The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Fact Checking--Ancient Christian Schools Taught Universalism

Questorius,

Thanks for the info. I worked with people with Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD/DID) for five years helping them integrate their alternate personalities into one, so I enjoy psychology. The research on Atheists shows, across the board, that nearly every Atheist has issues with their father, whether it be an absent father or an emotionally-unavailable father, etc. That’s why I was asking. The emotions and beliefs of our subconscious form from birth to age 7, and from that point on, we’ll relate to God, subconsciously, fairly similarly to the way we relate to our biological father. But consciously, we’ll often have a different sort of view of God and relationship with Him. However, some people’s subconscious feelings and beliefs bleed more heavily into their conscious beliefs. Just depends on the person and their situation.

So you believe that everything could be created by an impersonal, unintelligent, even unconscious being or “thing”? Interesting. Well, I can’t go along with that one since it takes intelligence to create the laws of the universe and the incredibly intricate and sophisticated structures we have present in life on earth. And Evolution theory is so incredibly easy to disprove it’s not even funny. The odds that it’s possible are virtually impossible according to evolution scientists as far back as the 50s who sought to test its plausibility. And by Dawkins own research and confession, we know for sure that neither punctuated equilibrium nor mutation are the driving forces behind evolutionary change. In fact, he admits that we still don’t know what drives evolution. His book that claimed his computer model proved that there didn’t need to be a God to direct Evolution actually proved exactly the opposite. Even Dan Brown in his book Origin pointed that out, as well as many other scientists. But anyway, what I’ve noticed both in my own observation is that in cultures where fathers are by in large emotionally unavailable or extremely strict with their children (like the Asian cultures), the religions in those area end up having an impersonal deity, such as “the Universe,” or in Islam, “Allah,” who is a distant god who doesn’t interact with his people on a personal level, and doesn’t love them unless they love him first. This is all textbook, caused by father wounds. Again, it’s uncanny how clearly it presents itself. But it usually doesn’t matter if you tell someone that who has those issues, because that doesn’t affect change in them. They actually would have to bring up the repressed emotions related to their father and process them in order to see change. So it really does no good to discuss it, but I figure some people who enjoy research might hear it and decide to look into it. And some might be a little ticked off if they find that their subconscious is running the show against their will. Either way, it’s an interesting subject, as if evolution. You know, Mohammad had horrible father and mother wounds growing up. And wouldn’t you know it, his behaviors and actions as an adult are exactly what you’d expect them to be from what happened to him growing up. His religion reflects those issues perfectly.

You say the contradictions in the Gospels are what turned you Atheist? You know, if you ever ask a detective what he thinks about eyewitness testimonies, he’ll tell you that he never believes the witnesses, because their stories always conflict. My wife’s a brain researcher and she says that human memories is extremely unreliable. So detectives know better than to trust witnesses. TV shows and movies grossly misrepresent stuff like that. My point is that the Gospels aren’t necessarily contradicting each other. They’re the retelling of the events from different people’s perspectives decades after they happened. So of course they’re going to be a little bit different than one another, but they’re pretty dark close. That’s not half back for people remembering events that happened decades before, I’d say. And Hebrew writers weren’t exactly worried about everything lining up exactly right. They’re more concerned about writing from the heart to convey the message within the stories. The language of the heart is story and body language. That’s why Christ died on the cross–to show us, visually, that God isn’t holding anything against us. He did that so our hearts would drop all of their judgments against their self which would in turn drop their shame. And that’s exactly what near-death experiences show us.

