the fallacy of eternal torment and related issues

[Pilgrim 33]

his will

Polycarp, a Destructionist.
Polycarp was bishop of the church in Smyrna, A.D. 108-117. He is thought to have been John's disciple. Irenæus tells us that he and Ignatius were friends of Peter and John, and related what they had told them. His only surviving epistle contains this passage: To Christ "all things are made subject, both that are in heaven and that are on earth; whom every living creature shall worship; who shall come to judge the quick and the dead; whose blood God shall require of them that believe not in him." He also says in the same chapter: "He who raised up Christ from the dead, will also raise us up if we do his will," implying that the resurrection depended, as he thought, on conduct in this life. It seems probable that he was one of those who held to the Pharisaic doctrine of a partial resurrection. And yet this is only the most probable conjecture. There is nothing decisive in his language. When the proconsul Statius Quadratus wrote to Polycarp, threatening him with burning, the saint replied "Thou threatenest me with a fire that burns for an hour, and is presently extinct, but art ignorant, alas! of the fire of aionian condemnation, and the judgment to come, reserved for the wicked in the other world." After Polycarp there was no literature, that has descended to us, for several years, except a few quotations in later writings, which, however, contain nothing bearing on our theme, from Papias, Quadratus, Agrippa, Castor, etc.

aionian

 

[Pilgrim 33]

"The Apostles' Creed," so called, the oldest existing authorized declaration of Christian faith in the shape of a creed was probably in existence in various modified forms for a century or so before the beginning of the Fourth Century, when it took its present shape, possible between A.D. 250 and 350.


"I believe in God the Father Almighty (maker of heaven and earth) and it Jesus Christ his only son our Lord, who was (conceived) by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified (dead) and buried, (He descended into hell). The third day he arose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of (God) the Father (Almighty). From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy (Catholic) Church; (the communion of saints) the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; (and the life everlasting)5. Amen."
It will be seen that not a word is here uttered of the duration of punishment. The later form speaks of "aionian life," but does not refer to aionian death, or punishment. It is incredible that this declaration of faith, made at a time when the world was ignorant of what constituted the Christian belief, and which was made for the purpose of informing the world, should not convey a hint of so vital a doctrine as that of endless punishment, if at that time that dogma was a tenet of the church.

no doctrine of eternal punishment

 

[Pilgrim 33]

The oldest credal statement by the Church of Rome says that Christ "shall come to judge the quick and the dead," and announces belief in the resurrection of the body. The oldest of the Greek constitutions declares belief in the "resurrection of the flesh, remission of sins, and the aionian life." And the Alexandrian statement speaks of "the life," but there is not a word of everlasting death or punishment in any of them. And this is all that the most ancient creeds contain on the subject.6

In a germinal form of the Apostle's Creed, Irenæus, A.D. 180, says that the judge, at the final assize, will cast the wicked into aionian fire. It is supposed that he used the word aionian, for the Greek in which he wrote has perished, and the Latin translation reads, "ignem aeternum."

As Origen uses the same word, and expressly says it denotes limited duration, Irenæus's testimony does not help the doctrine of endless punishment, nor can it be quoted to reinforce that of universal salvation. Dr. Beecher thinks that Irenæus taught "a final restitution of all things to unity and order by the annihilation of all the finally impenitent"7 --a pseudo-Universalism.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

Tertullian's Belief.

Even Tertullian, born about A.D. 160, though his personal belief was fearfully partialistic, could not assert that his pagan-born doctrine was generally accepted by Christians, and when he formed a creed for general acceptance he entirely omitted his lurid theology. It will be seen that Tertullian's creed like that of Irenæus is one of the earlier forms of the so-called Apostles' Creed: 8 " We believe in only one God, omnipotent, maker of the world, and his son Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, raised from the dead the third day, received into the heavens, now sitting at the right hand of the Father, and who shall come to judge the living and the dead, through the resurrection of the flesh." Tertullian did not put his private belief into his creed, and at that time he had not discovered that worst of dogmas relating to man, total depravity. If fact, he states the opposite. He says: "There is a portion of God in the soul. In the worst there is something good, and in the best something bad." Neander says that Tertullian "held original goodness to be indelible."

