Critics of conditionalism often credit fourth-century apologist Arnobius of Sicca with being the first clear proponent of conditionalism. From Robert Peterson to John Blanchard to Robert Morey, there is an abundant tendency among traditionalists to indicate Arnobius as “the first name usually associated with” annihilationism and conditional immortality,1Blanchard, J. Whatever Happened to Hell? (Crossway, 1995). 211. who gave “the first clear expression of annihilationism,”2Peterson, R. Hell On Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment (Presbyterian & Reformed, 1995). 104. that annihilationism “was first advanced by Arnobius, a 4th-century ‘Christian’ apologist, according to standard reference works such as Baker’s Dictionary of Theology.”3Morey, R. Death and the Afterlife (Bethany House, 1984). 199. Each of these authors is critical of Arnobius and his work; Morey is even hesitant to identify Arnobius as Christian, enclosing the term in scare quotes. The impression these authors apparently intend to leave their readers with is that conditionalism emerged hundreds of years after the writing of the New Testament, first espoused by a “less-than-careful thinker”4Peterson. Hell On Trial. 103. whose very faith is of questionable legitimacy.
Meanwhile, Irenaeus of Lyons, an apologist who wrote about 200 years before Arnobius, is typically praised for his work. Blanchard calls him “one of the most significant theologians of his time.”5Blanchard. Whatever Happened to Hell? 89. Philip Schaff says, “It is plain that [Irenaeus] possessed a good share of learning, and that he had a firm grasp of the doctrines of Scripture.”6Schaff, P. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1 (Eerdmans, 2001). 312. And Irenaeus is often cited as early support for the traditional view of hell. Robert Yarbrough includes him among “writers from the second century A.D. [who] speak of hell’s unending torment.”7Yarbrough, R. W. (2004). “Jesus on Hell.” In Morgan, C. W. and Peterson, R. A. (Eds.) Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment (Zondervan). 84-85. Morey likewise cites Irenaeus’ work as one of “those places in early Christian literature where the doctrine of eternal, conscious torment is taught.”8Morey. Afterlife. 162, 167. Thus traditionalists think they have in Irenaeus a much clearer, more biblical thinker than Arnobius, promoting the traditional view of hell some two centuries earlier.
However, when one takes a closer look at the writings of Irenaeus, one discovers that in citing him, traditionalists proverbially shoot themselves in the foot. Irenaeus was indeed a rather clear thinker and sound theologian. Contrary to the claims of traditionalists, however, his work is one of the earliest explicit affirmations outside of scriptures of the final annihilation of the wicked.
Theological novelty
Conditionalists have willingly acknowledged that what is now the traditional view of hell—eternal conscious punishing—has dominated Christian thought since the time of St. Augustine. From the centuries that followed until the time of the Protestant Reformation, if conditionalists existed at all they were small in number; and they still comprise a small minority in the church. So it is clear that conditionalists are comfortable enough parting ways with the majority of Christians when it comes to the nature of hell. Why, then, does it even matter to conditionalists whether or not any of the earliest church fathers taught that the unsaved would be destroyed in hell rather than eternally tormented? Aren’t we rebels who simply dismiss what theologians of the past have taught as so much useless clutter and claiming, “No creeds but Christ!”
The answer is both yes and no. It is true that, as Protestants, evangelical conditionalists tend to be deeply committed to the doctrine of sola scriptura, willing to accept what we think the Bible clearly teaches even if it means believing contrary to what the majority of Christians have taught for many hundreds of years. On the other hand, we recognize that God “gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ.”9Ephesians 4:11-12, NASB. The insights God gave to teachers throughout church history, from the apostolic era onward, are meant to build us up and to equip us, and they are not to be ignored. The most ancient of those teachers were discipled if not by the apostles themselves then by disciples thereof, and so they ought to be taken very seriously. As conditionalist Edward Fudge puts it,10Fudge, E. The Fire That Consumes (Third Edition) (Wipf and Stock, 2011). 253.
Although not canonical, the writings of those fathers of the church are worth our reading, for these are men who were taught by the apostles, or by those whom the apostles had taught. Their writings offer a window into some of the thinking of some leaders of that early generation of believers. If we find among the apostolic fathers some unanimity of opinion, it is not to be taken for granted.
If the clear consensus among the earliest, post-New Testament believers was that the risen wicked would suffer forever in hell, many who have otherwise embraced conditionalism might not have done so. No matter how clearly we think the relevant texts of Scripture support the final annihilation of unbelievers, unanimous affirmation to the contrary on the part of the early church would compel us to come to terms with and accept that the apparently clear words of scripture were originally intended, under inspiration from God, to be taken as meaning something other than the obvious.
What’s more, I happen to agree with my traditionalist friend Dee Dee Warren, host of the Preterist Podcast, who has often said, “Theological novelty is not a good thing.”11Warren, Dee Dee (2005, December 4th). “Theological novelty.” The Preterist Blog. Retrieved 1 November 2012. http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=17 Consequently, if a formerly unheard of doctrine emerged hundreds of years after the close of the canon, its novelty would seriously cast doubt on its truthfulness. Fortunately, such cannot be demonstrated when it comes to the doctrine of conditional immortality.
