Throughout this series of posts, the history of early Christian thought on hell and the ultimate fate of unbelievers has been presented in detail, backed up with numerous quotes from early patristic writers (and a few medieval writers as well). This last post in the series will be a summary of the foregoing, in an attempt to show the broad development of Christian soteriology from universalism to infernalism.
At the very earliest stage of post-New Testament Christianity, characterized by first-century apocryphal literature and the writings of the apostolic fathers, there was a wide spectrum of beliefs about the eventual fate of unbelievers. Several writers, most notably Clement of Rome (posthumously, the fourth Pope) and the author(s) of the deuterocanonical Odes of Solomon, believed in universalism. On the opposite side of the spectrum, there were also several believers in conditionalism, the idea that only believers would again be resurrected to immortality and unbelievers would be consigned to eternal oblivion; this view included Polycarp of Smyrna and possibly the author(s) of the Didache.
Ignatius of Antioch, the third apostolic father, seems not to have been convinced either way (or kept his views ambiguous to avoid controversy). In one place, he uses the ‘abolition of death’ (1 Cor. 15:26) and the eventual cessation of motion (i.e., motions of will) to describe the eventual destruction of all evil, which is a precursor to the Origenian view of the apokatastasis. However, he also says that unbelievers are going to death, and in a letter to Polycarp, that immortality is the prize set before believers. There is no indication in his writings, or in any other first and early second century writing, that any unbeliever will be tormented eternally in the Lake of Fire. Rather, the Church at this time appears to have included a mixture of universalists and conditionalists.
By the mid-to-late second century, the situation had changed somewhat. Conditionalism was now only believed by a few, including (probably) Justin Martyr and the old man who converted him. Instead, a belief in universal salvation became much more common, and was preached by many Christian apologists, including Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, and Clement of Alexandria. By connecting the eventual universal reconciliation to the consummation (τελος), and interpreting it as a return to the original state as a result of the ontological non-existence of evil, these early apologists created the foundation of the doctrine of “universal apokatastasis” propounded by Origen Adamantius and his fourth-century followers.
At the same time, infernalism was beginning to arise in certain Gnostic communities. Valentinus, the first and most successful early Gnostic, was a conditionalist, but his follower Tatian the Syrian believed that all unbelievers (who, in Gnosticism, were of a ‘material’ nature) would receive death and pain in immortality. However, this view was heterodox even within Gnostic circles, and it was refuted by Bardaisan (a Syrian Gnostic and universalist) [1].
Despite the rise of universalism in the late 100s, near the turn of the century, infernalism began to spread to some proto-orthodox communities. The first Latin Church father, Tertullian of Carthage, believed that unbelievers would be tormented eternally in fire, likely affected by the mistranslation of αιωνιος (‘eonian’) into Latin as aeternus (‘eternal’). Strangely, he also thought that watching unbelievers burn in hell would be the greatest ‘spectacle’ ever and the only one worth watching for Christians, which is certainly an unbiblical view. He passed this teaching on to his pupil, Cyprian of Carthage, and the rest of the Roman clergy, which permanently affected the theology of the Western church. After this, there would only be a handful of Latin universalists.
Possibly to combat this rising belief in eternal torment, the doctrine of universal apokatastasis was finally fully fleshed out in the writings of Origen of Alexandria in the early third century. His work De Principiis brought together the themes of universalism from second century writers, including the timing of the apokatastasis (the consummation of the ages) and the ontological non-existence of evil, all while affirming the reality of αιωνιον punishment. Moreover, although he is considered the ‘first universalist’ by some, by looking at the writings of his predecessors it can be seen that he was merely formulating the ideas passed down to him into one, single doctrine.
Origen’s writings became extremely popular in the late third and early fourth centuries, so much that virtually all of the Eastern patristic writers during the fourth century were either universalists or ‘hopeful’ universalists. Among the followers of Origen and believers in universal apokatastasis were the Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, all three Cappadocian Fathers, the champion of orthodoxy Athanasius of Alexandria, Didymus the Blind, Evagrius Ponticus, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Ephrem the Syrian, and the ‘hopeful’ universalists Cyril of Jerusalem and John Chrysostom. In fact, as far as my research has taken me, there was not a single orthodox Eastern writer in the fourth century that was not a universalist or hopeful universalist.
