‘Universalism is heresy!’ has been the default position of the church for nearly 1500 years, alongside the idea that ‘infernalism (eternal torment) is orthodoxy.’ For this reason, it’s hard for many Christians to fathom a time in which universalism might have been considered orthodox, and the idea of eternal torment heretical. However, the fact is that universalism was actually the majority view for the first four hundred years of the church’s existence. In fact, until the time of Augustine of Hippo, who was one of the first mainstream infernalists, the salvation of all was proclaimed by major champions of early orthodoxy such as Irenaeus of Lyons, the three Cappadocian Fathers, and St. Jerome. This series of posts will go through the history of early church thought on hell and universal salvation, beginning with a look at the orthodox (non-gnostic and non-docetic) apocryphal literature of the early church.

    Throughout the early church (up to the mid-fifth century), there were only five major pieces of apocryphal literature (which I was able to find) that didn’t come from a gnostic or docetic background. These are the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Odes of Solomon, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Gospel of Nicodemus. Each of these will be examined in turn in this post, with the purpose of determining whether the author(s) believed in infernalism (eternal torment), conditionalism (annihilation), or universalism. Three other pieces of literature will also be briefly considered.

    The Didache

The Didache was a first-century work claiming to be from the hands of the twelve apostles. Whether it was actually written by them or not (and more likely not), it represents the teachings of the early Church from within only a few decades of Jesus Christ’s death. This writing sheds very little light on the beliefs of its author(s) regarding the eventual fate of humanity, because as soon as it begins to describe the second coming of Christ, it ends rather abruptly. The relevant section is quoted below:

And then shall the signs of the truth appear: first a sign of a rift in the heavens, then a sign of a voice of a trumpet, and thirdly the resurrection of the dead. Yet not of all, but as it was said: The Lord shall come and all his saints with him. Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven with power and dominion to repay each man according to his works, with justice, before all men and the angels. (Didache 4)

The fact that the authors of the Didache believed the resurrection at Christ’s coming would not be “of all” could indicate that they subscribed to conditionalism, the belief that only believers will be resurrected and unbelievers perish forever. This would also fit with one of the main themes of the writing, which is avoiding the “way of death.”

    Unfortunately, though, there is no explicit statement as to whether unbelievers will never be resurrected within the Didache, which leaves us only to speculate as to what its authors believed. It could indeed mean that they believed in conditionalism, but it just as easily could mean they were premillennialists who believed that Christ’s second coming was separate from the final judgment when unbelievers would be resurrected. Therefore, in lieu of a clear statement from the Didache regarding the final destiny of unbelievers, this work must be categorized as: Indeterminate.

    The Shepherd of Hermas

The Shepherd of Hermas is another work from the late first century which claims to have been written by a slave, Hermas, who received a series of visions. Shepherd received a lot of popularity among the early Church, and was even considered to be canonical scripture by some writers such as Irenaeus of Lyons. This writing is much more explicit in its description of the final destiny of unbelievers. Here are several quotes from this book regarding the fate of unbelievers:

The sheep which you saw merry and leaping about, are those which have torn themselves away from God for ever, and have delivered themselves over to luxuries and deceits of this world. Among them there is no return to life through repentance, because they have added to their other sins, and blasphemed the name of the Lord. Such men therefore, are appointed unto death. And the sheep which you saw not leaping, but feeding in one place, are they who have delivered themselves over to luxury and deceit, but have committed no blasphemy against the Lord. These have been perverted from the truth: among them there is the hope of repentance, by which it is possible to live. (Shepherd of Hermas 3.6.2)

“He that does not know God,” he answered, “and practices evil, receives a certain chastisement for his wickedness; but he that has known God, ought not any longer to do evil, but to do good. If, accordingly, when he ought to do good, he do evil, does not he appear to do greater evil than he who does not know God? For this reason, they who have not known God and do evil are condemned to death; but they who have known God, and have seen His mighty works, and still continue in evil, shall be chastised doubly, and shall die for ever.” (Shepherd of Hermas 3.9.18)

These passages, along with Shepherd 1.3.6-7, seem to demonstrate that the author believed there were two classes of unbelievers: those who have not known God or have turned away from the faith, and those who have blasphemed God by rejecting Him. The first class will be allowed to enter a sort of purgatorial hell and be redeemed, whereas the second will die forever and never return to life. This is very clearly a form of conditionalism and/or annihilation, albeit a ‘soft’ version in which some unbelievers are still saved, and so this work should be categorized as: Conditionalism.