Simple repetitions of the terms of Scripture
Early church fathers typically referred to final punishment using biblical terminology, without elaborating much in their own words, as noted by Fudge.12Fudge. Consumes. 254. Steward Salmond likewise acknowledges that the words of the earliest fathers concerning the topic were often “simple repetitions of the terms of Scripture”13Salmond, S. D. F. The Christian Doctrine of Immortality (T. & T. Clark, 1895). 594. As such, convinced that biblical language supports our view, many conditionalists believe the writings of the early Church are clearly in our favor. Fudge notes, for example, that both “Constable and Froom claim that all the apostolic fathers support the views of conditional immortality: that immortality is God’s gift through the redemption of Jesus, only the saved will live forever, and the damned eventually will exist no more.”14Fudge. Consumes. 254.
Since for the most part Irenaeus was not an exception, and since traditionalists obviously think that biblical language supports their view, they likewise just assume it’s what Irenaeus taught. Take Morey, for example. In a chapter entitled “Punishment: Conscious and eternal,” Morey offers just one quotation from Against Heresies by Irenaeus as evidence that he taught the traditional view of hell. He cites book 3, chapter 4, in which Irenaeus writes, “The judge … will send into eternal fire those who alter the truth, and despise his Father and his coming.”15Morey. Afterlife. 167. Please note that Morey incorrectly identified this as having come from book 2. Irenaeus’ use of the phrase “eternal fire” is apparently enough to convince Morey that Irenaeus taught eternal torment. Yet conditionalists make a compelling case that this phrase, as it is used by Jesus and Jude,16Matthew 18:8; 25:41; Jude 1:7 underscores the final annihilation of the lost; we likewise cite Irenaeus’ words as evidence that he taught our view, since nothing in his own words contextualizes it as eternal conscious torment.
In his second appendix, Morey offers many more quotes from Against Heresies which he thinks refer to the traditional view of hell, but most of these suffer from the same kind of problem. Morey cites Irenaeus eleven times, places where Irenaeus used terms like “everlasting fire,” “eternal fire,” “the fire is eternal,” “where their worm shall not die, and the fire shall not be quenched,” “The punishment … rendered also eternal,” “outer darkness,” “furnace of fire,” and “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”17Morey. Afterlife. 277-278. Being simple repetitions of the terms of Scripture, none of these supports Morey’s contention that Irenaeus taught the traditional view of hell; conditionalists are not only comfortable with such language but argue that it makes better sense in the context of annihilation.
Imagine a conditionalist author making the claim that Against Heresies is one of “those places in early Christian literature where the doctrine of annihilation is taught,” and the passages cited as evidence were the very passages cited by traditionalists like Morey. After all, we know that “eternal fire” completely destroys (Jude 1:7), that the wicked like chaff are completely burned up in a “furnace of fire” (Matt. 13:40-42; cf. Mal. 4:1, 3), that it is not living people but lifeless corpses being thoroughly consumed, whose “worm shall not die” and whose “fire shall not be quenched” (Isa. 66:24). Because traditionalists are convinced that those texts support their view, they wouldn’t let this hypothetical author get away with citing Irenaeus’ repetition of these texts as evidence for the final annihilation of the wicked. Those same traditionalists should not be given a pass, either.
So the honest thing to do—whether one is a traditionalist or a conditionalist—is to acknowledge that when Irenaeus merely repeats biblical language concerning final punishment, it is not sufficient to determine with confidence which view of hell he taught. Where Irenaeus goes beyond biblical language, however, he clearly and unambiguously teaches conditional immortality and the final end to the unsaved.
Deprived of continuance
It’s important to remember that conditionalism is not only a positive affirmation of what awaits the lost—annihilation—but also a denial that their fate includes life. Contrary to the traditional view of hell in which they will live forever in torment,18Dear, J. (2012, October 19th). “What traditionalists say vs. what the Bible says.” Rethinking Hell [blog]. Retrieved 1 November 2012. http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2012/10/what-traditionalists-say-vs-what-the-bible-says/ the doctrine of conditional immortality holds that the unredeemed will die, perish, be destroyed. With that in mind, consider these words from Irenaeus:19Schaff. Fathers. 411-412.
It is the Father of all who imparts continuance for ever and ever on those who are saved … [who] shall receive also length of days for ever and ever. But he who shall reject it … deprives himself of [the privilege of] continuance for ever and ever … shall justly not receive from Him length of days for ever and ever.
Taken at face value, Irenaeus seems to be saying that although God would that the saved live forever, everlasting life will be withheld from the unsaved. Conditionalists today could hardly put it more clearly, that whereas “continuance … [and] length of days for ever and ever” will be gifted to the redeemed of God, those who reject him will not receive “continuance … [and] length of days for ever and ever.” The only alternative is that they will die, never to live again. Consequently, as the New Catholic Encyclopea reads, “From time to time there has recurred the idea of conditional immortality … Irenaeus said that the soul is not immortal by nature, but it can become immortal if it lives according to God’s law.”20The Catholic University of America. New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13 (McGraw-Hill, 1967). 469.
