Purgatory vs. Universalism

[steve]

Hi Homer,

You cited (as if carrying some weight):

Matt. 5:26,18:34; Luke 12:58-59 – Jesus teaches us, “Come to terms with your opponent or you will be handed over to the judge and thrown into prison. You will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” The word “opponent” (antidiko) is likely a reference to the devil (see the same word for devil in 1 Pet. 5:8) who is an accuser against man (c.f. Job 1.6-12; Zech. 3.1; Rev. 12.10), and God is the judge. If we have not adequately dealt with satan and sin in this life, we will be held in a temporary state called a prison, and we won’t get out until we have satisfied our entire debt to God. This “prison” is purgatory where we will not get out until the last penny is paid.

You also cited Tertullian, in favor of such a bizarre interpretation.

This interpretation is absurd in the extreme. It lifts the relevant passage entirely out of context (a context where Jesus is talking about maintaining justice in relationships) and turns it into a teaching about the afterlife. Jesus is talking here (as in the previous verses) about getting along with hostile neighbors. In this case, as in verse 40, Jesus is talking about disputes that are legally actionable. In this place, He is clearly saying, "if you are at fault, go and make it right (make restitution and reconciliation) before it comes to court—because, if it comes to court, you will get what you deserve." This teaching fits neatly into the flow of thought in the sermon where it appears. To turn it into a statement about the postmortem judgment is typical of those interpreters who think Jesus was as obsessed as we are about matters of the afterlife.

Tertullian was no theologian or exegete. He was an apologist, who had a number of weird ideas. The word "adversary" means a legal opponent. It is used metaphorically of the devil, it is true, on one occasion, but that is because he, too, is a legal opponent of a sort. That does not turn the ordinary word "adversary" into a technical term for Satan. Jesus said to "agree"—the word means to be well-disposed, of a peaceable spirit (Thayer)—"with your adversary." How absurd to suggest that Jesus is recommending such an amicable relationship with the devil! Yet how typical of His teaching to be kind to those who persecute you.

Yet Jesus' judgement statements seem to rule [purgatory] out, the same as they do universalism.

This sounds like a statement of rather firm conviction. I have read the statements of Jesus on the judgment, and have considered the various exegetical alternatives. I have the impression that I have considered them more dispassionately and more objectively than you have. Which of the "judgment statements" of Christ rule out both purgatory and universalism? I don't mean, which of the statements give the initial impression in the English translations of ruling them out, but which of them do so by solid exegesis ?

I wrote:

The entire argument, in each case, relies on the speculation that "A" cannot occur in heaven, and "B" cannot occur in hell. I don't see how these speculations can be scripturally justified.

To which you wrote:

And neither is repentance and conversion in hell anything more than speculation. Where is it stated in scripture? Why does Jesus make no mention of it in His judgement statements? I see speculation in both of their positions.

There is a difference between (a) the assumption of a universal negative and (b) the assumption of a positive possibility. The former would require proof, whereas refutation of the latter would require disproof.

(a) If I wished to assert that there can be no repentance in hell, I would be claiming to know all that may or may not go on in hell (or at least to know more than we have been told). If I can prove from scripture that no repentance can or will occur there, very well. But if I cannot do so, there is no reason for anyone to pay attention to my false claim to knowledge.

(b) If I say, there is the possibility that persons in hell might have opportunity to repent, I am not claiming to know anything beyond what we have been told. Until the impossibility of such occurrences can somehow be demonstrated, the possibility remains a legitimate consideration—especially if such a possibility is agreeable with everything we know about the character of God.

Many universalists do not claim to know that everyone will repent, but would label themselves as "hopeful" universalists. Since God Himself desires all men to be saved, we can include Him among those who are "hopeful" universalists. Of course, since God actually knows more about the matter than we do, it is possible that His hopefulness amounts to actual certainty.

[Paidion]

How can you say "new teaching of eternal torment" when you have been shown quotations from second century "fathers", including Justin, that clearly show they held the eternal torment view?