At the same time, the Latin church (following Tertullian) comprised mainly infernalists and annihilationists. Hilary of Poitiers and the Ambrosiaster (author of a pseudonymous commentary on Paul’s epistles) were devout infernalists and argued that it was impossible for any unbeliever to obtain salvation after death. Similarly, Novatian and Arnobius were outspoken annihilationists and similarly argued that punishment for unbelievers would be eternal (albeit not conscious torment). However, there were a few followers of Origen; Hilary of Poitiers is sometimes even called ‘the Origen of the West’ (despite believing in infernalism), and Ambrose of Milan believed in an apokatastasis at least of believers, if not of all humans [2].
Unfortunately, this widespread support for Origen lasted only about a century. In the final quarter of the 300s, an anti-Origenist movement began, headed at first by Epiphanis of Salamis. Although this movement spread a number of falsehoods about Origen’s beliefs, such as that he did not believe in a bodily resurrection and that he taught the preexistence of souls, it became extremely popular in the last decade of the fourth century and the beginning of the fifth. A number of followers of Origen, including Theophilus of Alexandria and John Chrysostom, were threatened with violence and some ended up switching sides.
Although universalism was not originally associated with Origenism, the prominent anti-Origenist Augustine of Hippo came to the erroneous belief that the universal apokatastasis originated with Origen in the mid-410s, and so became an outspoken anti-universalist. His contemporary, Jerome of Stridon, who had been both an anti-Origenist and full universalist, began teaching that some ‘impious’ humans would receive eternal torment at the same time, although he continued to proclaim that God would have mercy on all other unbelievers until his death. After Augustine of Hippo, universal apokatastasis never enjoyed the same level of support that it had during the fourth century.
The second Origenist controversy, which occurred in the mid-sixth century, was led by the Byzantine emperor Justinian I. Convinced by anti-Origenist propaganda that Origen had been a heretic of the highest degree, Justinian made it his goal to officially condemn Origen and his doctrines, including universalism. He succeeded in this endeavor at the 553 ecumenical council of Constantinople II, where Origen and his writings were posthumously anathematized. However, universalism was not actually condemned at this council; the fifteen anti-Origenist anathemas associated with Constantinople II were not discovered until the seventeenth century, and should almost certainly be connected with a letter from Justinian to the council, rather than the council itself. Furthermore, the doctrine that is condemned in these anathemas is so far from what Origen actually held regarding the universal apokatastasis that even if it were original, the form of universalism held by the early Church would not have itself been anathematized.
Further proof that the fifth ecumenical council did not actually condemn universalism is the fact that there were still a few Catholic universalists in the centuries following 553. Maximus the Confessor, a saint according to both Catholic and Orthodox tradition, was an avowed universalist who believed that all people would eventually be saved and ‘divinized’. His contemporary, Isaac the Syrian, a saint in many catholic Eastern and Syriac churches, believed that Gehenna was a place of purification through God’s love and that it would eventually be emptied by His grace.
The last known universalist of the early church was John ‘the Scot’ Eriugena, a poet and theologian of the mid-ninth century. He rediscovered a number of Origenist doctrines, including the universal apokatastasis, the ontological non-existence of evil, the ‘spiritual’ resurrection, and Origen’s interpretive hermeneutic of scripture (which recognized both a literal and allegorical ‘layer’ to the text). However, he seems to have been unaware that these doctrines were primarily Origenian, as he derived his beliefs solely from scripture and other early Church writings. Interestingly, he also hints that there may have been others who openly agreed with him about universal apokatastasis, although unfortunately we do not have other documents from his time confirming this.
Conclusion
The main focus of this series of articles is to demonstrate that universalism was considered orthodox for at least the first five centuries of the Church, and even that there were a few catholic believers in universalism after its supposed anathematization in the sixth century. However, knowing that church tradition and orthodoxy has gotten this so wrong, and so opposed to the teachings of the earliest Church fathers, can we really trust tradition and orthodoxy in other areas of theology? What else might Christianity have gotten wrong over the two thousand years it has existed?
Because of this, I have chosen to be dedicated to scripture rather than orthodoxy and tradition. For scripture, when released from the suffocating confines of orthodoxy, holds far more truth.
______________________________
[1] “And there will come a time when even this capacity for harm that remains in them will be brought to an end by the instruction that will obtain in a different arrangement of things: and, once that new world will be constituted, all evil movements will cease, all rebellions will come to an end, and the fools will be persuaded, and the lacks will be filled, and there will be safety and peace, as a gift of the Lord of all natures.” (Book of the Laws of Countries 611; transl. by Ilaria Ramelli)
No comments:
Post a Comment