The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 1

II. Irenaeus’ Basic Doctrinal Positions and Definitions

Before taking up the comprehensive witness provided through a consecutive book-by-book coverage of Against Heresies, let us preview Irenaeus’ basic positions and his fundamental definitions and usages of terms for guidance through his voluminous treatise. First to be noted are certain contrasts. Eighty years ago Anglican Prebendary Henry Constable so ably tabulated Irenaeus’ leading positions that his general outline will, in part, be followed here. CFF1 879.2

1. MORTAL MAN MUST BE IMMORTALIZED AT RESURRECTION

Irenaeus’ views were diametrically opposed to those of the Tertullian-Augustinian School—with their Innate-Immortality and Eternal-Torment-of-the-wicked postulate—just then appearing in Rome and Africa. Tertullian and Augustine maintained that from the very beginning man was possessed of an inherent and inalienable immortality of the soul. Irenaeus, on the contrary, held that man’s entire nature was created for immortality, but was mortal, ⁶ and not yet possessed of immortality. CFF1 879.3

He maintained that unfallen man, in his first estate in Eden, had to obtain something that he did not at first possess, and failed to obtain. And in his fallen state, if he refused to accept Christ as his complete Saviour from sin, man cut himself off from the proferred gift of immortality. Thus Irenaeus’ position was absolutely irreconcilable with the Augustinian dogma that the wicked have an innately immortal existence. He, on the contrary, held that immortality will be bestowed at the resurrection, with the reunion of the believer’s body and soul. ⁷ CFF1 880.1

2. TO LIVE IS TO “EXIST”; TO DIE, TO “CEASE TO EXIST.”

Irenaeus’ concept of “life” is that of the literal sense of existence, whereas Augustinianism forced upon the word the thought of “well-being,” “happiness,” “felicity.” But to Irenaeus there may be life where there is no light or joy, but only fear, darkness, and sorrow, for the flesh partakes of life. And Irenaeus defines life eternal as never growing old, never dying the second death, never ceasing to exist. It is Christ, the Prince of Life, who existed before all, who is the source of all life. To live, then, is to exist. ⁸ CFF1 880.2

3. ETERNAL LIFE IS “BESTOWED” ETERNAL EXISTENCE

Eternal life, he held, is that life that is bestowed by Christ upon His redeemed. And it involves “perpetual duration,” “continuance for ever and ever,” “length of days for ever and ever,” or unending existence, and is set forth as identical with “immortality” and “incorruptibility.” Believers are the “children of the resurrection,” through which they will obtain the life now pledged to them. Immortality is now in promise, but not as yet in actual possession. Thus the elect are “enrolled” for “life eternal.” That, said Irenaeus, is the Christian’s glorious prospect. CFF1 880.3

4. IMMORTALITY RESTRICTED TO THE RIGHTEOUS

None but the redeemed will obtain this life that will never end, this “perpetual duration.” It is a gift from God through Christ, and is confined to the redeemed. The unbelieving and wicked “shall not inherit the world of life which is to come.” They thereby “defraud themselves of this life,” having forfeited it through their perverseness. And their “everlasting perdition” consists in “cutting them off from this [proffered] life.” In this specific way Irenaeus’ stand is in complete contrast with that of the later Augustinian School, which taught that unending existence is for all men, evil as well as good. CFF1 880.4

5. DISOBEDIENCE CAUSED LOSS OF MAN’S IMMORTALITY

Coming specifically to “immortality” (athanasia), Irenaeus gives its primary meaning as exemption from death and annihilation; in other words, unending existence. When applied to God it is the absolute, eternal existence of which He cannot be deprived. But Irenaeus repeatedly asserts that immortality was forfeited by man through his transgression, and cannot possibly be the inherent possession of the disobedient. Because of disobedience man was “cast off from immortality.” And he asks the unanswerable question “How can man be immortal who in his mortal nature did not obey his Maker?” CFF1 881.1

Moreover, the immortality thus lost by sin can be regained only by choice and struggle. Irenaeus cites Paul’s logical and consistent exhortation to struggle that we may be crowned with immortality, and refers to “that which is acquired by our struggle, but which does not encircle us of its own accord.” CFF1 881.2

6. UNION WITH CHRIST RESULTS IN IMMORTALITY

In various ways and by multiple forms of expression, Irenaeus insists that immortality is a gift conveyed to the believer through the gospel, which provision he interestingly describes as “breathing out immortality” and “vivifying man afresh.” Union with Christ is the sole means by which it is gained. So he says, “By no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality.” This involves a saving knowledge of the Son of God, and friendship with God, which “imparts immortality to those who embrace it.” This honor is both accorded and restricted to “those who have obeyed and believed on God.” CFF1 881.3

7. FUTURE DESTINIES DETERMINED BY CONTRASTING RESURRECTIONS

Irenaeus’ view on the resurrection, or rather, the resurrections—of the just and the unjust—confirms his point. Augustinianism held that the bodies of the wicked will be raised immortal, for eternal suffering. Irenaeus, on the contrary, restricts immortality to the redeemed, to be bestowed at the first resurrection, and only to the bodies of the “just” when God will “render” them “incorruptible and immortal.” Contrariwise, the bodies of the wicked will be mortal in their resurrection, and subject to disintegration and final destruction. CFF1 882.1