When people get to heaven in near-death experiences, they relive everything they did that hurt other people, but this time, they have to feel how it made the other person feel. They relive it all at the same time, extremely quickly, and when it’s done, they feel awful. God basically does it bring all of their shame to the surface to be dealt with. The person usually says something like, “That was so bad, so wrong.” Then God comes close and says, “No, no. Not good or bad, not right or wrong…just a lesson learned.” The people say at that point, they realize that it was their own judgment that was causing them all their pain in life, not God. They say they realize God was never judging them. That’s when the realize there is no good or bad, no right or wrong, and they drop all of their shame. And immediately when that happens, they feel God’s love engulf them and it’s indescribably amazing. So, like you said, there’s no good or bad, no right or wrong…God agrees with you. lol Not only that, but if you do some good solid research into the Ancient Hebrews, you’ll find that they had the same belief. They believed in function and dysfunction, but not good and evil. Those are our culture’s words, not theirs. They have no equivalent words or concepts in their culture. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil should be translated The Tree of the Intimate Knowing of Function and Dysfunction. And there’s no judgment on those words function and dysfunction. These people were nomads, so a dysfunctional person could cause people to die. So they had to be very careful and loving when dealing with dysfunctional people. And if they couldn’t help them, they had to deal with them harshly. So this idea of no good or bad makes a lot more sense in their culture than in ours. And verses like this one make a lot of sense, too:

Isaiah 45:7 - I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

The Ancient Hebrews were Eastern Philosophy, just as everyone was back then before the 7th Century B.C. Western Philosophy came later and had good and bad things it introduced. But in their view, God is a balance of chaos and order, but His will is perfect love. So He uses darkness and light for His good purpose. This can be seen in stories such as Ahab and the prophet Macaiah. Macaiah says that God and the hosts of heaven were on His left and His right (which means some were good and some were evil–these are angels and demons). He asks them how they can make Ahab attack the king of Assyria and get killed. One of them says he will be a lying spirit in the mouths of Ahab’s prophets. God says, “Go, you will be successful.” So clearly, an angel of God isn’t a lying spirit, so that was a demon. God actively uses demons for His purposes and He treats them with respect all throughout scripture. Jesus treats the demons called Legion with much respect. They beg Him not to send them to the Abyss, but instead to cast them into the pigs so they can kill their selves and be dispersed back into the world to cause more mischief. lol I mean, seriously? Jesus is just gonna let them go back into the world and cause trouble? Yep! So yeah, He treats them with respect and kindness. He knows He’s in control of everything, so they’re not a problem. I agree with you–there’s no right or wrong, no good or bad. What there is, though, are loving actions and unloving (selfish) actions. And that’s what we see in the world. The standard of “good and bad” or “right and wrong” is what causes so much shame in the world. If we ran things differently so as not to build so much shame in people, we’d see a lot more loving people with a lot less shame in the world. But that ain’t gonna happen this side of heaven. lol

Thanks again for the info. Much appreciated. Good luck, man.

Thanks for the info, James.

I need to read Ramelli’s book, but I haven’t gotten around to it. If it were on audiobook, I could get it read while I’m driving, but I doubt it is. It sounds like a good one.

1 Like

Brock,

You might want to ask those questions directly to Quest in a private message since it’s off topic. I posted a response to Quest, but I’m done posting about that subject in this thread. It could be a fun thread to start, but it’s a little bit private for Quest, so might be best discussed in private.

My apologies, I now realize that the first person who “went off topic” with Quest was the OP. You certainly have a right to do what you want with your thread.

Quest’s posts in this thread seemed to add a bit to the discussion. Quest’s depth of thought behind his/her atheistic beliefs seemed a bit wanting, though. Before considering researching Quest’s earlier posts in depth, I’d like to see his/her response to your thoughts on atheism and the gospels. I’d also like to understand why Quest believes that the problem of evil lends to atheistic thought.

Should we make this a “nevermind” post?

Oh, it’s all good. You came in late to the conversation.

I have a great relationship with my father and although I don’t quite label myself an atheist, I do register as an agnostic. I guess you could call me a fence sitter, for the most part. Though my morality still follows very closely to Christianity. I guess I tend to see it too arrogant to declare one way or the other on the matter. The way I like to put it is this: God may in fact talk to some people, but he hasn’t talk to me. So, I can’t declare God doesn’t exist, because it is entirely possible that God decides only to reveal himself to certain people. So I definitely am open regarding my ignorance in the matter. That said, I also think that a God worth his salt will take all this into consideration. So if God exists, I don’t believe most people (if any) will be found at fault as I genuinely think people are, for the most part, honest and decent people.