Please show me these quotations which you claim "clearly show they held the eternal torment view." I recall your offering the following:

We say the same thing will be done [as Plato said concerning the punishment of the wicked], but at the hand of Christ [instead of that of Rhadamanthus and Minos], and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo αιωνιος punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years. First Apology — Chap. VIII

All Justin is saying here is that the αιωνιος punishment will last longer than a thousand years. He does not affirm that it will be an αιδιος(eternal) punishment.

If Justin followed the teachings of that first old Christian who brought him to Christ, than he would not have believed in eternal punishment.

In response to Justin as a follower of Plato, who believed that all souls were immortal, the old Christian said:

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 devout 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 as long as God wills them to exist and be punished.

It seems that the old Christian believed in the annihilation of the wicked, and presumably Justin came to believe the same.

[Paidion]

Yes, Homer, Tertullian does appear to have believed in eternal torment. But remember that Tertullian became a Montanist, which was considered to be a heresy in the church at large. Tertullian, as a Montanist, also formulated a Trinitarian formula; he was the first Christian to use the word "Trinity." At first the church at large rejected his teachings, but later as the catholic church accepted the concepts of eternal torment and Trinitarianism, they regarded Tertullian's teachings as "orthodox". Nevertheless, it is still the case that eternal torment and Trinitarianism were the new teachings of the fourth century, for that is when they were widely proclaimed. Only a few "heretical" types taught them prior to that.

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

You wrote:

Nevertheless, it is still the case that eternal torment and Trinitarianism were the new teachings of the fourth century, for that is when they were widely proclaimed. Only a few "heretical" types taught them prior to that.

You view Irenaeus as a heretic and Origin as orthodox? Irenaeus wrote:

...Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, 'every knee should bow, of things in heaven,, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess' to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send 'spiritual wickednesses,' and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning of their Christian course, and others from the date of their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory. (“Against Heresies” 1:10:10)

Notice the antithesis as in Jesus' statement about the sheep and the goats. And lest you say he meant something less than eternal he also said:

The penalty increases for those who do not believe the Word of God and despise his coming. . . . t is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomsoever the Lord shall say, ‘Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire,’ they will be damned forever (“Against Heresies” 4:28:2)

So here we see clearly Irenaeus does not mean "age" by the word translated "eternal"; there is no denying what he means when he uses the word.

And here are a couple pertinent statements I did not list earlier:

''So also let us, while we are in this world, repent with our whole heart of the evil things which we have done in the flesh, that we may be saved by the Lord, while we have yet time for repentance.'' (Second Clement 8:4)

''After we have gone out of the world, no further power of confessing or repenting will belong to us.'' (Second Clement 8:5)

This is the third time now I have posted quotes such as these, the others much more extensive.

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

You wrote:

You cited (as if carrying some weight):
Matt. 5:26,18:34; Luke 12:58-59 – Jesus teaches us, “Come to terms with your opponent or you will be handed over to the judge and thrown into prison. You will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” The word “opponent” (antidiko) is likely a reference to the devil (see the same word for devil in 1 Pet. 5:8) who is an accuser against man (c.f. Job 1.6-12; Zech. 3.1; Rev. 12.10), and God is the judge. If we have not adequately dealt with satan and sin in this life, we will be held in a temporary state called a prison, and we won’t get out until we have satisfied our entire debt to God. This “prison” is purgatory where we will not get out until the last penny is paid.

You also cited Tertullian, in favor of such a bizarre interpretation.

This interpretation is absurd in the extreme. It lifts the relevant passage entirely out of context (a context where Jesus is talking about maintaining justice in relationships) and turns it into a teaching about the afterlife.

Getting a bit overwrought there, brother. Unless you believe Joachim Jeremias to have been "extremely absurd". The same statement in Luke is in a very different setting, and in Jeremias' view eschatological. You have in the past recommended I read Tom Talbott. After reading his debate with Glenn Peoples I concluded Talbott's explanation of Matthew 10:28 to be absurd, but that's just me (and Peoples).