Most traditionalists who are aware of this text from Against Heresies, however, insist that this cannot be what Irenaeus meant. Schaff, for example, comments in a footnote to this text: “This statement is to be understood in harmony with the repeated assertion of Irenaeus that the wicked will exist in misery for ever.”21Schaff. Fathers. 411. Eldon Woodcock says largely the same thing, 
that it is a bit “fuzzy” trying to read a reference to annihilation here when given “Irenaeus’ other statements clearly affirming eternal punishment for the wicked.”22Woodcock, E. (2012-07-11). Hell: An Exhaustive Look at a Burning Issue (Kindle Locations 8578-8581). WestBowPress. Kindle Edition. But just what, from the pen of Irenaeus, do these authors have in mind?
Schaff says elsewhere of Irenaeus that “in paraphrasing the apostolic rule of faith he mentions eternal punishment, and in another place he accepts as certain truth that ‘eternal fire is prepared for sinners…'”23Schaff, P. History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2 (Scribner’s, 1910). 609. In the same vein, Woodcock cites one of the passages also cited by Morey: “Irenaeus clearly affirms the traditionalist perspective on the eternal punishment of the unrepentant wicked. ‘Thus also the punishment of those who do not believe the Word of God is not merely temporal, but is rendered also eternal…’”24Woodcock, E. Hell. Kindle Locations 8559-8560. Yet just as with Morey’s citations these are “simple repetitions of the terms of Scripture” by Irenaeus and therefore do not serve as clear support for one side over the other. But then his use of “continuance” and “length of days” does, which is confirmed by a closer look.
Existence and continuance
Irenaeus was a dualist who believed that human beings have immaterial souls which live on consciously after the death of the body. Beginning book 2, chapter 34 of Against Heresies, from which the language of “continuance” and “length of days” comes, Irenaeus writes,25Schaff. Fathers. 411.
The Lord has taught with very great fulness, that souls not only continue to exist, not by passing from body to body, but that they preserve the same form [in their separate state] as the body had to which they were adapted, and that they remember the deeds which they did in this state of existence, and from which they have now ceased.
Irenaeus is talking about the state of the soul in the so-called intermediate state, not in final punishment, going on to cite Jesus’ parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man in which the rich man is in Hades, having been buried, his brothers still alive. Irenaeus proceeds to refute the claim of some that if the soul goes on consciously living after the death of the body, it must be eternal and without beginning. He writes,26Ibid.
… all things which proceed from [God], whatsoever have been made, and are made, do indeed receive their own beginning of generation, and on this account are inferior to Him who formed them, inasmuch as they are not unbegotten. Nevertheless they endure, and extend their existence into a long series of ages in accordance with the will of God their Creator; so that He grants them that they should be thus formed at the beginning, and that they should so exist afterwards.
According to Irenaeus, then, things which were created at a point in time can endure for very long periods of time if God so wills. He goes on:27Ibid.
For as the heaven which is above us, the firmament, the sun, the moon, the rest of the stars, and all their grandeur, although they had no previous existence, were called into being, and continue throughout a long course of time according to the will of God, so also any one who thinks thus respecting souls and spirits, and, in fact, respecting all created things, will not by any means go far astray, inasmuch as all things that have been made had a beginning when they were formed, but endure as long as God wills that they should have an existence and continuance.
It is clear what Irenaeus meant by the phrase “existence and continuance.” This is not a phrase which one can argue is a reference to a state of eternal bliss and well-being, as traditionalists have often done with “immortality” and “eternal life.” No, Irenaeus is speaking of existence itself, not quality of existence, saying that “all things that have been made had a beginning.” As examples he offers inanimate objects incapable of experiencing varying quality of existence. So when he says they “endure as long as God wills that they should have an existence and continuance,” he’s saying that if God no longer wills that something has “existence and continuance,” what began will come to an end. It will no longer be, will no longer exist.
Continuance for ever and ever
With that in mind, first consider what Irenaeus goes on to write about the saved:28Ibid.
He thus speaks respecting the salvation of man: “He asked life of Thee, and Thou gavest him length of days for ever and ever;” indicating that it is the Father of all who imparts continuance for ever and ever on those who are saved. 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 ever and ever.
Having just said that created things exist only so long as God wills that they endure, Irenaeus tells us that God does in fact impart “continuance forever and ever” upon the redeemed. He puts it another way, saying they will “receive also length of days forever and ever.” The dots hardly need connecting: things which had a beginning to their existence will continue to exist only so long as God would have them endure, and he would that the saved continue to exist forever. But Irenaeus says something quite the opposite concerning the lost:29Ibid. 411-412.
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 [the gift upon him], deprives himself of [the privilege of] continuance for ever and ever. And, for this reason, the Lord declared to those who showed themselves ungrateful towards Him: “If ye 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 ever and ever.