As I said, nearly all Atheists have father issues, but there are a very few exceptions. However, I haven’t assessed your relationship with your father when you were 0 - 7 years old or how he treated or disciplined you, so I wouldn’t know if the relationship fostered it or not. Your relationship with him now doesn’t matter…it’s the relationship in the early years that matters. And a lot of people say they had a great childhood until a therapist starts asking them about the details. They quickly start to see the issues they were previously blind to.

For instance, did your father spank you when you were really young? All the studies show that it causes resentment, but it gets repressed in the younger years and causes different issues in different people. But what’s more important is how emotionally expressive your father is and how willing he was to let you fully express your full range of emotions back then. Was he your biological father? How religious were your father and mother? There are a lot of factors that contribute that people don’t understand.

Absolutely one of the most honest post’s I have seen on this site. Thanks.

Oh, by the way, I agree with you that all people are good at their core, and most haven’t repressed that goodness to the point where they do horrible things. Bad things, sure, but not horrific things. God will fix all of that eventually, though, in my opinion.

1 Like

Hi Brock, you certainly don’t need to apologize for your thoughts. I’d never have guessed you have a brain damage if you hadn’t said so. I hear what you’re saying about evil allowing us to truly enjoy good. I used to believe that for years, and even now I think that bad things I’ve experienced in many cases make me appreciate the good things more. But why would God who is all-loving, all-insert-any-good-quality have to set up a universe where evil which is contrary to his nature is necessary? Why would this omnipotent good God have to degrade himself to allow any evil in order to bring about the good that he desires?

“What if, in allowing thousands of years of “wrongs,” God created a plan whereby creation would, after Christ’s return, continually heal and improve, righting all wrongs, for an unending eternity?” Almighty, purely good God would, in my opinion, have no need to let evil exist for even one second. He could create a wholly good creation that would be continually getting better throughout eternity without any prelude. “Are you so wise that you know that the best potential creation, could be possible without the existence of a relatively small amount of initial pain and suffering?” If the best possible creation isn’t possible without evil, then–in my arrogant opinion–the only logical conclusion is that the creator is not all-powerful. By saying that God is forced to permit the existence of evil to realize his good purposes, you are inevitably demeaning him.

This argument, however, does nothing to disprove the existence of a somewhat imperfect god, but I believe it refutes the idea of the perfect God in whom most theists believe. Moreover, as I said in my previous post, the main reasons why I abandoned Christianity were different: contradictions in the Gospels and my realization that there can be solid foundations for morality apart from God. I’m willing to continue this discussion elsewhere in the future after I’ve responded to the comments in this thread that are pertinent to the ancient Christian schools. My name’s David by the way :slightly_smiling_face: As a kid I used to be fascinated with ancient Romans whose names often end with -ius. Seems I got carried away by my inner child when creating my nickname :smile:

I appreciate your long response, Brian. You said much that is thought-provoking. I think a multiple new topics would have to be created to properly discuss all of it. All I’ll say is that I’m unable to put my faith in the theological and moral teachings of the Gospels when I know they contradict each other even in their descriptions of mundane events.

Dr. Ramelli’s book probably contains all that is necessary to prove that those four schools were universalistic, but it would be useful to create a condensed version of it which would give only a couple of quotes with an online link to the works they were taken from for each writer. We would try to marshal as many names as possible, but at the same time provide at least two quotes for each. I also think that those who sometimes supported universalism but repeatedly contradicted it should be listed with a caveat that they wavered on the topic. Complaints of people like Augustine about universalism being widespread would be included too of course. Basically, we would create something like the tentmaker list of the fathers’ quotes, but of much higher quality. If a list like that existed, anyone could quickly check for themselves that universalism was in no way rare among ancient Christians.

But to address the topic of ancient Christian schools thoroughly, a much more comprehensive list needs to be compiled, one that includes all writers–whether they be universalists, annihilations, tormentists, or those who wrote about hell but didn’t speak about its duration. The claim about the six schools four of which were universalist implies that the ratio of universalists to non-universalists was 2:1. I would love to know what the ratio would be if we counted the number of individual authors promoting each view. Obviously, we couldn’t draw exact conclusions like “34% universalists, 18% annihilationists, 31% tormentists, 17% undecided”. There were millions of Christians who couldn’t write, others wrote works that perished, some authors enjoyed greater popularity, there may be forgeries we can’t detect… But such a list would allow us to see whether one view strongly dominated, or was very rare, or whether all the views were held by a similar number of people. To see how beliefs about hell changed we could separately consider each century, or era (the Anti-Nicene period etc.).