8. INCORRUPTION MEANS “INCAPABLE OF DECAY.”

By “incorruption” Irenaeus stated that he means exemption from decay or dissolution, or exemption from ceasing to exist. It must be remembered that Irenaeus was opposing Gnostic heretics who denied a bodily resurrection, and who held that the flesh of the “spiritual” is “not capable of corruption,” that they must continue on forever. But Irenaeus asserted its applicability to matter. Thus the flesh not only decays but is capable of being quickened. When infused with life from God it enjoys eternity of transformed existence, and is then precluded from “becoming old.” But this belongs to the redeemed alone, and is attained only by union with Christ, and secured in and through Christ. It is denied to the wicked. CFF1 882.2

9. INCORRUPTION NOW “IN PROMISE,” NOT YET IN POSSESSION

Irenaeus held that this incorruption of the righteous is not possessed in this present life, where it is had only in promise, but at the resurrection, when the saints shall have it in possession. And the present indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the earnest, or pledge, of incorruption. Thus the resurrection is “the commencement of incorruption,” contrary to the figurative explanations of what came to be called Augustinianism. CFF1 882.3

10. RESURRECTION BODIES ARE TOTALLY DISTINCT

Irenaeus puts a marked distinction between the bodies of the just and the unjust at the resurrection. In contrast with Augustinianism’s eternal duration of the wicked as essential to its Eternal-Torment-of-the-wicked thesis, Irenaeus’ eternal duration is expressly confined to the “incorruptible” and “immortal” redeemed. Thus the hope of the resurrection, which is “to eternity,” is for the righteous, while the wicked remain in mortal flesh, subject to the second death. CFF1 883.1

11. TO “PERISH” MEANS ULTIMATE NONEXISTENCE

To “perish” is another of Irenaeus’ strong and frequently used words. It is synonymous with ultimate nonexistence. This is in contrast with the Gnostic position, which denied that the wicked perish, but rather are “absorbed in the universal substance.” But to Irenaeus to “perish” is the ultimate fate of all unrighteous souls. It leads to cessation of existence. On the other hand, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Augustine contended that the wicked do not die in Hell, that cessation of being never comes, and never can come to them, that they are both in soul and in body incorruptible, eternal, immortal. Irenaeus held to diametrically opposite terms and concepts. CFF1 883.2

12. PUNISHMENT IS “PUNITIVE,” NOT “PURGATIVE.”

To the later Origenists, Restorationism’s future punishment is “purgative.” And after a protracted period the soul sentenced to Hell will allegedly come forth purified, and join the ranks of the redeemed. But to Irenaeus, to whom the verdict of the judgment is eternal, the punishment is “punitive,” and is eternal in its effects. The hideous cruelty of Augustinianism’s Eternal Torment finds no sanction in Irenaeus. To him the duration of the punishment is eternal, but its nature is death, destruction, perdition, cessation of being, annihilation—not ceaseless punishing. Augustinianism teaches that the wicked will remain forever alive and unconsumed, but Irenaeus contends that they “shall be burned up as were Nadab and Abihu,” by fire from the Lord. They will “perish,” be “punished with everlasting death,” will “pass away,” will “not endure forever.” And “everlasting perdition” he defines as “cutting off the wicked from life,” and being “deprived of continuance for ever and ever.” It signifies “non-existence, and the “loss of all benefits.” CFF1 883.3

13. ETERNAL PUNISHMENT IS ETERNAL LOSS OF LIFE

Future punishment is, to Irenaeus, “eternal” because the loss of blessing is eternal, not because of eternally inflicting new misery, but because of eternal loss of what the saints eternally enjoy. Separation from God involves the death penalty, the forfeiting of life, the loss of life. Eternal loss is eternal punishment. “Eternal death” cuts them off from eternal life. CFF1 884.1

14. LIFE DEPENDENT ON GRATUITY OF GOD

In answering the Gnostic contention that there could be no immortality or endless existence for any created souls that had a beginning, Irenaeus responds that they will endure as long as God wills the existence and continuance of the saved. It is the Father “who imparts continuance for ever and ever on those who are saved.” He says, “Life does not arise from us, nor from our own nature.” Such as accept the gift of this provision “shall receive length of days for ever and ever.” And contrariwise, he who rejects the offer of this gift “deprives himself of continuance for ever and ever.” CFF1 884.2

We close this preview of Irenaeus’ Conditionalist positions by quoting the impressive conclusion to the learned Prebendary Constable’s denial of the claims of those Immortal-Soulists who cite Irenaeus as sustaining the contention that the wicked will exist in misery forever and ever, and that their punishment will be “deprivation of happiness,” not ultimate annihilation: CFF1 884.3

“To say that ‘sweet’ means ‘bitter,’ or that ‘light’ means ‘darkness,’ is just as allowable a use of words as to say that the ‘enduring’ and ‘continuing’ of one of God’s works, such as the sun in the sky or the human soul, means ‘the happiness’ of these works. We dismiss such interpretation as an insult to our common understanding. Irenaeus, notwithstanding his Benedictine editor and his Presbyterian translator, tells us that the wicked will not continue to exist for ever, because God does not will them to exist. God did will his [man’s] ‘happiness’ and his ‘well-being,’ but he marred them. God does not will his continued existence, and therefore he will cease to exist. Such is the testimony of the learned, holy, and martyred Bishop of Lyons, in the second century of Christ.” ⁹ CFF1 884.4