Odes of Solomon

The Odes of Solomon were a series of Christian hymns from the early Church, which have been variously dated from the late first century to the mid-second century. They may have been quoted by Irenaeus, one of the apostolic fathers, in which case they were a very early compilation. Whether these hymns come from the pen of a single author or several, unrelated authors, it is impossible to say. However, they do seem to have a significant Johannine influence, and so some have suggested that they were written by a student of John the Evangelist.

    The Odes of Solomon contain a distinctly universalistic character. In one place, they describe the living water of Christ like so:

For there went forth a stream, and it became a river great and broad; indeed it carried away everything, and it shattered and brought [it] to the Temple. And the restraints of men were not able to restrain it, nor even the arts of them who habitually restrain water. For it spread over the face of the earth, and it filled everything. Then all the thirsty upon the earth drank, and thirst was relieved and quenched; for from the Most High the drink was given. (Odes 6:8-12)

    As the patristic scholar Ilaria Ramelli [1] notes, this and other passages seem to suggest that the author believed that salvation came to all people on the earth. Similarly, the Odes present the harrowing of hell as an event which brought salvation to all people who had died, not merely the patriarchs and righteous of the Old Testament:

“Sheol saw me and was shattered, and Death ejected me and many with me… And those who had died ran toward me; and they cried out and said, ‘Son of God, have pity on us. And deal with us according to your kindness, and bring us out from the chains of darkness. And open for us the door by which we may go forth to you, for we perceive that our death does not approach you. May we also be saved with you, because you are our Savior.’ Then I heard their voice, and placed their faith in my heart. And I placed my name upon their head, because they are free and they are mine.” (Odes 42:11, 16-20)

    This passage suggests that the author of the Odes most likely believed that Christ’s sacrifice had not only justified the righteous, but every single person, thus bringing about universal salvation. It is significant that no mention of judgment or punishment of the wicked appears in the Odes, and death only appears in the context of Christ’s destruction of death and Sheol (i.e. Odes 15:9). However, unfortunately, the author(s) never explicitly states their belief in universal salvation, and so this work can only be categorized as: Possibly Universalism.

Apocalypse of Peter

The Apocalypse of Peter is a pseudonymous second-century work, which claims to be a record of what was spoken by Jesus to Peter on the Mount of Olives (cf. Matt. 24-25; Mk. 13; Lk. 21). This writing was considered to be canonical scripture by a few early writers, including the universalist Clement of Alexandria. Although it largely comprises a description of the awful torment which sinners will receive in hell, it also contains clear statements of universalism. For example, in one place it seems to suggest that intercessory prayers for the dead in hell will be effective: 

“Then will I give to my elect and righteous the baptism and the salvation for which they have besought me” (Apocalypse of Peter 14)

As other interpreters of this work have noted, the elect already received baptism and salvation, and so they couldn’t be asking for these things for themselves. The earliest recensions of the Apocalypse also state that those who receive this baptism will have “a sharing of justification with [the] saints” — clearly referencing the salvation of those who had previously been damned. Moreover, a slightly later recension states in more explicit terms that every person will be saved:

The destiny of sinners - their eternal doom - is more than Peter can endure: he appeals to Christ to have pity on them. And my Lord answered me and said to me, “Hast thou understood that which I said unto thee before? It is permitted unto thee to know that concerning which thou askest: but thou must not tell that which thou hearest unto the sinners lest they transgress the more, and sin… My Father will give unto them all the life, the glory, and the kingdom that passeth not away.” (Apocalypse of Peter 14)

This is significant in more than one way. First, although the punishments which are said to come upon sinners earlier in the book are presented as an absolute, eternal certainty, these will not actually come upon anybody — instead, God will have mercy on all. The soteriology of the Apocalypse of Peter, at least of the later recensions, should therefore be classified as: Universalism.