Irenaeus could hardly be any clearer. Whereas God would that the saved be granted “continuance” and “length of days for ever and ever,” the lost will instead be justly deprived of the same. And again Irenaeus uses this language of “continuance” and “length of days” in the context of created things which have “existence and continuance” so long as God wills it. Irenaeus then is clearly and plainly stating that the redeemed will exist forever, and the unredeemed will not.
Irenaeus misunderstood
As previously demonstrated, Schaff and Woodcock were mistaken in their belief that Irenaeus’ statements elsewhere preclude an annihilationist interpretation of this text. But just how do they interpret it? Schaff comments in a footnote to this text, saying, “It refers not to annihilation, but to deprivation of happiness.”30Ibid. 411. This is obviously not the case. Irenaeus is not at all talking about quality of existence, but of existence itself. The heavens, the sun, the moon and the stars are all inanimate and incapable of experiencing varying quality of existence, and having had a beginning, they simply exist as long as God wills that they do so. Irenaeus then says souls and spirits should be regarded similarly, as having had a beginning and existing as long as God wills that they do so. There is simply no contextual justification for believing that Irenaeus’ point has to do with the miserable quality of life faced by the wicked for eternity.
Eldon Woodcock makes a similar error. Noting that David Powys cited Irenaeus’ words in this passage as evidence that he was a conditionalist, Woodcock writes,31Woodcock. Hell. Kindle Locations 8576-8577.
Here Irenaeus affirms God’s blessing upon the saved of continuance forever of the eternal life that he has given them. He also indicates that those who reject his salvation will deprive themselves of the continuance of that eternal life.
Before moving on, it’s worth taking note of Woodcock’s convenient and dubious insertion of the phrase “eternal life” into the original text. Irenaeus is not talking about “eternal life” in the sense often used by traditionalists, as referring to some everlasting blissful quality of life. No, he’s talking about life itself, “length of days for ever and ever.”
What’s more, inserting “eternal life” (as traditionalists understand it) into Irenaeus’ words renders them an attack upon another doctrine Woodcock affirms: the perseverance of the saints, otherwise known as eternal security. He writes elsewhere that “the inevitable conclusion” from 2 Cor. 1:21-22, 5:5, Eph. 1:13-14, and 4:30 “is that [believers’] preservation is certain and that their salvation is and will continue to be eternally secure.”32Woodcock, E., “The seal of the Holy Spirit and the eternal security of the believer,” in Elio Cuccaro (Ed.), Alliance Academic Review (1997). Yet Irenaeus promises that the wicked will be deprived of the continuance of something they once had, a gift given to both the saved and the unsaved but rejected by the latter: “He who shall preserve the life bestowed upon him … shall receive also length of days for ever and ever … [he who] has not recognised Him who bestowed [the gift upon him], deprives himself of [the privilege of] continuance for ever and ever.”
What else Woodcock says here is still more problematic:33Woodcock. Hell. Kindle Locations 8578-8579.
Yet, contrary to Powys’ claim, Irenaeus states nothing as to what the postmortem future of the godless will involve! From this text alone one might infer either continuance in eternal punishment or annihilation.
Irenaeus does in fact state what the postmortem future of the godless will involve; namely, that the godless person “deprives himself of [the privilege of] continuance for ever and ever,” that he “shall justly not receive from [God] length of days for ever and ever.” Again, “continuance” and “length of days” are in the context of “existence and continuance”—which, Irenaeus writes, continue only so long as God wills it. No, one cannot infer continuance in eternal punishment (by which Woodcock means eternal punishing), for anything other than annihilation requires “existence and continuance” and “length of days”—which Irenaeus says will not be granted to the unsaved.
Irenaeus the Conditionalist
There simply is no avoiding the clear meaning of Irenaeus’ words. Whereas those who hold to the traditional view of hell affirm that both the saved and the unsaved will live forever throughout eternity, either blissfully in the presence of God or in torment having been separated from him, Irenaeus plainly taught that only the saved will live forever because “existence and continuance” depends upon the will of God, which he will deny the lost.
Arnobius may have been an unclear thinker and an unsound theologian. And if Morey is right, perhaps Arnobius’ very salvation should be called into question. But even if the worst that is said about him is true, conditional immortality and the annihilation of the wicked was not first advanced by him in the fourth century. Apart from the biblical authors, the permanent end to the existence of the unsaved was taught some two hundred years prior to Arbobius in the plainest of terms by an apologist praised today by traditionalists who is believed to have been taught directly by Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John—and that is the great Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, the Conditionalist.