 

[Pilgrim 33]

The Nicene Creed.

The next oldest creed, the first declaration authorized by a consensus of the whole church, was the Nicene, A.D. 325; completed in 381 at Constantinopole. Its sole reference to the future world is in these words: "I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world (æon) to come." It does not contain a syllable referring to endless punishment, though the doctrine was then professed by a portion of the church, and was insisted upon by some, though it was not generally enough held to be stated as the average belief.

So dominant was the influence of the Greek fathers, who had learned Christianity in their native tongue, in the language in which it was announced, and so little had Tertullian's cruel ideas prevailed, that it was not even attempted to make the horrid sentiment a part of the creed of the church. Moreover, Gregory Nazianzen presided over the council in Constantinople, in which the Nicean creed was finally shaped--the Niceo-Constantinopolitan creed--and as he was a Universalist, and as the clause, "I believe in the life of the world to come," was added by Gregory of Nyssa, an "unflinching advocate of extreme Universalism, and the very flower of orthodoxy," it must be apparent that the consensus of Christian sentiment was not yet anti-Universalistic.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]The Nicene Creed.

The next oldest creed, the first declaration authorized by a consensus of the whole church, was the Nicene, A.D. 325; completed in 381 at Constantinopole. Its sole reference to the future world is in these words: "I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world (æon) to come." It does not contain a syllable referring to endless punishment, though the doctrine was then professed by a portion of the church, and was insisted upon by some, though it was not generally enough held to be stated as the average belief.

So dominant was the influence of the Greek fathers, who had learned Christianity in their native tongue, in the language in which it was announced, and so little had Tertullian's cruel ideas prevailed, that it was not even attempted to make the horrid sentiment a part of the creed of the church. Moreover, Gregory Nazianzen presided over the council in Constantinople, in which the Nicean creed was finally shaped-- the Niceo-Constantinopolitan creed--and as he was a Universalist, and as the clause, "I believe in the life of the world to come," was added by Gregory of Nyssa, an "unflinching advocate of extreme Universalism, and the very flower of orthodoxy," it must be apparent that the consensus of Christian sentiment was not yet anti-Universalistic.[/SIZE]

What I see is a bunch of cut/paste from some dood in 1899, 106 years ago. And not one single shred of primary source evidence. If either of the Gregorys or Tertullian said something relevant, identify and quote the primary source. Not what some dood said about them.

And the reason you haven't done that is because you can't, there is no such evidence.

Here is some evidence from the primary source, the Bible.

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mar 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. (Luk 18:17)

Luk 13:24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.​

Jesus said they shall not enter the Kingdom of God/Heaven. Jesus never stated, nor implied, that the unrighteous would be able to enter His kingdom after some indeterminate “age” of punishment.

Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

Jesus said I never knew you. Jesus is omniscient, here He says He does not and never will know the workers of iniquity.

Mar 9:43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.
45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.
47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell,
48 where "their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.' (Isa 66:24)​

Was Jesus concerned about the life span of worms and fire that lasted a long, long time? Or was Jesus trying to prevent His followers from being cast into a place where "their worm," not just any old, worm,“does not die?" The worm would only be "their worm" as long as they were in the place. And undying worms and unending fire would be absolutely no concern of people, not in the place with them.

Mat 25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal [[size=+1]αιωνιος[/size]/aeonios] punishment, but the righteous to eternal [[size=+1]αιωνιος[/size]/aeonios] life."​

Universalist objection: [size=+1]αιων[/size]/aeon, only means age. So the punishment is only an age long, not eternal, never ending.

Which would mean that the reward for the righteous is also only an age long, not eternal, never ending.

Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever [[size=+1]εις αιωνας αιωνων[/size]/eis aionias aionon"]: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.​

First, in addition to the phrase, "unto the aeon of aeons," the phrase, "they have no rest day nor night" also clearly shows the torment to be eternal, never ending. Ten thousand eons, times, ten thousand eons, from now God's eternal, never ending, word will still say "they have no rest day nor night."

