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
No comments:
Post a Comment