Such a list would be much quicker to read than an actual book, but would at the same time present all the important information. I for one would enjoy reading such a compendium which would leave out needless details and lamentations over how a particular view spread or disappeared.

2 Likes

That’s interesting… so as you understand it — what appears to you from the gospel material as the most obvious or glaring contradiction that confirms your conclusion?

It’s difficult to choose just one. Perhaps the most obvious is the account of the Last Supper. According to Matthew 26:21-27, Jesus first predicted Judas’ betrayal, then gave the bread to his disciples, and then the wine. According to Luke 22:17-23, he first gave them the wine, then the bread, and the prediction came only after the supper.

This is the last response that I make here regarding my loss faith. If anyone wants to debate Bible contradictions, the problem of evil etc., I’m willing to create a new topic for that in a month’s time.

I am all for creating a new topic. That said, your illustration points out the absurdity of inerrancy. I mean, no one actually believes in complete inerrancy, I meant, they can’t, as the scholars themselves, like the very conservative Dan Wallace, state we are 99.9% certain… Well, that isn’t 100% and this minor contradiction above (which, I am sure you admit is petty) in no way actually changes the potential truth regarding Jesus.

It is unfortunate that you picked one of the weakest contradictions (in my opinion, and this isn’t a knock on you) because it has no real impact on anything except to prove that complete inerrancy isn’t true. But again, in practice, no one actually believes in inerrancy, even if they claim it.

But a more important matter to be had here… If one rejects parts or all of the Bible, does that necessarily mean one must embrace atheism? I don’t think so, as you could believe that God uses nature to reveal himself, or that no one can know God, but that wouldn’t negate his existence. For that matter, you could turn to Islam, Hinduism, etc… Right? I think may be more accurate for you to say that you rejected Christianity because of the contradictions and as to why you embrace atheism, well, that is something only you can know. There would have to be the underlying belief that if Christianity isn’t real, no other concepts of God are real, but that isn’t necessarily rational perse… You know?

Sometimes I am a poor communicator and, with my extreme dislike of academic arrogance, I sometimes fall prey to it myself! All this to say, none of the above is meant to be any other than my passing thoughts on the subject and mean absolutely no offense.

1 Like

The quotes that Ramelli provides leave little doubt that Bardaisan was a universalist, but the issue is that he is regarded as a Gnostic. I didn’t read his works, so I don’t know whether it’s fair to label him as such, but Ramelli writes that he wasn’t respected by the orthodox except for Origen and his followers, such as Didymus or Eusebius. I fear it’s too easy to dismiss Bardaisan as a Gnostic, which means he won’t be taken seriously since Gnostics are known for their absurd opinions. As for the Apocalypse of Peter, it can be argued that the universalist passage wasn’t original. I have to concede though that it certainly points to the existence of some literate universalist whose name we don’t know. The same goes for the one of Sibylline Oracles. But I must point out that while reading the church fathers I came across many references to the Sibylline Oracles, yet never to the Oracle which teaches universalism. I know of course that Augustine referred to that particular Oracle in order to refute it, but I wonder whether there are any earlier writers who quoted that Oracle as something of an authority, or even quoted it at all. As yet, it seems to me that the universalist Oracle was written later than the others and/or was not accepted by ancient Christians as much. But yeah, I should have mentioned that there were Christian universalists who wrote/interpolated pseudepigraphical works.

Among those who wavered I would number Gregory Nazianzen. He said many things that suggest universalism, but he never clearly commits himself to it. In the following quote he speaks as if he believed in an endless hell, although he acknowledges that there are universalists and that their view does justice to God’s character:

“I know a cleansing fire which Christ came to send upon the earth (Luke 12:49) … I know also a fire which is not cleansing, but avenging; either that fire of Sodom which He pours down on all sinners, mingled with brimstone and storms, or that which is prepared for the Devil and his Angels, or that which proceeds from the face of the Lord, and shall burn up his enemies round about; and one even more fearful still than these, the unquenchable fire which is ranged with the worm that dies not but is eternal for the wicked. For all these belong to the destroying power; though some may prefer even in this place to take a more merciful view of this fire, worthily of Him That chastises.” (Oration XL., par. XXXVI.)