Universalist objection: [size=+1]αιων[/size]/aeon, only means age. If it means "eternal, never ending," how can you have "unto eternal, never ending,," "eternal, never ending?"

John was a Jew and the Jews used many figures of speech in their writing. One such figure of speech was reduplication of words for emphasis, such as, "King of kings," Ezr 7:12, Ezk 26:7, Dan 2:37; "God of gods," Deu 10:17, "Lord of lords," Deu 10:17; Psa 136:3; "Amen, amen," Num 5:22, Neh 8:6; and, see Gen 22:17; Isa 128:10, 45:17; Phi 1:17, Phi 4:4.

The reduplication of aeon, "unto the aeon of aeons," emphasizes the eternal, never ending, nature of the torment in Rev 14:11.

Gen 22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

Isa 45:17 But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting [[size=+1]עולמים[/size]/olamim/forevers, (pl)] salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end. [[size=+1]עד־עולמי עד[/size]/ad-olami-ad "eternity-forever-eternity."

Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: vs. 13

Phi 1:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

Phi 4:4 Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice.​

 

[A New Dawn]

there appears to be a considerable amount of early belief in annihilation.

What is annihilationism?

 

[Pilgrim 33]

imo, annihilation is the belief that unsaved people when they die just die and that's it, no eternal torment by an angry merciless wrathful hateful "god", of which, "God" is not anymore angry merciless wrathful and hateful than there is a place for eternal torment.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

What I see is a bunch of cut/paste

well, you're certainly welcome to research, study and cut-n-paste yourself from early sources--especially seeing as how the later "versions" (ie kjv, niv, etc) are NOT the entire complete and perfect 100% word of God but, instead, ONLY CONTAIN the perfect word of God wrapped up in a lot of purposefully incorrect man made lies and distortions.

 

[gort]

Pilgrim33, if these are from web sources, could you post then please. Or if they are from a book, please post them. Me not sure if it's a rule, but would be respectful of the author, and his work.

<><

 

[Pilgrim 33]

thank you, i already have, several times, in fact, at the beginning of all the "quote posts", later i just started posting who it was and, in the few that we've had responses back and forth on i did not see any benefit in re-crediting if poster and responder weren't keeping up with the credits. the two main authors i've found (quoted herein) are: J.W. Hanson, D. D. and (minimally quoted) Edward Beecher, D.D., both of the mid to late 1800's. Philologos.org, Tentmaker.org, ldolphim.org, are a few online resources, although, i have most of my sources either in book form or installed on my computer.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

The following chapter is from the book The Origin and History of the Doctrine of Endless Punishment by Thomas B. Thayer, written in 1855. It is often said that man needs the doctrine of Hell as a place of endless punishment to keep mankind from becoming corrupt. However, it may be this very doctrine which has polluted the mind of man and has brought him to the very thing the doctrine of Hell is supposed to prevent...corruption. The rest of this book may be found at http://www.tentmaker.org under "books."

​

CHAPTER VIII.

THE COMPARATIVE MORAL INFLUENCE OF BELIEF AND DISBELIEF IN ENDLESS PUNISHMENT - HISTORICAL CONTRAST.

In this chapter I propose, by historical contrast, to show the influence of endless punishment, and of its opposite, on the general morals of society.

It is believed by most Christian sects that this doctrine is the great regulator of social and individual morality. Nothing has been more frequently and urgently pressed upon public attention, than the necessity of future endless punishments as the reward of impenitent sinners. It is argued that it is the only restraint which is effectual in checking presumptuous transgressors, and that the fear of this removed from the minds of men, and the world would speedily become a perfect social wreck, the very likeness of the infernal pit itself. With all possible sincerity this view of the question has been urged by many honest-minded Christians, from the pulpit and from the press, in full belief that the danger is real.

And yet in the very face of this argument, stands the whole heathen world, believing this doctrine for ages prior to the coming of Christ, and yet, at the time of His coming, utterly lost in corruption and depravity, in daily practice of the most abominable vices and crimes, and the whole mass of society sunk in the lowest depths of infamy, shame and wickedness. What sort of restraining influence did the doctrine of endless punishment have on them?

