It is often claimed by the traditionalists that conditionalism (and universalism) are theological novelties; too new to be the original view of Jesus, the apostles, or the early church. But is this actually the case? Most of the earliest church fathers simply quoted scripture whenever they address the subject of hell, the last judgement, or final punishment. Therefore, since in many cases the meaning of certain passages of Scripture are in dispute, we need to find instances where the early fathers explained their view in their own words.
A number of research projects have been undertaken to determine where each church father falls within the three views and it is generally acknowledged by all sides that there is support for all three. Conditionalists have begun to be more bold on the assertion that Conditionalism was early...very early. Some even assert that it was the position before the influx of converts who were philosophers with assumptions foreign to Scripture (namely the immortality of the soul).
Here is an example of a common list of Early Fathers said to be conditionalists:
- First Clement (late 1st century)
- Ignatius of Antioch (late 1st century)
- Epistle of Barnabas (late 1st or early 2nd century)
- Irenaeus (2nd century)
- Arnobius (early 4th century)
- Athanasius (4th century)
It's a pretty impressive list, but conditionalists say this is a modest claim because the evidence is too thin (because most simply reused biblical language). I took it from a website called rethinkinghell.com, which has a lot of resources on conditionalism if anyone wants to look into it further. Below is a video one of their contributors made that goes into a little more detail on why they think there is a strong case that many of the earliest church fathers were conditionalist.
No comments:
Post a Comment