The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 1

II. Alters Basic Scripture Intent to Sustain “Torment” Theory

We have seen how the two philosophical arguments—the concept of the Innate Immortality of all souls and the figment of a divine, or secret, fire—were put forward by Tertullian to establish the postulate of the eternal punishing of the wicked. And this involved a terminology totally at variance with Scripture. But even more serious, in his Biblical argument the plain intent of the explicit declarations of Scripture pertaining to the doom of the lost was systematically altered, and sometimes reversed in meaning. And a turn was given that was not only foreign, but utterly opposed, to the intent of Holy Scripture. CFF1 962.2

This opened the way for scholars across the centuries to level against Tertullian the grave charge of manipulating Scripture to sustain his theory of the universal immortality of all souls and the Endless Torment of the eternally damned. As a consequence, he has often been accused of. deliberately perverting the plain intent of Scripture ideology concerning life, death, and destiny, in order to justify his philosophical notions. CFF1 962.3

1. “INCORRUPTION” MISAPPLIED TO WICKED IN HELL

For example, Tertullian speaks of the “incorruptibility” of the wicked, ⁸ body and soul, in Hell, whereas Scripture confines both the term and the state of “incorruption” to the immortalized saints. “Incorruptibility” is primarily a Pauline term— appearing five times, as concerns man, in First Corinthians: CFF1 962.4

(1) We strive for an “incorruptible” crown (1 Corinthians 9:25).
(2) The corruptible bodies of the saints are to be raised in “incorruption” (1 Corinthians 15:42).
(3) Corruption does not inherit “incorruption” (1 Corinthians 15:50).
(4) “This corruptible must put on incorruption,” when we are immortalized (1 Corinthians 15:53).
(5) When “incorruption” shall have been put on, death is swallowed up (1 Corinthians 15:54).

The term is also applied by Paul to the “uncorruptible God” (Romans 1:23), “who only hath immortality” (1 Timothy 6:16). CFF1 963.1

Peter also writes of an “inheritance incorruptible” that is reserved for us (1 Peter 1:4). It is connected with the “resurrection” (1 Peter 1:3). CFF1 963.2

It is to be revealed in the “last time” (1 Peter 1:5). CFF1 963.3

And it is only for those “born again” of “incorruptible” seed (1 Peter 1:23). CFF1 963.4

2. “IMMORTALITY” WRONGLY APPLIED TO WICKED

Further, in his works on the Soul and the Resurrection, Tertullian repeatedly speaks of the natural immortality of the incorrigibly wicked as verily as of the resurrection of the righteous, whereas Scripture says that God “only hath immortality” (1 Timothy 6:16), and that the saints must “put on” immortality at the resurrection and the Second Advent (1 Corinthians 15:53). And Tertullian fantastically asserts that man was made of the breath of the immortal God, and refers to the soul as having a divine nature and an eternal substance ⁹—a concept and a phrasing likewise totally at variance with the repeated declarations of Holy Writ. God, on the contrary, dwells “in the light which no man can approach unto” (1 Timothy 6:16). He alone is the “King eternal, immortal” (1 Timothy 1:17). CFF1 963.5

Such were two of the frequent twists and turns employed. CFF1 963.6

3. “DESTRUCTION’S” PLAIN INTENT SET ASIDE

Again, the most common scriptural description of the punishment of the wicked is that they will be “destroyed,” or suffer “destruction” in Hell, or Gehenna. Tertullian, thoroughly understanding Greek, well knew that “destruction” meant the annihilation, end, or cessation of the organized being. This is clear from various allusions. One was to Epicurus’ dual use of the term to convey the concept of utter cessation of existence at death. ¹⁰ In another place Tertullian states that “destruction” differs altogether from change, for to be changed is merely “to exist in another condition.” CFF1 964.1