The Jews, also, as we have seen, were believers in this doctrine in the time of Christ; and their corruption and wickedness at that period, and later, are almost proverbial. Josephus witnesses to this in the most positive language. "I cannot say it without regret," are his words, "but I must declare it as my opinion, that if the Romans had delayed to come against these wretches, the city (Jerusalem) would have been swallowed up by an earthquake, or overwhelmed by a deluge, or else been consumed by fire from heaven, as Sodom was; for it produced a generation of men more wicked than those who had suffered such calamities." Again he says: "To reckon up all their villainies is impossible; but never did any city suffer so great calamities; nor was there ever, from the beginning of the world, a time more fruitful of wickedness than that was." 1

So little influence did the doctrine have on the Jews in the way of restraint. Such testimonies of the moral condition of those believing it, do not go far toward fortifying the large claims set up for its conservative and sanctifying power. The Jews could not have been much worse with no religion at all, than they were under the pressure of their faith in endless torments.

Paul's description of "both Jews and Gentiles," at this period, accords perfectly with the facts adduced, "that they are all under sin; as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one - there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way; they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one! Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips; their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known; and there is no fear of God before their eyes." Rom. iiI 9-18.

Such is the description of the moral condition of Pagans and Jews, as given by the inspired apostle. How much better were they for having believed in endless punishment? How far were they restrained from sin, or hindered in the indulgence of their evil passions and criminal desires, by the terrors of a future judgment and an endless hell? And yet, in direct contravention of these notorious facts of history, we are told that the doctrine of unending punishment is the only safeguard of society, the great moral force of the world, without which it would speedily fall into irretrievable wreck and ruin! 2

The truth is, this assumption is entirely barren of facts for its support. There is nothing in history to prove that believers in endless punishment are any better for their faith, or that those denying it are any worse for their want of faith. I do not say, now, that the belief of this doctrine makes people more vicious and wicked, though the last chapter shows that it would not be difficult to demonstrate that this is the fact, at least in some respects - but I do say that, so far as history speaks to this point, it gives unmistakable witness that the doctrine of endless torments makes people no more moral, and the absence of it makes them no less moral.

There is a remarkable passage in Wayland's Life of Judson, illustrative of the subject at hand. It relates to the religion and morals of the Burmans, and shows, with singular precision and plainness, the perfect uselessness of the terror system in restraining men from evil, or in promoting their virtue.

Speaking of the Buddhists, he says they believe that mankind pass into other bodies, and the change which then takes place is determined by their conduct in the present life. They may be sent into the bodies of animals, birds, beasts, fish, or insects, from a higher to a lower grade, if wicked, until they reach hell, or to a place of unmixed torment. In cases of atrocious crime, as the murder of a parent, or a priest, they pass through no transmigration, but go directly to hell. "There are four states of misery appropriated to the punishment of atrocious crimes. In the lesser hells are punished those who do not honor their parents, the magistrates, or old age; who take wine and intoxicating drinks; who corrupt wells and destroy highways; who are fraudulent and deceitful, or speak angrily and roughly; who use personal violence, who disregard the words of pious men; who propagate scandal, who injure their fellow-creatures, neglect the sick, or cherish forbidden thoughts. All these will be punished, according to the measure of their sin, with punishments awful beyond conception. For the least aberration from rectitude the torment is only less than infinite; and after one sin, the being is forever helplessly under condemnation, unless he can attain to annihilation. It is a pure system of rewards and punishments, without relenting,

without pardon, and without hope for the guilty." "Thus," he adds, "this system seems to have exhausted the human faculties in conceiving of terrors which should deter us from sin."