In the next excerpt he speaks of a purifying fire, but note the “perhaps” and that he is speaking of hard-hearted Christians, not of total unbelievers:
“[T]hese sins were not after Baptism, you will say. Where is your proof? Either prove it — or refrain from condemning; and if there be any doubt, let charity prevail. … Let none of you, even though he has much confidence in himself, dare to say, Touch me not for I am pure, and who is so pure as I? Give us too a share in your brightness. But perhaps we are not convincing you? Then we will weep for you. Let these men then if they will, follow our way, which is Christ’s way; but if they will not, let them go their own. Perhaps in it they will be baptized with Fire, in that last Baptism which is more painful and longer, which devours wood like grass, and consumes the stubble of every evil.” (Oration XXXIX., par. XIX.)

I suspect that he spoke this way because he was afraid his audience might make light of sin if they were certain that hell is finite, but it’s also possible that he was genuinely undecided about this question. Since we can’t read minds–especially not dead people’s minds–we can’t describe him as a convinced universalist.

Let’s proceed to Chrysostom. I could spend the whole day giving you the quotes where he clearly inculcates endless penalty. Even if a half of those quotes is due to mistranslations, the remaining half would still outweigh all that he says in favour of universalism. The guy went to ridiculous lengths to explain away all scriptural references to the purifying fire:

“If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved, but so as by fire. (1 Cor 3:15)
He shall suffer loss: lo, here is one punishment: but he himself shall be saved, but so as by fire; lo, again, here is a second. And his meaning is, He himself shall not perish in the same way as his works, passing into nought, but he shall abide in the fire.
He calls it, however, Salvation, you will say; why, that is the cause of his adding, so as by fire: since we also used to say, It is preserved in the fire, when we speak of those substances which do not immediately burn up and become ashes. For do not at sound of the word fire imagine that those who are burning pass into annihilation. And though he call such punishment Salvation, be not astonished. For his custom is in things which have an ill sound to use fair expressions, and in good things the contrary. For example, the word Captivity seems to be the name of an evil thing, but Paul has applied it in a good sense, when he says, Bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:5) … And so here in saying, he shall be saved, he has but darkly hinted at the intensity of the penalty: as if he had said, But himself shall remain forever in punishment.” (Homily 9 on 1 Cor, par. 5&6) This interpretation, by the way, was used by the Eastern Orthodox in the middle ages to counter the doctrine of Purgatory. (http://orthodoxinfo.com/death/stmark_purg.aspx)

Still, Chrysostom wasn’t quite as bad as Edwards who described how God tortures infants, even though this statement about the unbaptized comes pretty close: “[I]f it should come to pass, (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be no other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.” (Homily 25 on John, par. 3)

No wonder Chrysostom insisted on endless hell when he found the fear of hell so valuable:
“What can be more grievous than hell? Yet nothing is more profitable than the fear of it; for the fear of hell will bring us the crown of the kingdom. Where fear is, there is no envy; where fear is, the love of money does not disturb; where fear is, wrath is quenched, evil concupiscence is repressed, and every unreasonable passion is exterminated. … Where fear exists, there is zeal in alms-giving, and intensity of prayer, and tears warm and frequent, and groans fraught with compunction. For nothing so swallows up sin, and makes virtue to increase and flourish, as a perpetual state of dread. Therefore it is impossible for him who does not live in fear to act aright; as, on the other hand, it is impossible that the man who lives in fear can go wrong.” (Homily 15 on the Statues, par. 2)

“Make consideration, as judge, to sit down upon your conscience, and bring before it all your transgressions, search out the sins of your soul, and exact with strictness the account thereof, and say, wherefore did you dare to do this and that? … And this tribunal do thou cause to sit every day, and picture the river of fire, the venomous worm, the rest of the torments.” (Homily 42 on Matthew, par. 3)

At the end of the day, however, I would put Chrysostom in the “wavering camp” because of the quote I mentioned in a previous post and some other minor comments of his.