“To perish,” he said, “is altogether to cease to be what a thing once was,” ¹¹ to cease to have existence, to be identical with the annihilation of any substance. Elsewhere, he tells us that the condition of the body in the grave, when it has seen corruption, is that of destruction; and that if God were to leave the body forever in this condition it would be His “abandoning it to everlasting destruction.” So he clearly understood the terms in their ordinary usage. His turn on “destruction” will be noted next. CFF1 964.2

4. “IMMORTAL SOULS” CANNOT PERISH IN HELL

In chapter thirty-four, on the resurrection, commenting on Christ’s coming “to seek and to save that which is lost,” Tertullian asks, “What do you suppose that to be which is lost?” The answer is, “The whole man, of course,” in “both his natures”—body and soul. But then he says naively: “We, however, so understand the soul’s immortality as to believe it ‘lost,’ not in the sense of destruction, but of punishment, that is, in hell.” And he continues, “If this is the case, then it is not the soul which salvation will affect, since it is ‘safe’ already in its own nature by reason of its immortality, but rather the flesh,” which is “subject to destruction.” CFF1 964.3

Then he adds: “If the soul is also perishable,” and “not immortal,” the Lord would purpose to “save” it. ¹² And he again refers to the “two substances,” of body and soul, and asserts that “the Lord purposes to save that part of him which perishes (the body), whilst he will not of course lose that portion [the soul] which cannot be lost.” ¹³ But these hazy statements become clearer as we continue. CFF1 964.4

5. “BODY” DESTINED FOR “ETERNAL KILLING” IN HELL

Then in chapter thirty-five Tertullian turns to Christ’s warning in Matthew 10:28—“Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Tertullian very properly equates the “kill” in the first clause with “destroy” in the second. CFF1 965.1

He also recognizes that God is able to do what He declares He will do with the wicked in Hell. But he immediately adds, “Here, then, we have a recognition of the natural immortality of the soul, which cannot be killed by men; and of the mortality of the body, which may be killed.” He observes that “the resurrection of the dead is a resurrection of the flesh; for unless it were raised again, it would be impossible for the flesh to be ‘killed in hell.’” ¹⁴ CFF1 965.2

Tertullian again speaks of “both substances” (body and soul), as he conceived them, and the distinction to be made between them, for it is the “flesh” which will be “destroyed in hell.” Then he adds, “So also will it [the body] be restored to life eternal” ¹⁵—but meaning eternal life in torment, as will become clear. And now follows this remarkable passage denying the literal destruction of body or soul in Hell: CFF1 965.3

“If, therefore, any one shall violently suppose that the destruction of the soul and the flesh in hell amounts to a final annihilation of the two substances, and not to their penal treatment (as if they were to be consumed, not punished), let him recollect that the fire of hell is eternal—expressly announced as an everlasting penalty; and let him then admit that it is from this circumstance that this never-ending ‘killing’ is more formidable than a merely human murder, which is only temporal. He will then come to the conclusion that substances [of both body and soul] must be eternal, when their penal ‘killing’ is an eternal one.” ¹⁶ CFF1 965.4

There is no cessation of being, he declares, no end, no annihilation of the body and soul of the wicked. CFF1 966.1

6. RESURRECTION OF FLESH IS FOR “ETERNAL KILLING.”

Tertullian then continues his argument: CFF1 966.2

“Since, then, the body after the resurrection has to be killed by God in hell along with the soul, we surely have sufficient information in this fact respecting both the issues which await it, namely the resurrection of the flesh, and its eternal ‘killing.’ Else it would be most absurd if the flesh should be raised up and destined to ‘the killing in hell,’ in order to be put an end to, when it might suffer such an annihilation (more directly) if not raised again at all.” ¹⁷ CFF1 966.3

7. PERVERTS MEANING OF “DEATH” AND “DYING.”

Tertlullian knew and acknowledged that certain words used in Scripture to express future punishment properly have a certain consistent meaning. But this theory of Eternal Torment of the wicked did not permit these words to be used in their true, normal, and proper sense. Consequently, they had to be given an improper and unnatural turn in order to sustain his view. But surely any theory that requires such violence to be done to the language of Scripture is manifestly unscriptural. CFF1 966.4