And now what is the result? The Burmans ought to be a very good and holy people, if the doctrine really is as restraining and morally efficacious as is claimed. But what are the facts? Dr. Judson frankly confesses that "this system of religion has no power over the heart, or restraint on the passions;" and Dr. Wayland as frankly owns that it "is found practically to have created no barrier whatever against sin." And the details given by the latter are certainly good proof that these statements are strictly correct and reliable, as the following quotation will satisfactorily show:

"While the law of Gaudama, the Deity, forbids to take the life of any animated being, the Burmans are blood-thirsty, cruel and vindictive, beyond most of the nations of India. Murders are of very common occurrence, and the punishment of death is inflicted with every aggravation of cruelty. While licentiousness is absolutely forbidden, they are said to be universally profligate. While the law denounces covetousness, they are, almost to a man, dishonest, rapacious, prone to robbery, and to robbery ending in blood. The law forbids treachery and deceit on all occasions; and yet, from the highest to the lowest, they are a nation of liars. When detected in the grossest falsehood, they indicate no consciousness of shame, and even pride themselves on successful deceit." 3

What a complete refutation of the assertion that the fear of hell is an effectual restraint on the wicked passions of men, a moral force essential to the security and well-being of society! Can anything be more conclusive that these facts against this theory? You cannot have a worse hell, nor a worse people, that the Burman. And I do not see how it is possible, in the presence of such unquestionable testimony from history, to persist in the assertion that the belief of endless punishment, or of torments after death, however terrible, is absolutely necessary to the preservation of social order, and as a restraint on the desperate depravity of the human heart.

I turn now to the other side of the subject. It was said that, so far as history goes, those who believed the doctrine of future endless punishment were no better for their faith; and those who rejected it no worse for their want of faith. The first, I think, is proved by unimpeachable testimony. Is it possible to show, in like manner, that those who deny the doctrine are no worse for their want of faith? Let us see what may be done in this regard.



The sect of Sadducees, among the Jews, is well known as rejecting the doctrine in review, and even all future existence. Of course, all the frightful descriptions of hell, such as those among the Greeks and Romans and Burmans, went for nothing with them. They had no faith whatever in devils or torments beyond death. All restraints from this source they utterly repudiated, and lived without the slightest reference to any other punishments of sin than such as are administered by the providence of God in this world.

Now, according to the argument of restraint, which affirms that this doctrine is the only safeguard of morals, and that, without it, the vile and dangerous passions of human nature break into a perfect revel of wickedness - if this be true, then we ought to find the Sadducees among the most immoral, corrupt and criminal people of any age or nation. But what is the fact? What is the voice of history? The very reverse of this. And on this point I shall cite the authority of orthodox witnesses, who, however reluctant, are compelled to bear testimony against their own favorite theory.

First, I introduce the statement of Brucker, the distinguished author of the History of Philosophy, which makes the substance of Enfield's work on the same subject.

"It remains," says he, "that we add something concerning the life of the Sadducees. It might indeed be conjectured from the character of their doctrine that their life was bad, because they were destitute of those motives by which true morality is enforced. But we must pronounce otherwise concerning their morals, if we adhere to the testimony of the ancients. For Josephus testifies that this class of men was very severe in judging; whence may be inferred their rigor in punishing crimes. This, indeed, is what the nature of their system seems to have required; for, as they did not believe that men were to be deterred from wickedness by the fear of future torments, they were obliged to guard the public morals and observance of the law by rigorous punishments. Josephus himself, though a Pharisee, shows, by a testimony above all exception, that the Sadducees paid a stricter regard to justice than did the Pharisees."

What can be more directly to the point, or more decisive, than this? As respects Josephus, it comes from one of the most distinguished men of the nation, of an opposite sect, an enemy, a Pharisee; and yet the testimony shows the strictness and moral purity of the lives of those men who wholly rejected the popular dogma of future endless punishment!

But let us hear Milman, in his history of the Jews. He says of the Sadducees: "Denying all punishments for crime in a future life, their only way to discourage delinquency was by the immediate terrors of the law; and this they put in force, perhaps with the greater rigor, because their disbelief of future rewards and punishments was represented by their enemies as leading necessarily to the utmost laxity of morals. (The same thing which is affirmed in these days.) This effect it would probably have on many of the weak and licentious; but the doctrine of the Sadducees, which fully recognized the certain punishment of guilt in this world by Divine Providence, is not justly chargeable with these consequences." 4

Now it is plain enough that these facts and admissions, with regard to the Sadducees, yield the whole question in debate. They are decisive against the asserted necessity and utility of the doctrine in review; decisive in support of the declaration we have so often made, that the opposite faith is not dangerous to the morals of the believer, nor destructive of the good order and well-being of society.