    Second, the truth of universal salvation is presented as something that should not be shared, lest sinners not be compelled to convert to Christianity and stop sinning. This was a common concern of universalists in the early Church, even Origen of Alexandria, and must be kept in mind as we move through our study. Although some writers may seem to support eternal torment, they could have believed universalism privately; unless they explicitly deny the eventual restoration of all, their belief in universalism cannot be ruled out.

Gospel of Nicodemus (Acts of Pilate)

The Gospel of Nicodemus, or as it was occasionally called, the Acts of Pontius Pilate, was an apocryphal work of the fourth or fifth century. This writing, like the Odes of Solomon, presents the harrowing of hell by Christ as a miraculous event by which all people who had died, not merely the saints, were saved and brought up out of Hades.

[Hades speaking to Satan:] If, therefore, we receive [Christ] here, I am afraid lest perchance we be in danger even about the rest… Wherefore also I adjure even you, for your benefit and for mine, not to bring him here; for I think that he is coming here to raise all the dead. And this I tell you: by the darkness in which we live, if you bring him here, not one of the dead will be left behind in it to me. (Gospel of Nicodemus 20)

Even more significantly, the anonymous author of this Gospel later says that every single person who was touched by the consequences of the tree in the Garden of Eden will be raised up by the Tree of the Cross (Gospel of Nicodemus 24). This uses the same sort of parallelism as Paul uses in Romans 5:18 and 1 Corinthians 15:22 to teach the salvation of all, and should be viewed in the same way. Therefore, this apocryphal Gospel should be classified as: Universalism.

Other miscellaneous works

Three other works of literature were also influential in the early Church: the Epistle of Barnabas, the Acts of Paul, and 2 Clement. The first of these, written in the late first century, was likely written by a conditionalist or annihilationist, as it repeatedly contrasts the “way of life” with the “way of death.” The second, the Acts of Paul, was written in the late second century; this displays signs of conditionalism, for example, in the following sections:

“For [the Son of God] alone is end of salvation, and the basis of immortal life; for He is a refuge to the tempest-tossed, a solace to the afflicted, a shelter to the despairing; and, once for all, whoever shall not believe in Him, shall not live for ever.” (Acts of Paul and Thecla 37)

However, there are also signs of universalism in other sections of this work:

For by His own body Jesus Christ saved all flesh, presenting in His own body a temple of righteousness through which we are saved. (3 Corinthians 16-18)

    Finally, the last of the three, 2 Clement, is a pseudepigraphal work from the second century attributed to Clement of Rome. This seems to be one of the first works to describe a belief in eternal conscious torment, as it states that the wicked will receive torments in fire (chap. 17) and that there will be no hope of repentance for them (chaps. 6-7). However, it is also possible that the author was an annihilationist, believing that the wicked would be annihilated after torment, because they state that immortality is a gift given only to Christians (chaps. 14, 19).

    Overall, these apocryphal works of literature demonstrate the heterogeneity of opinions on the fate of unbelievers among early orthodox Christians. All three doctrines, universalism, annihilationism, and infernalism are represented in these works.

Conclusion

Of the five early orthodox Christian works of literature discussed here, three appear to be universalist in their soteriology (Odes of Solomon, Apocalypse of Peter, Gospel of Nicodemus), whereas only one is conditionalist (Shepherd of Hermas) and the Didache is indeterminate as to its author(s)’ beliefs on the fate of unbelievers.

    Based solely on these writings, the early orthodox Church seems to have had a great variability of belief, between full universalism and annihilation of the lost, whereas in later centuries universalism clearly won out. Significantly, none of these early works of literature clearly espoused infernalism, the belief in eternal torment. It seems that many, if not the majority, in the early Church believed in universalism, while the idea that unbelievers might be tormented eternally after death was far removed from their minds. This pattern is repeated throughout the writings of the early Church fathers, as will be seen in the later posts in this series.