Tertullian was no theologian or exegete. He was an apologist, who had a number of weird ideas.

I agree. Do you think he had as many weird ideas as Origin?

This sounds like a statement of rather firm conviction.

That is a correct perception.

I have read the statements of Jesus on the judgment, and have considered the various exegetical alternatives. I have the impression that I have considered them more dispassionately and more objectively than you have.

That is your impression. My only interest is truth in this matter and preservation of the gospel "once delivered to the saints". I try not to be influenced by wishful thinking which leads into all sorts of errors.

Which of the "judgment statements" of Christ rule out both purgatory and universalism? I don't mean, which of the statements give the initial impression in the English translations of ruling them out, but which of them do so by solid exegesis ?

The ones you do not accept as ruling out univeralism would also rule out purgatory, such as Matthew 10:28 and Matthew 25:46. But not to you. Apparently you hold to the "Gehenna the perpetual burning garbage dump" myth.

You are very ready to comment on the poor exegesis of others but, strangely, I can not recall any like criticism of universalist exegesis except that of the ultra-universalist. Perhaps the universalists are the best of exegetes.

[Perry]

My only interest is truth in this matter and preservation of the gospel "once delivered to the saints".

Hi Homer.

Do you consider the doctrine of eternal conscious torment as critical to the preservation of the gospel?

[Singalphile]

Yes, mattrose. That's my best guess (in your final sentence to me in your last post). I'm glad I pretty much kept my new view (eternal destruction, aka, eventual extinction) to myself b/c I've had to soften it up, too. Thanks.

I will tire of this topic eventually, I guess, but for now, I find all of everyone's posts so interesting!

[Paidion]

You view Irenaeus as a heretic and Origin as orthodox?

I view neither one as heretical, and neither did the Catholic Church so view Origen as such until much later, at which time his writings were declared heretical, but NOT because the view he expressed concerning the eventual reconciliaton of all to God. This declaration of heresy concerned other issues.

So here we see clearly Irenaeus does not mean "age" by the word translated "eternal"; there is no denying what he means when he uses the word.

How do you know what he meant? Irenaeus wrote in Greek, and the Greek text of the first five books of Irenaeus' work "Against Heresies" has been lost. Only a Latin translation is extant. The only extant Greek texts of these books are quotations of Irenaeus from other Greek writers.

Furthermore, it seems we have only a single translation of even the Latin text, and since I know little Latin, I am unable to check it out. I searched the internet, and found ONLY one translation of Against Heresies. This single translation, found in your Ante-Nicene Fathers collection, is also offered by the Catholic site "New Advent", the Reformed site "Christian Classics Ethereal Library", and even the Gnostic Society Library. Thus I can neither confirm nor deny the words you quoted from this translation.

And here are a couple pertinent statements I did not list earlier:
''So also let us, while we are in this world, repent with our whole heart of the evil things which we have done in the flesh, that we may be saved by the Lord, while we have yet time for repentance.'' (Second Clement 8:4)
''After we have gone out of the world, no further power of confessing or repenting will belong to us.'' (Second Clement 8:5)

Homer, I know that you are a knowledgeable person. I think you know that these quotes are not by Clement of Rome. You know that in your copy of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, this homily has NOT been placed in Volume 1 along with Clement's letter to the Corinthians and the writings of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus. It was placed in volume VII (Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries) and has been renamed "An Ancient Homily." Indeed this writer may have been a contemporary of Augustine, and thus doesn't qualify for your purpose.

I continue to affirm that in the wider church, the universal church of the day, the doctrine of eternal torment did not become prominent until the days of Augustine. Thus it was a new teaching brought into the church at large in Augustine's day.

[steve]

Homer wrote:

Apparently you hold to the "Gehenna the perpetual burning garbage dump" myth.