I think the facts adduced establish, beyond refutation, these results:

1st. The belief of future endless torments does not restrain nor prevent men from the indulgence of their criminal passions. Those believing are no better, in character or conduct, because they believe it. The hell of the Burmans is as horrible as imagination or invention can make it; and yet they are notoriously corrupt, licentious, bloody-minded - the greatest thieves, liars and cheats in the world.

2d. The disbelief of endless torments does not make man immoral or wicked; as the character of the Sadducees, whom their enemies even acknowledge to be strictly just and moral, abundantly demonstrates.

I can imagine but one reply to this simple statement of facts: It may be said the comparison is not just, since the Burmans, as well as the Greeks and Romans, are heathen, and the Sadducees had the benefit of revelation, and of the divine law of Moses. But this is yielding the point in debate; for the ground taken is, that a religion without the doctrine in question cannot exert a salutary moral influence; that the belief of this is indispensable as a check on the wicked heart. To say, therefore, that other elements of the law, or of revelation, might have made the Sadducees moral and virtuous, is surrendering the argument, and admitting that this doctrine is not necessary to virtue.

Still, there is no difficulty in meeting the objection on its own ground. The Greeks, Romans, and Burmans are heathen, but the Pharisees are not. They are believers in divine revelation, having all the benefits of the Law of Moses, living side by side with the Sadducees, subject to the same social influences; the only difference between them being precisely the point in debate - the Pharisees believing the doctrine of future endless punishment, and the Sadducees denying it.

Of course the Pharisees ought to be great saints, without spot or blemish; and the Sadducees ought to be great sinners, vile and wicked to the last degree. But we have already seen that the Sadducees were not great sinners, but honest, just and moral, by confession of their worst enemies. One half the argument, therefore, falls to the ground at the outset. Now for the other half - were the Pharisees great saints? The Savior will answer to this: "Scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites; robbing the widow and fatherless, neglecting justice, mercy and truth; generation of vipers; whited sepulchers, full of corruption and all manner of uncleanness!" This does not look much like being very saintly. So the second half of the argument fares no better than the first half; and both are perfect failures.

Thus, exactly the reverse of what is claimed for the doctrine proves to be the historical fact: those believing it are great sinners, moral vipers, whited sepulchers; while those disbelieving are - not saints perhaps, but vastly better than the sanctimonious hypocrites, who charged their doctrine with immoral and dangerous tendencies.

One other thing is worthy of note in this connection, and with this I close the argument. In all his rebukes and denunciations of the wickedness of the men of His age and generation, the Savior never includes the Sadducees. It is always, "Scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites;" never Scribes, Sadducees, hypocrites. This is strong presumptive proof of the unimpeachable morality of the Sadducees, and equally positive proof of the preeminent wickedness of the Pharisees.

We return, therefore, to the conclusion already stated, viz.: The belief of endless punishment does not tighten the bonds of morality, nor lead to a life of virtue; while, on the other hand, the disbelief of it does not loosen the bonds of morality, nor lead to a life of wickedness. 5





​

1 Jewish Wars, Book v., chap. xiii. sect. 6; chap. x. sect. 5.

2 It is a curious fact that the celebrated work of Bp. Warburton, "The Divine Legation of Moses," has this proposition for its basis: Society cannot exist without a belief in future rewards and punishments; or, in the absence of this, by miraculous support from God. The law of Moses does not contain the doctrine of future rewards and punishments; therefore his legation, or mission, was divine, and the Jewish nation was upheld by the miraculous power of God. This argument he elaborates, with a vast array of learning, and a wonderful display of one-sided logic, through three octavo volumes, of more than 1500 closely-printed pages!

3 Wayland's Life of Judson, vol. I, pp. 144-153.

4 History of the Jews, vol. ii, pp. 123, 62. Brucker, ii 728, cited in Expositor, iiI 17.

5 For additional proof see chap. x., sect. vi

​

 

[gort]

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

Chapter XVI.-The Fate of False Teachers.