| ￪1 | Blanchard, J. Whatever Happened to Hell? (Crossway, 1995). 211. |
|---|---|
| ￪2 | Peterson, R. Hell On Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment (Presbyterian & Reformed, 1995). 104. |
| ￪3 | Morey, R. Death and the Afterlife (Bethany House, 1984). 199. |
| ￪4 | Peterson. Hell On Trial. 103. |
| ￪5 | Blanchard. Whatever Happened to Hell? 89. |
| ￪6 | Schaff, P. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1 (Eerdmans, 2001). 312. |
| ￪7 | Yarbrough, R. W. (2004). “Jesus on Hell.” In Morgan, C. W. and Peterson, R. A. (Eds.) Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment (Zondervan). 84-85. |
| ￪8 | Morey. Afterlife. 162, 167. |
| ￪9 | Ephesians 4:11-12, NASB. |
| ￪10 | Fudge, E. The Fire That Consumes (Third Edition) (Wipf and Stock, 2011). 253. |
| ￪11 | Warren, Dee Dee (2005, December 4th). “Theological novelty.” The Preterist Blog. Retrieved 1 November 2012. http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=17 |
| ￪12 | Fudge. Consumes. 254. |
| ￪13 | Salmond, S. D. F. The Christian Doctrine of Immortality (T. & T. Clark, 1895). 594. |
| ￪14 | Fudge. Consumes. 254. |
| ￪15 | Morey. Afterlife. 167. Please note that Morey incorrectly identified this as having come from book 2. |
| ￪16 | Matthew 18:8; 25:41; Jude 1:7 |
| ￪17 | Morey. Afterlife. 277-278. |
| ￪18 | Dear, J. (2012, October 19th). “What traditionalists say vs. what the Bible says.” Rethinking Hell [blog]. Retrieved 1 November 2012. http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2012/10/what-traditionalists-say-vs-what-the-bible-says/ |
| ￪19 | Schaff. Fathers. 411-412. |
| ￪20 | The Catholic University of America. New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13 (McGraw-Hill, 1967). 469. |
| ￪21 | Schaff. Fathers. 411. |
| ￪22 | Woodcock, E. (2012-07-11). Hell: An Exhaustive Look at a Burning Issue (Kindle Locations 8578-8581). WestBowPress. Kindle Edition. |
| ￪23 | Schaff, P. History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2 (Scribner’s, 1910). 609. |
| ￪24 | Woodcock, E. Hell. Kindle Locations 8559-8560. |
| ￪25 | Schaff. Fathers. 411. |
| ￪26 | Ibid. |
| ￪27 | Ibid. |
| ￪28 | Ibid. |
| ￪29 | Ibid. 411-412. |
| ￪30 | Ibid. 411. |
| ￪31 | Woodcock. Hell. Kindle Locations 8576-8577. |
| ￪32 | Woodcock, E., “The seal of the Holy Spirit and the eternal security of the believer,” in Elio Cuccaro (Ed.), Alliance Academic Review (1997). |
| ￪33 | Woodcock. Hell. Kindle Locations 8578-8579. |
24 thoughts on “Deprived of continuance: Irenaeus the conditionalist”
This discussion always has to be done with very closely defined words or it leads to nowhere.
That’s certainly true, Gary. Of course, context is equally important, and in the text this article is based on, he is clearly talking about things which began to exist and continue to do so as long as God wills–the heavens, sun, moon and stars. Traditionalists really are unjustified in thinking that Irenaeus is talking about a quality of life withheld from the unsaved; it’s completely out of context.
The problem with this whole argument is that it is possible to interpret all these statements within a traditionalist framework. The context that both ireneaus and Justin are writing within is dominated by Greek philosophy. That means Schaff is literally correct when he says that non existence means deprived of happiness. The term happiness classically means flourishing, the Greek term is eudaumonia. And if they “ceased” to exist according to your meaning, they would certainly be deprived of flourishing. But for the platonic school of thought existence was gradationist, not temporal. The things with the most existence were not the things that lasted the longest chronologically but the things that were more pure or virtuous. Athanasius uses this view to explain deification quite vividly. He says that the fall was a turn from being to non being, and that the incarnation saves humanity from ceasing to exist. But what he means is qualitative not quantitative. Ireneaus was highly influential on athanasius by way of his recapitulation view of Christ’s work. On this view Christ saves humanity by way of natural union with human nature granting it immortality. That is when the word unites himself hypostatically to human nature and then goes through the stages of human life he actually grants it an incorruptiblity. But only the saved are the ones who participate and experience this immortality. This is called the doctrine of double immortality, that is immortality meaning incorruptiblity or bare continuance
And immortality meaning divinity or eudaumonia. Many Greeks believed in reincarnation and the continuance of the soul after death, but this was only one form of immortality. This was not the immortality of the gods or the forms. That immortality was what they desired. Ireneaus himself speaks of the kind of existence god grants to us as qualitative and not merely bare continuance when he says : “we who were but lately created by the only best and good Being, by Him also who has the gift of immortality, having been formed after His likeness (predestinated, according to the prescience of the Father, that we, who had as yet no existence, might come into being), and made the first-fruits of creation(1)–have received, in the times known beforehand, [the blessings of salvation] according to the ministration of the Word, who is perfect in all things, as the mighty Word, and very man, who, redeeming us by His own blood in a manner consonant to reason, gave Himself as a redemption for those who had been led into captivity. And since the apostasy tyrannized over us unjustly, and, though we were by nature the property of the omnipotent God, alienated us contrary to nature, rendering us its own disciples, the Word of God, powerful in all things, and not defective with regard to His own justice, did righteously turn against that apostasy, and redeem from it His own property, not by violent means, as the [apostasy] had obtained dominion over us at the beginning, when it insatiably snatched away what was not its own, but by means of persuasion, as became a God of counsel, who does not use violent means to obtain what He desires; so that neither should justice be infringed upon, nor the ancient handiwork of God go to destruction. Since the Lord thus has redeemed us through His own blood, giving His soul for our souls, and His flesh for our flesh,(2) and has also poured out the Spirit of the Father for the union and communion of God and man, imparting indeed God to men by means of the Spirit, and, on the other hand, attaching man to God by His own incarnation, and bestowing upon us at His coming immortality durably and truly, by means of communion with God,–all the doctrines of the heretics fall to ruin.”
