The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2

V. Canon Row—Powerful Strokes Against Eternal-Tormentism

Another vigorous Anglican voice that was heard was that of C. A. Row (1816-1896), Canon of St. Paul’s Cathedral. Trained at Oxford, he gave the famous Bampton Lectures ⁶⁴ on “Christian Evidences Viewed in Relation to Modern Thought” at Oxford in 1882. Row was author of several works, including Future Retribution Viewed in the Light of Reason and Revelation (1887; new enlarged ed., in 1889). This was the essence of his Bampton Lectures, so they first had a special scholastic audience before their general distribution. Everyone knew the Canon’s position on the nature and destiny of man. CFF2 368.5

1. ATHANASIAN CREED STATEMENT IS INDEFINITE

Canon Row felt that the “awfulness” of the theory of Eternal Torment—“an existence without end, in a state of misery which will never cease” ⁶⁵—involving as it does the character of God and the fate of man, called for definite restudy. Added to this was the confusion over the postulates of Universalism and Conditionalism. Undertaking this, Row went back to the Athanasian Creed, venerated by the Western Church. Taking the creedal expression, “perish everlastingly,” he makes the declaration:
“It [the Athanasian Creed] nowhere defines what is the meaning intended by ‘perishing everlastingly,’ or ‘going into everlasting fire.’ For anything which it affirms to the contrary, these expressions may mean annihilation; and so far they are consistent with the theory called ‘conditional immortality,’ or ‘life in Christ.’ But it is no less certain that the meaning which is attached to them by the overwhelming majority of those who read them or hear them recited, is ‘endless existence in neverending torment.’” ⁶⁶ CFF2 369.1

2. PHILOSOPHY DOES NOT PROVE IMMORTALITY OF MAN

Coming to the common argument of alleged “all but universal belief that there is something in man which will survive the stroke of death,” and the “unsatisfactory character of the seasonings of the ancient philosophers on this subject,” ⁶⁷ Row makes this observation:
“Let it be observed that none of the above [philosophical] reasonings are adequate to prove the immortality of man. All that they really prove is that his personality will survive the dissolution of his body. It is generally assumed that reasonings which avail to prove man’s survival after death are equally valid to prove his immortality; or, as it is commonly conceived, that the righteous will continue to exist in happiness and the wicked in misery for evermore. But this is a conclusion which the premisses [sic] will not justify. On the contrary, judging by analogy, as disease destroys the body, so sin may be ultimately destructive of the being of the sinner. The whole question of immortality depends on the will, purposes, and character of God.” ⁶⁸ CFF2 369.2

3. GENESIS NARRATIVE FAVORS CONDITIONALIST “THEORY.”

After referring to the inferences and assumptions often drawn from the Genesis record, Row says that “whole mountains of theories have been erected and read into it, as though they were so many Scriptural truths; and thus it has been made the basis of a number of very complicated systems of theology.” ⁶⁹ But “putting aside” all “theories and conjectures and poetic imaginations,” he says that the specifications of the narrative “favour the theory of conditional immortality, that the words used seem to imply that man was created mortal, but capable of attaining immortality by eating of the fruit of the tree of life.” ⁷⁰ CFF2 370.1

4. RESURRECTION, NOT INNATE IMMORTALITY

After noting the Old Testament evidence, Row comes to the New Testament positions and the resurrection factor, and makes this significant statement:
“Such is the position which the resurrection holds in the New Testament in relation to a future state. In thus resting the realisation of the highest aspirations of man on the promise of a resurrection instead of on the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, or even on its survival after the death of the body, the [New Testament] writers ran counter to the entire course of ancient philosophic thought. Oriental philosophy, and the various systems connected with it, viewed the cessation of personal existence and absorption into the TO pan—i.e. the sum total of all things, which was the only deity recognised by Pantheism—as the highest object of human desire. It therefore viewed the separate existence of the soul and its union with a material organism—for according to its principles matter was the source whence all evil sprang—as a dire misfortune.” ⁷¹ CFF2 370.2

Greek philosophy, he adds, “viewed the body as the soul’s prison house,” and considered any future reunion, “after once liberated from it,” as the “greatest of calamities.” ⁷² CFF2 371.1

5. NEW TESTAMENT SYMBOLS INDICATE ULTIMATE DESTRUCTION

Chapters nine and ten are devoted to technical Greek terms for body, soul, and spirit, and also especially to aion and aionios, which “denote periods not of unlimited but of limited duration.” ⁷³ And he stresses that the six or more Greek terms used for the fate of man “convey the idea of destruction.” ⁷⁴ Taking up the stock problem texts Row says:
“There is nothing in the symbols used which suggests the idea that the fate of such sinners would be a conscious existence in torments which would never end. On the contrary, the imagery suggests that of ultimate destruction.” ⁷⁵ CFF2 371.2

And he declares that the Dives and Lazarus recital is a parable, not a “history of actual occurrences.” Then he concludes:
“The narrative being a parable, it is impossible that its imagery can have been intended to be a revelation of the secrets of the underworld. If we accept one part of it as such we ought in consistency to accept the whole, and this none of its expositors do.” ⁷⁶ CFF2 371.3

6. THE TWOFOLD PREMISE OF CONDITIONALISM

Chapter fourteen contrasts the “theories of Universalism, and Conditional Immortality.” Citing Edward White as the “most powerful advocate” of Conditional Immortality, Row epitomizes White’s positions. CFF2 371.4

7. NO CREATURE HAS INHERENT ENDLESS EXISTENCE

Row subjoins his own convictions in these words:
“No being that has been brought into existence by the will of another can have endless existence inherent in itself. Of One only, whose being has had no beginning, can it be said with truth that His existence must be everlasting. Inasmuch, therefore, as man is destitute of selfexistence, the length of the period during which he will continue to exist must be dependent on the good pleasure of Him who by His allpowerful energy maintains him in being every moment.” ⁷⁷ CFF2 371.5

And the reason is added:
“It has been necessary to draw attention to this particular point because the doctrine of the inherent immortality of the soul, as it is commonly understood, is supposed to carry along with it, as a necessary consequence, that evil spirits and evil men must continue to exist for ever in torments which will never terminate.” ⁷⁸ CFF2 372.1

8. “UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE” THEORY SIMPLY NOT TRUE

In conclusion, Row disposes of the so-called “universal belief” idea with this recital of simple historical fact:
“It is a matter of absolute certainty that in all ages of the Christian Church, as far as our historical evidence extends, there have been eminent theologians who have been unable to accept as a Christian verity the commonly accepted doctrine known by the name of eternal damnation. 7 his being so, the affirmation that it is a doctrine which has been accepted always everywhere by the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ is untrue, and therefore the theory which has been erected on the assumption of its truth is invalid.” ⁷⁹ CFF2 372.2

But even if it were so—
“once it was an all but universal belief, if not an actually universal one, that the sun moved round the earth, and that to affirm the motion of the latter was a most flagrant denial of the truth of Scripture; and when those appeared who openly controverted the truth of this belief, the position taken by them was pronounced a heresy.” ⁸⁰ CFF2 372.3

Little wonder that scholarly Conditionalist Freer wrote: “Canon Row, in his Bampton Lectures on Future Retribution, has powerfully advocated the doctrine.” ⁸¹ CFF2 372.4