Do not err, my brethren.112 Those that corrupt families shall not inherit the kingdom of God.113 If, then, those who do this as respects the flesh have suffered death, how much more shall this be the case with any one who corrupts by wicked doctrine the faith of God, for which Jesus Christ was crucified! Such an one becoming defiled [in this way], shall go away into everlasting fire, and so shall every one that hearkens unto him.

Do not err, my brethren.114 Those that corrupt families shall not inherit the kingdom of God.115 And if those that corrupt mere human families are condemned to death, how much more shall those suffer everlasting punishment who endeavour to corrupt the Church of Christ, for which the Lord Jesus, the only-begotten Son of God, endured the cross, and submitted to death! Whosoever, "being waxen fat,"116 and "become gross," sets at nought His doctrine, shall go into hell. In like manner, every one that has received from God the power of distinguishing, and yet follows an unskilful shepherd, and receives a false opinion for the truth, shall be punished. "What communion hath light with darkness? or Christ with Belial? Or what portion hath he that believeth with an infidel? or the temple of God with idols? "117 And in like manner say I, what communion hath truth with falsehood? or righteousness with unrighteousness? or true doctrine with that which is false?

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-16.htm#P1093_206499

 

[gort]

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

Chapter XI.-Avoid the Deadly Errors of the Docetae.

Flee, therefore, those evil offshoots [of Satan], which produce death-bearing fruit, whereof if any one tastes, he instantly dies. For these men are not the planting of the Father. For if they were, they would appear as branches of the cross, and their fruit would be incorruptible. By it79 He calls you through His passion, as being His members. The head, therefore, cannot be born by itself, without its members; God, who is [the Saviour] Himself, having promised their union.80

Do ye also avoid those wicked offshoots of his,81 Simon his firstborn son, and Menander, and Basilides, and all his wicked mob of followers,82 the worshippers of a man, whom also the prophet Jeremiah pronounces accursed.83 Flee also the impure Nicolaitanes, falsely so called,84 who are lovers of pleasure, and given to calumnious speeches. Avoid also the children of the evil one, Theodotus and Cleobulus, who produce death-bearing fruit, whereof if any one tastes, he instantly dies, and that not a mere temporary death, but one that shall endure for ever. These men are not the planting of the Father, but are an accursed brood. And says the Lord, "Let every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted be rooted up."85 For if they had been branches of the Father, they would not have been "enemies of the cross of Christ,"86 but rather of those who "killed the Lord of glory."87 But now, by denying the cross, and being ashamed of the passion, they cover the transgression of the Jews, those fighters against God, those murderers of the Lord; for it were too little to style them merely murderers of the prophets. But Christ invites you to [share in] His immortality, by His passion and resurrection, inasmuch as ye are His members.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-18.htm#P1604_276864

 

[gort]

The First Apology of Justin


Chapter LII.-Certain Fulfilment of Prophecy.

Since, then, we prove that all things which have already happened had been predicted by the prophets before they came to pass, we must necessarily believe also that those things which are in like manner predicted, but are yet to come to pass, shall certainly happen. For as the things which have already taken place came to pass when foretold, and even though unknown, so shall the things that remain, even though they be unknown and disbelieved, yet come to pass. For the prophets have proclaimed two advents of His: the one, that which is already past, when He came as a dishonoured and suffering Man; but the second, when, according to prophecy, He shall come from heaven with glory, accompanied by His angelic host, when also He shall raise the bodies of all men who have lived, and shall clothe those of the worthy with immortality, and shall send those of the wicked, endued with eternal sensibility, into everlasting fire with the wicked devils. And that these things also have been foretold as yet to be, we will prove. By Ezekiel the prophet it was said: "Joint shall be joined to joint, and bone to bone, and flesh shall grow again; and every knee shall bow to the Lord, and every tongue shall confess Him."109 And in what kind of sensation and punishment the wicked are to be, hear from what was said in like manner with reference to this; it is as follows: "Their worm shall not rest, and their fire shall not be quenched; "110 and then shall they repent, when it profits them not. And what the people of the Jews shall say and do, when they see Him coming in glory, has been thus predicted by Zechariah the prophet: "I will command the four winds to gather the scattered children; I will command the north wind to bring them, and the south wind, that it keep not back. And then in Jerusalem there shall be great lamentation, not the lamentation of mouths or of lips, but the lamentation of the heart; and they shall rend not their garments, but their hearts. Tribe by tribe they shall mourn, and then they shall look on Him whom they have pierced; and they shall say, Why, O Lord, hast Thou made us to err from Thy way? The glory which our fathers blessed, has for us been turned into shame."111