Nevertheless, such was Tertullian’s philosophy, and such was his consequent practice. For example, Tertullian warps the meaning of “death” and “dying” into being a change of life, for the worse of course. Note his definition of “dead“: CFF1 966.5

“The word dead expresses simply what has lost the vital principle [animam], by means of which it used to live. Now the body is that which loses life, and as the result of losing it becomes dead. To the body, therefore, the term dead is only suitable. Moreover, as resurrection accrues to what is dead, and dead is a term applicable only to a body, therefore the body alone has a resurrection incidental to it.” ¹⁸ CFF1 966.6

Thus Tertullian held that the terms “to die,” “to be destroyed,” and “death”—all synonymous to him—were not “suitable” to apply to the soul, and could properly be affirmed only of the body after death and until resurrection. CFF1 966.7

8. FORCED TO GIVE IMPROPER TURN TO TERMINOLOGY

Tertullian was thus in a strait betwixt his correct knowledge of the true meaning of the words of Scripture and his revolutionary theory of future punishment. These words, which he could not (according to his theory) apply to the soul at any time, but could apply to the risen bodies of the wicked only after the resurrection, were nevertheless applied to both body and soul of the wicked. CFF1 967.1

What therefore to do? He could not remove them from Scripture. And he could not deny the fact that God could destroy both body and soul in Hell. Furthermore, he could not deny that the only “suitable” sense of those words demands that body and soul would be annihilated, and ultimately cease to be or exist. So, rather than yield his theory, he put a forced, improper, and “unsuitable” sense upon the words of Scripturel CFF1 967.2

This he did, for example, with Matthew 10:28 (“destroy both soul and body in hell”) in denying that the wicked would ever cease to exist in Hell. Denying the contention of the “final annihilation of the two substances” (body and soul) “as if they were to be consumed,” in contrast with being “punished,” Tertullian stresses that “the fire of hell is eternal,” and is “an everlasting penalty,” and is therefore a “never-ending killing.” ¹⁹ CFF1 967.3

His reasoning was simply this: The loss of existence by one who might have had existence forever is no punishment! Tertullian differentiated “destruction” from “punishment,” holding that destruction is not “punishment.” He maintains that “being killed,” “being destroyed,” and “being consumed,” is no punishment. He phrases it, “As if they were to be consumed, not punished.” So, to Tertullian, consuming, or being deprived of an eternal existence, was not punishment. Thus he was impelled to distort the intent of Scripture. CFF1 967.4

9. EMPLOYS DEVIOUS ARTIFICE OF DISTORTION

In chapter nineteen, On the Resurrection, Tertullian severely castigates the artifice of “heretics” in perverting the “true meaning of the important words” of Scripture by recourse to “figurative and allegorical language.” Thus they distort “the most clearly described doctrine of the resurrection” into “some imaginary sense.” He specifies their giving to “death” a purely “spiritual sense.” “They say that that which is commonly supposed to be death is not really so ... : it is rather the ignorance of God.” That is “held to be the resurrection” when a man is reanimated by access to the truth, and “having dispersed the death of ignorance, ... has burst forth from the sepulchre of the old man.” ²⁰ The propriety and scope of his censures is crystal clear. CFF1 968.1

It therefore seems amazingly strange that Tertullian’s astute mind should permit him to censure the artifice of “heretics,” and yet turn about and himself employ the same devious device of rendering “death” as “endless misery,” and “destruction” and “consuming” as eternal “pain and anguish.” Thus Tertullian’s contorted treatment of the language of Scripture led him into an interminable maze of confusion and contradiction, as we have seen. CFF1 968.2

But this much is very clear: The source of Tertullian’s new terminology is to be found in his revolutionary theory of human destiny. And his devious treatment of the terminology of Scripture is the obvious condemnation of the system. That is the inescapable indictment of Tertullianism. CFF1 968.3