And for ireneaus one kind of immortality is imbued to god’s image bearers, so that god’s image would not be dishonored by destruction and that god’s quality of life, his happiness would be granted to those who partake of the spirit. As far as I can tell this isn’t controversial amongst patristic scholars. The idea of bare continuance after death would’ve been taken for granted by his readers but in an unpleasant way, this was literally a kind of hell for them. Because human immortality without virtue is nothing like the divine life promised to Christians. I think this is the fundamental miscommunication between traditionalists and annihilationists, the quality of life is what matters for our present and eschatological destiny. We were dead and now in christ we are alive, and eventually those in Christ will be more alive and those not will be more dead. Along the lines of c.s. Lewis I think heaven or hell is just the present processes at work in us extended forever. Its a freely chosen destiny, as ireneaus said above god does not work through violent means. i think the idea that god would utterly erase any of his image bearers was abhorent to the bishop in question. Immortality is hell without divine life. Existence qua existence is not what is at stake for the fathers or the New Testament but the kind of existence you will experience. We really must read things in context, as you pointed out, and unfortunately I think you have conveniently but unintentionally removed ireneaus’ from himself. Thank you. God bless.
Acgleason, Chris already made an argument for why “continuance” in context refers to existence, and not merely a particular quality of existence. You did not interact with that argument, and instead made a lot of unsubstantiated assertions about the historical context of ancient Greek thought, as if it were monolithic. You make a host of other assertions which are likewise not argued for, such as, “I think the idea that god would utterly erase any of his image bearers was abhorent to the bishop in question.”
Traditionalists commonly take exception with conditionalists for “assuming” that words such as destroy, death, kill, abolish, and consume ought to be taken literally, or for assuming that destroy means “annihilation” when it really just refers to “ruin.” I’ve often said that, for those who are committed to tradition, it simply doesn’t matter what Scripture teaches because it’s impossible for the language to be strong enough or clear enough. If Paul said “the wicked will be annihilated and never exist again!” people like you would just shrug it off and say “Paul is saying that their happiness will be annihilated—it’s a certain quality of existence that will never exist again.”
Once universal and unconditional immortality is presupposed, any text, no matter how explicit, will be interpreted accordingly. Tell me, if Irenaeus or Paul wanted to teach that the unrepentant would one day be completely destroyed, completely deprived of life and continuance of any kind, how could they communicate that in a way that would convince someone like you?
Hi Acgleason. It’s actually not the case that there was a view called “Greek philosophy” that all Greek philosophers held. They simply did not all believe in human immortality or in dualism. A number of them actually did believe that people would cease to exist and be no more, Besides this, “immortality” is not even the word in question here: It’s continuance. So even if you think that immortality is something over and above continuance, Irenaeus is saying that the lost will not even have the latter, let alone the former.
One other thing: Your appeal to the way that Athanasius uses “this view.” But you really need to look carefully at the way that Athanasius talks about non-existence in his work on the Incarnation, where he makes it starkly clear that literal, absolute nonexistence is the consequence of sin. He leave no wiggle room at all, stating in several different ways that humans once did not exist, God brought them into being, and now because of sin they are returning to nonexistence, just like before they were created. It’s not at all a mere lack of flourishing or happiness.
To clarify: So yes, there are grades of being in Athanasius (and classical philosophy), but to lack being altogether still meant nonexistence.
I hope you do an article on Justin Martyr. I know many traditionalists point to his first apology as teaching eternal torment which seems hard to dispute, but almost all his other writings undoubtedly support conditionalism. I don’t think the fact that there is some discrepancy in his ascribed writings should take away from having his writing supporting comditional immortality overshadowed.
This is a good suggestion. Can you cite statements he made which are clear support for conditional immortality? I ask because many of the Fathers simply used biblical language, as I explain in this article, and when they use language that we think sounds very much like saying that life will be withheld from the wicked, given only to the saved, traditionalists just assume that means the wicked will experience eternal death, which they interpret to mean life forever in torment. That’s why I like this statement from Irenaeus; it’s indisputable. I want to see similar indisputable statements from Justin Martyr if I’m going to write an article on him.