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm#P3593_620967

 

[Pilgrim 33]

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-16.htm#P1093_206499

Hanson writes of Ignatius:

Of some fifteen epistles ascribed to Ignatius, it has been settled by modern scholarship that seven are genuine. There are passages in these that seem to indicate that he believed in the annihilation of the wicked. He was probably a convert from heathenism who had not gotten rid of his former opinions. He says: "It would have been better for them to love that they might rise." If he believed in a partial resurrection he could not have used words that denote endless consequences to sin any more than did Origen, for if annihilation followed those consequences, they must be limited. When Ignatius and Barnabas speak of "eternal" punishment or death, we might perhaps suppose that they regarded the punishment of sin as endless, did we not find that Origen and other Universalists used the same terms, and did we not know that the Scriptures do the same. To find aionion attached to punishment proves nothing of its duration. In his Epist. ad Trall., he says that Christ descended into Hades and cleft the aionion barrier.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

Chapter XI.-Avoid the Deadly Errors of the Docetae.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-18.htm#P1604_276864

Quick definitions Docetae
<LI>(n. pl.) Ancient heretics who held that Christ's body was merely a phantom or appearance.
-----------------------------------------

Hanson further writes of Ignatius:

Ignatius Probably a Destructionist.

It seems on the whole probable that while Ignatius did not dogmatize on human destiny, he regarded the resurrection as conditional. But here, as elsewhere, the student should remember that the pernicious doctrine of "reserve" or "oeconomy" continually controlled the minds of the early Christian teachers, so that they not only withheld their real views of the future, lest ignorant people should take advantage of God's goodness, but threatened consequences of sin to sinners, in order to supply the inducements that they thought the masses of people required to deter them from sin. Dr. Ballou thinks that this father held that the wicked "will not be raised from the dead, but exist hereafter as incorporeal spirits." He was martyred A.D. 107.

 

[gort]

Hanson writes of Ignatius:

Of some fifteen epistles ascribed to Ignatius, it has been settled by modern scholarship that seven are genuine. There are passages in these that seem to indicate that he believed in the annihilation of the wicked.

but, alas.....

There are, in all, fifteen Epistles which bear the name of Ignatius. These are the following: One to the Virgin Mary, two to the Apostle John, one to Mary of Cassobelae, one to the Tarsians, one to the Antiochians, one to Hero, a deacon of Antioch, one to the Philippians; one to the Ephesians, one to the Magnesians, one to the Trallians, one to the Romans, one to the Philadelphians, one to the Smyrnaeans, and one to Polycarp. The first three exist only in Latin: all the rest are extant also in Greek.

It is now the universal opinion of critics, that the first eight of these professedly Ignatian letters are spurious. They bear in themselves indubitable proofs of being the production of a later age than that in which Ignatius lived. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome makes the least reference to them; and they are now by common consent set aside as forgeries, which were at various dates, and to serve special purposes, put forth under the name of the celebrated Bishop of Antioch.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-15.htm

 

[Pilgrim 33]

One to the Virgin Mary,

The first three exist only in Latin

the production of a later age

to serve special purposes,

put forth under the name of the celebrated Bishop of Antioch.

somehow that does not inspire surprise now, does it?

 

[gort]

somehow that does not inspire surprise now, does it?

Nothing much surprises me anymore, and that statement does'nt necessarily refer to this thread.

I had posted #238 to further (qualify) which of Ignatius' letters were genuine, according to the scholars.

....Dr. Ballou thinks that this father held that the wicked "will not be raised from the dead, but exist hereafter as incorporeal spirits." He was martyred A.D. 107.

Do you know of anything written by Ignatius that could qualify this statement?

thanx

<><