1 Like

Speaking of Chrysostom, I should mention one weird reference in Ramelli’s book. On page 332, she writes, “John Chrysostom, Hom. 36,3 on the Gospel of Matthew, depicts the bronze gates of hell destroyed and trodden, and their locks removed.” In the homily which she refers to, Chrysostom in fact argues against the possibility of conversion after death:

““Brethren, be not children in understanding, howbeit in malice be ye children.“ (1 Corinthians 14:20) For the present life indeed is the season for right conversation, but after death is judgment and punishment. For in hell, it is said, who will confess unto You? (Psalm 6:5)
How then were “the gates of brass burst, and the bars of iron broken in sunder“? By His body; for then first was a body shown, immortal, and destroying the tyranny of death. And besides, this indicates the destruction of the might of death, not the loosing of the sins of those who had died before His coming. And if this were not so, but He have delivered all that were before Him from hell, how says He, “It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha“? (Matthew 10:15) For this saying supposes that those are also to be punished; more mildly indeed, yet still that they are to be punished. …
if unbelievers are after death to be saved on their believing, no man shall ever perish. For all will then repent and adore. And in proof that this is true, hear Paul saying, “Every tongue shall confess, and every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth.“ (Philippians 2:10-11) … But there is no advantage in that submission, for it comes not of a rightly disposed choice, but of the necessity of things, as one may say, thenceforth taking place.
Let us not then any more bring in such old wives’ doctrines, and Jewish fables.” (Homily 36 on Matthew)

From the second and the third century, I’d list Tatian as the earliest (but he has perhaps even worse reputation among ancients than Bardaisan), then Tertullian, Hippolytus, the guy who wrote On the End of the World under Hippolytus’s name, Minucius Felix, Cyprian, and the author of Didascalia. Then there are Justin and Irenaeus who are most likely annihilationists, but definitely not universalists. I also pondered much the works of Theophilus of Antioch whom universalists today often quote, and though I don’t know what exactly to make of him, I’m sure he was not a universalist.

2 Likes

Hi Questorious, I realise you’ve said that you won’t debate further on this thread re bible contradictions, so I won’t comment here either but, for ease of access, I’ll quote the texts from Young’s literal:
Mat 26:21-27
and while they are eating, he said, Verily I say to you, that one of you shall deliver me up.' And being grieved exceedingly, they began to say to him, each of them,Is it I, Sir?’
And he answering said, He who did dip with me the hand in the dish, he will deliver me up; the Son of Man doth indeed go, as it hath been written concerning him, but woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is delivered up! good it were for him if that man had not been born.' And Judas--he who delivered him up--answering said,Is it I, Rabbi?’ He saith to him, Thou hast said.' And while they were eating, Jesus having taken the bread, and having blessed, did brake, and was giving to the disciples, and said,Take, eat, this is my body;’
and having taken the cup, and having given thanks, he gave to them, saying, `Drink ye of it–all;

Luk 22:17-23
And having taken a cup, having given thanks, he said, Take this and divide to yourselves, for I say to you that I may not drink of the produce of the vine till the reign of God may come.' And having taken bread, having given thanks, he brake and gave to them, saying,This is my body, that for you is being given, this do ye–to remembrance of me.’
In like manner, also, the cup after the supping, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, that for you is being poured forth.But, lo, the hand of him delivering me up is with me on the table,
and indeed the Son of Man doth go according to what hath been determined; but woe to that man through whom he is being delivered up.’
And they began to reason among themselves, who then of them it may be, who is about to do this thing.

1 Like

Thanks pilgrim: Why are the fonts changing on you post, you may not even know about it.

Her section about Hilary shows that he may have drawn much inspiration from Origen, but she adduces little evidence for his universalism. Her only claim that–if it were true–would strongly support the notion that Hilary was a universalist is made on page 240:

Hilary’s interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28—Origen’s favourite scriptural passage in support of apokatastasis—in Trin. 11,40–49 is the very same as Origen’s, an anti-subordinationistic interpretation: that is, Christ’s final submission to the Father is the submission of all humanity, which is the body of Christ, and a submission that is salvific.