Nope. No more today than the last several times I addressed the topic. I have no investment in the view that Gehenna was a garbage dump (though I know of no proof that such a view is a mere myth). The "dump theory" plays no role whatsoever in my interpretations. My position is that Jesus used Gehenna in exactly the same way that Jeremiah did—because His hearers and Jeremiah's hearers were in parallel circumstances, facing identical judgments. Jeremiah said that Gehenna would become a mass burial ground for those killed in the invasion of Jerusalem, in 586 BC. Jesus' words, most naturally, would refer to the same circumstances in the later invasion of Jerusalem, in AD 70.

You are very ready to comment on the poor exegesis of others but, strangely, I can not recall any like criticism of universalist exegesis except that of the ultra-universalist. Perhaps the universalists are the best of exegetes.

I certainly do not accept all universalist exegesis (nor all trinitarian, armenian, or amillennial exegesis—though I am sympathetic toward those positions). I do not contribute posts here every time I read examples of poor exegesis.

My tendency is to speak up when I see poor exegesis used as a means of attacking other Christians, and where I think my contributions may help clarify a point of significance that is not being properly represented. You have certainly seen me correct the poor exegesis of posts on other topics than this one (e.g., Calvinism, dispensationalism, etc.). Addressing the traditionalist exegesis on hell has not been my only exegetical interest.

I do not generally seek to refute traditionalist posts unless I see in them a misrepresentation of the alternative views, or a criticism of them based upon faulty reasoning. I have also posted defensively of the conditionalist view—and even of a number of views with which I disagree—when I have felt that their positions were being misrepresented. In the case of universal reconciliation, I do not think that the view that was, arguably, the majority opinion of Christians for the first 500 years of the church should cavalierly be dismissed with mockery and bad exegesis.

I don't read all the posts here, for lack of time. Many of the posts I do not read are those of universalist contributors—not because I do not respect them, but because I have been reading widely on the subject from other authors, and find much duplication of arguments. If there is bad exegesis in some of these universalist posts, it may be that I have not read the posts that contain it, or that a balance is already being achieved by others (yourself included) who post ahead of me, or it may even be that the particular specimen of exegesis is so bad that I would not expect any reasonable reader to need me to point it out. On the other hand, much of the universalist exegesis does indeed seem to present the best reading of certain passages. I generally do not contribute simply in order to have my hat in the ring. If others are already pointing out what I would have pointed out, then I am very content to sit on the sidelines.

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

You wrote:

How do you know what he meant? Irenaeus wrote in Greek, and the Greek text of the first five books of Irenaeus' work "Against Heresies" has been lost. Only a Latin translation is extant. The only extant Greek texts of these books are quotations of Irenaeus from other Greek writers.

I know what he meant by assuming the translator was honest and accurate to the best of his ability until I am shown or see some reason to believe otherwise.

Homer, I know that you are a knowledgeable person. I think you know that these quotes are not by Clement of Rome. You know that in your copy of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, this homily has NOT been placed in Volume 1 along with Clement's letter to the Corinthians and the writings of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus. It was placed in volume VII (Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries) and has been renamed "An Ancient Homily." Indeed this writer may have been a contemporary of Augustine, and thus doesn't qualify for your purpose.

My ante-nicene fathers set is a reproduction of the 19th century version, as I suppose yours is. The dating of some of the fathers may be in dispute. Second Clement is now dated 140 - 160AD by many experts, contemporaneous with Justin. It is thought to have been a sermon.

I think when we see the many references in the earliest fathers to eternal perhaps we can be sure of what they meant when we observe other words they used such as "not temporal", "everlasting", and "endless duration" such as the following quote of Justin:

For among us the prince of the wicked spirits is called the serpent, and Satan, and the devil, as you can learn by looking into our writings. And that he would be sent into the fire with his host, and the men who follow him, and would be punished for an endless duration, Christ foretold. (The First Apology of Justin, Chap. XXVIII)

In my set this quote is in the first paragraph of chapter XXVIII, on page 172. Perhaps you can look in the Greek yourself and see if it is mistranslated.

It seems to me the evidence is overwhelming that the earliest fathers were far from universalists. I do not put much stock into what is said after about 200AD; all sorts of strange ideas croped up, such as no forgiveness of sin after baptism which led to the purgatory idea.