Here’s Just a sample. If you’ve never studied Justin on this topic, I highly suggest you read the first part to “A Dialogue with Trypho” where Justin gives the detailes of his conversion and how the man who converted him engaged him on the topic of the immortality of the Soul.
“And we have learned that those only are made immortal who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue; and we believe that those who live wickedly and do not repent are punished in everlasting fire” (First Apology, chap xxi)
“For I choose to follow not men or men’s doctrines, but God and the doctrines delivered by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this truth, and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genistæ, Meristæ, Galilæans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews”
(A Dialogue with Trypho chap 80)
Discourse between Old man who converted Justin in Dialogue with Trypho)
Old Man: .”so, then, they are not essentially immortal?
Justin: “No; since we are agreed in the fact that the world was created.
Old Man: “Nevertheless, I do not affirm that all souls do in fact cease to exist at death. This truly would be a fine arrangement for the wicked! But how is it, then? Thus: The souls of the good still continue to exist somewhere in a better place, all awaiting the time of the judgment. Then the good, being manifested as worthy of the favor of God, shall never die, but the wicked are punished so long as God wills to have them exist, and be punished.”
(Discourse between Old man who converted Justin in Dialogue with Trypho)
chris, this is pure awesomeness
Doesn’t the author of Trinitarian orthodoxy — Athanasius — teach the same thing in his On the Incarnation of the Word of God? I don’t recall one word about hell in Incarnatione Verbe Dei, but only talk about salvation from death.
His reasoning is different, but yes, he teaches the same thing, that the wicked return to the non-existence from which they came.
Irenaeus gets his language of “length of days, forever and ever” of course from Psalm 21:4.
The thesis of the above article is corroborated by the following, from Irenaeus’ other surviving work, ‘The Demonstration Of The Apostolic Preaching.’
“Moreover because He appeared no more after His death and burial, the prophet declares that after dying and rising again He was to remain immortal, (saying) thus: ‘He asked life, and thou gavest him, and length of days for ever and ever.’ Now what is this that he says, He asked life, since He was about to die? He proclaims His resurrection from the dead, and that being raised from the dead He is immortal. For He received both life, that He should rise, and length of days for ever and ever, that He should be incorruptible.”
So, Irenaeus associates the phrase, “length of days for ever and ever,” with the incorruption involved in immortality, and, lest there be any doubt, to the idea of remaining immortal indefinitely.
The subtext here is that it was theoretically possible for Jesus to rise from death, but die again. But he didn’t. He simply “appeared no more.” (As we all know, he ascended to the heavens).
Hello. Your first point, reference 18 attributed to Schaff, for making the positive case that Irenaus expressed pro-annihilationist teachings is completely out of context.
Quote:
[C]onsider these words from Irenaeus:18
It is the Father of all who imparts continuance for ever and ever on those who are saved … [who] shall receive also length of days for ever and ever. But he who shall reject it … deprives himself of[the privilege of] continuance for ever and ever … shall justly not receive from Him length of days for ever and ever.
Taken at face value, Irenaeus seems to be saying that although God would that the saved live forever, everlasting life will be withheld from the unsaved. Conditionalists today could hardly put it more clearly, that whereas “continuance … [and] length of days for ever and ever” will be gifted to the redeemed of God, those who reject him will not receive “continuance … [and] length of days for ever and ever.” The only alternative is that they will die, never to live again.
End Quote.
Please note that this quote from Iranaeus, which is used as proof that he taught annihilationism, is in a chapter titled “Chap. XXXIV. — Souls Can Be Recognised in the Separate State, and Are Immortal Although They Once Had a Beginning.”
Irenaus starts out:
“1. The Lord has taught with very great fulness, that souls not only continue to exist, not by passing from body to body, but that they preserve the same form215 [in their separate state] as the body had to which they were adapted, and that they remember the deeds which they did in this state of existence, and from which they have now ceased, — in that narrative which is recorded respecting the rich man and that Lazarus who found repose in the bosom of Abraham.”
The quote you cited is lifted from para. 3 of that chapter. If taken in context, it most certainly does not support annihilationism. In other words, what Irenaeus intends and what you hear are two entirely different things.
As you correctly said, the quote itself teaches conditionalism, and you were able to find nothing in the text that teaches otherwise.
The only evidence you cite is the chapter title — but those titles are not original to Irenaeus; they were inserted by Schaff.
Furthermore, Irenaeus himself explains that although the soul survives our death (and therefore could be called immortal), it does not sustain its own life; it depends on the spirit to sustain it. Therefore, when God decides to cease its continuance, He would sever it from the spirit, and the soul, having no life of its own, would then die.