Part 2: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/02/indeed-very-many-part-2-apostolic.html

______________________________

[1] Ramelli, Ilaria. The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena. Leiden: Brill, 2013. p. 74-75.

Universal Salvation and the Nature of God

Note: an updated version of this argument can be found in my article, “Two irrefutable arguments for universal salvation.”

     As a Christian universalist, I have repeatedly been called a heretic by my traditionalist brethren (hence the name of this blog), and had verses like Matthew 7:13-14; 25:46; 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10; and especially Revelation 14:11 thrown in my face. However, in this post I’d like to take a different approach to the debate over universalism. Usually, arguments over whether universalism is true focus on either exchanging prooftexts, which is rarely effective, or appeals to emotion, which is likewise unconvincing to many. Instead, this post will focus on one aspect of the debate: whether the very nature of God Himself would allow the possibility of eternal torment (or for that matter annihilation).

    According to an oft-quoted verse, “God is love” (1 Jn. 4:8). And although this verse sounds good and comforting, few take the time to actually think about what it might mean. Jesus elaborates on this statement by saying that

“Ye heard that it was said: Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and shalt hate thine enemy; but I — I say to you, Love your enemies, bless those cursing you, do good to those hating you, and pray for those accusing you falsely, and persecuting you, that ye may be sons of your Father in the heavens, because His sun He doth cause to rise on evil and good, and He doth send rain on righteous and unrighteous... ye shall therefore be perfect, as your Father who is in the heavens is perfect.” (Matt. 5:43-45; 48)

    According to Him, because God is love, we are to love our enemies and those who hate us just as God loves His enemies and those who hate Him. The significance of this cannot be missed: if God truly loves those who hate Him, and not only those who believe in and love Him, then by His very nature He should want all people to have salvation. And indeed, He does, as several passages demonstrate:

I exhort, then, first of all, there be made supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, for all men: for kings, and all who are in authority, that a quiet and peaceable life we may lead in all piety and gravity, for this is right and acceptable before God our Saviour, who doth will all men to be saved, and to come to the full knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:1-4)

the Lord is not slow in regard to the promise, as certain count slowness, but is long-suffering to us, not counselling any to be lost but all to pass on to reformation (2 Pet. 3:9)

    Clearly, the God who is love is unwilling to allow any to remain unsaved. This fact is made even more obvious when it is realized that the ‘kings’ of whom Paul was speaking in 1 Tim. 2:2 included the Roman emperor Nero, a notorious persecutor and murderer of Christians who would later go on to kill Paul himself. If it is God’s will that this evil emperor, a clear enemy of God, would be saved, then how could He possibly wish eternal torment on any person?

    However, just because God does not will any person to remain unsaved does not mean that some will not choose to remain unsaved. This is the ‘free will’ argument for infernalism that traditionalists often rely on when backed into the corner of having to face that God loves and wants all to be saved. Unfortunately for them, another important aspect of God’s nature is that He is sovereign over all things, including salvation. Many, many passages of scripture demonstrate this, of which the following is only a fraction:

Thou hast known that for all things Thou art able, And not withheld from Thee is any device (Job 42:2)  

And our God is in the heavens, All that He hath pleased He hath done. (Ps. 115:3)

no one is able to come unto me, if the Father who sent me may not draw him (John 6:44)

“Ye did not choose out me, but I chose out you, and did appoint you, that ye might go away, and might bear fruit” (John 15:16)

in whom also we did obtain an inheritance, being foreordained according to the purpose of Him who the all things is working according to the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:11)

    If these many passages are true, and every purpose of God is fulfilled even in salvation, then it is inconceivable that any could be left unsaved. If God is truly Love to all people, and He is also truly Sovereign in all things, then it is impossible that He could condemn any to either eternal torment or eternal annihilation - anything short of full universalism goes against the very nature of God. Eventually, all people will be reconciled to God and receive salvation, in accordance with the purpose of His will.