In the Book XI of Hilary’s on the Trinity, the salvific submission of all human humanity is indeed asserted, but for Hilary “all humanity” doesn’t mean “all humans who have ever lived”. It seems to me that he speaks of all who have believed which includes the Israelites who will convert prior to the resurrection according to Hilary. Let’s take a closer look at his interpretation:

“32. The meaning of the abolishing of every power (1 Cor 15:24) which is against Him is not obscure. The prince of the air, the power of spiritual wickedness, shall be delivered to eternal destruction, as Christ says, Depart from Me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which My Father has prepared for the devil and his angels. (Matthew 25:41) …
34. T When authorities and powers are abolished, His enemies shall be subjected under His feet. The same Apostle tells who are these enemies, As touching the Gospel they are enemies for your sakes, but as touching the election they are beloved for the fathers’ sake. (Romans 11:28) We remember that they are enemies of the cross of Christ; let us remember also that, because they are beloved for the fathers’ sake, they are reserved for the subjection, as the Apostle says, I would not, brethren, have you ignorant of this mystery, lest ye be wise in your own conceits, that a hardening in part has befallen Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in, and so all Israel shall be saved, even as it is written, There shall come out of Sion a Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: and this is the covenant firm Me to them, when I have taken away their sins. So His enemies shall be subjected under His feet.
35. But we must not forget what follows the subjection, namely, Last of all is death conquered by Him. (1 Corinthians 15:26) This victory over death is nothing else than the resurrection from the dead…
43. … The final sequel of man’s life and death is the resurrection: the assured reward of our warfare is immortality and incorruption, not the ceaseless persistence of everlasting punishment, but the unbroken enjoyment and happiness of eternal glory.”

In the last paragraph I quoted, he speaks of the reward of warfare–clearly a reference to those who have fought the good fight in this life–and contrasts it with the endless punishment. He is speaking of the same thing that he was discussing in an earlier part of the book which I quoted in a previous post, but will do so again with more context:

“27. Before going any further we must now enquire whether the end is a dissolution, or the delivering a forfeiture (1 Cor 15:24), or the subjection an enfeebling of Christ (1 Cor 15:28). And if we find that these are contraries, which cannot be connected as causes and effects, we shall be able to understand the words in the true sense in which they were spoken.
28. … All things are advancing towards an end, but that end is a condition of rest in the perfection, which is the goal of their advance, and not their abolition. Further, all things exist for the sake of the end, but the end itself is not the means to anything beyond: it is an ultimate, all-embracing whole, which rests in itself. And because it is self-contained, and works for no other time or object than itself, the goal is always that to which our hopes are directed. Therefore the Lord exhorts us to wait with patient and reverent faith until the end comes: Blessed is He that endures to the end. It is not a blessed dissolution, which awaits us, nor is non-existence the fruit, and annihilation the appointed reward of faith: but the end is the final attainment of the promised blessedness, and they are blessed who endure until the goal of perfect happiness is reached, when the expectation of faithful hope has no object beyond. Their end is to abide with unbroken rest in that condition, towards which they are pressing. Similarly, as a deterrent, the Apostle warns us of the end of the wicked, Whose end is perdition, . . . . . but our expectation is in heaven. Suppose then we interpret the end as a dissolution, we are forced to acknowledge that, since there is an end for the blessed and for the wicked, the issue levels the godly with the ungodly, for the appointed end of both is a common annihilation. What of our expectation in heaven, if for us as well as for the wicked the end is a cessation of being? But even if there remains for the saints an expectation, whereas for the wicked there waits the end they have deserved, we cannot conceive that end as a final dissolution. What punishment would it be for the wicked to be beyond the feeling of avenging torments, because the capability of suffering has been removed by dissolution? The end is, therefore, a culminating and irrevocable condition which awaits us, reserved for the blessed and prepared for the wicked.
29. We can therefore no longer doubt that by the end is meant an ultimate and final condition and not a dissolution.”

As you can see, Hilary’s book to which Ramelli refers actually teaches infinite torment in crystal-clear terms.

1 Like