The book does not even mention Schaff. Here is a blurb about the translators in a footnote: “4 The first two books of Irenaeus Against Heresies have been translated by Dr. Roberts. The groundwork of the translation of the third book, and that portion of the fourth book which is continued in this volume, has been furnished by the Rev. W. H. Rambaut. An attempt has been made, in rendering this important author into English, to adhere as closely as possible to the original. It would have been far easier to give a loose and flowing translation of the obscure and involved sentences of Irenaeus; but the object has been studiously kept in view, to place the English reader, as much as possible, in the position of one who has immediate access to the Greek or Latin text.” The translator chapter doesn’t mention Schaff either. Maybe one of the translators added it, but this is not mentioned.
Irenaeus’s first point refutes conditionalism outright. If you move to point 2 and 3 in order to apply an abrogation or qualification, you twist it.
Point 2 asserts God is eternal while creatures are not. He is Lord over all, and gives them the beginning of their generations, and grants them such endurance as mentioned.
Point 3 asserts that it is God Who imparts the gift of life eternal (length of days for ever and ever, from the Messianic Psalm), just as He has called the celestial bodies into being so that they continue for ever and ever; and He is just in depriving ungrateful men, or more properly they deprive themselves by their own choice, of the gift.
Point 4 asserts that God wills souls to exist, and bestows life to them (they are not alive on their own), and wills that they should endure for ever; and this by virtue of God’s sovereignty over all things.
Gumm, you’re quoting the translation Schaff published, and you’re pointing to the headers published therein. You don’t seem to be aware that those headers are not from Irenaeus.
You accurately summarize point 2, 3, and 4; although your summary of point 4 could have also added that Irenaeus shows that because life is not in the soul, its life would be taken away by removing the spirit. This is important to Irenaeus, because God providing the spirit is the theme of book V of Against Heresies.
//Irenaeus’s first point refutes conditionalism outright.//
But your summary of what you call point 1 is missing. Isn’t it _interesting_ that you can summarise all the other points that don’t refute conditionalism, but you can’t summarize the one you claim does?
Actually, what “point 1” says is that the soul continues to exist after death and itself retains life, allowing it to recognize other souls (etc). But Irenaeus is not saying anything I disagree with there; you might be confusing conditional immortality with a physicalist anthropology (with which he would certainly disagree). But in what you call point 4 he makes it clear that this ongoing vitality is not an essentially permanent state; it’s provided to man’s soul during the time between death and the judgment only, and what follows the judgment is described in points 2-4.
I see elsewhere that Schaff is credited as editor of the 1885 version. I have 1867-1873, in which Schaff is not credited. It’s a triviality. Nevertheless, if you say Irenaeus did not write the titles I have no need to contend, as this is merely a convenient summary of the content. I was curious how the author of this article could overlook it. Now I have an explanation.
I didn’t summarize point 1 because I quoted it, and thought it spoke for itself; especially as the author of this article was selective in his quotation of it. Silly me.
Point 1 states that souls do continue, and they keep the same recognizable form. This is support elsewhere in scripture by Job’s assurance that He will see the Lord with his own eyes and not another’s. In other words, the conscious self is preserved and is recognizable by others.
Your inference of point 4 is not a given, it’s an inference that God will remove life from the soul and it will die/cease. I admit that Irenaeus here leaves the possibility open. But it would be a mistake to seize upon it when scripture does not say it; perhaps you can show some.
It begs the question: why didn’t Jesus, Who is truth incarnate, and the apostles just say it that way? The Greeks certainly had the language to articulate it precisely. It is a very clinical and undramatic concept: just sever the spirit and the soul dies. Instead the very messy and terrifying imagery of unquenchable fire, destruction from the presence, and outer darkness are used. If one ceases and is without sense or care, would it matter that the fire is eternal or how far one was cast out?
I agree with your summary — “Point 1 states that souls do continue, and they keep the same recognizable form.” That would have been mine as well. But as such it’s exactly the foundation for point 3 — that souls continue as long as God gives continuance, and no longer. The two points work together, and the conclusion is that the ungrateful ones, although they continue for now, will cease to continue at some point.
My reading of point 4 depends on reading point 3 first; point 4 says _how_ God can cease souls from continuance, and point 3 says _that_ He will in fact do so.
My interest in these sections is that Irenaeus chooses to explain the Bible’s clear statement that the wages of sin is death and that the soul that sins will die in the philosophical terms his audience would know; it follows that his work agrees with scriptures, but does not use the same words and ideas.
//It is a very clinical and undramatic concept: just sever the spirit and the soul dies.//
This is not the terminology Irenaeus uses at all, nor what I’ve used. However, it does clearly show that Irenaeus believed that the soul could be deprived of life.
//Instead the very messy and terrifying imagery of unquenchable fire, destruction from the presence, and outer darkness are used.//
I believe all of this is accurate terminology to describe the process of execution; all of those are descriptions of the Day of Judgment. But a “day” is a finite period of time, not forever.
//If one ceases and is without sense or care, would it matter that the fire is eternal or how far one was cast out?//
John the Baptist explicitly disagreed when he used the metaphor “the chaff [Jesus] will burn with unquenchable fire”. Chaff burns with _any_ fire; unquenchability multiplies the power of the fire, but it’s overkill for chaff. Yet that’s what he said.