Conditionalists & Annihilationists In ECF, Eastern & Syriac, Catholic, Protestant & Churches In General - What in the

[NuntioBusiness]

Conditionalists & Annihilationists In ECF, Eastern & Syriac, Catholic, Protestant & Churches In General - What in the …

To get this started some examples.

Irenaeus, while having an incorrect view of the ‘soul’ (taught separation); was ultimately a conditionalist and annihilationist , notice for he speaks on souls of the righteous and wicked:

“… And therefore he who shall preserve the life bestowed upon him, and give thanks to Him who imparted it, shall receive also length of days for ever and ever. But he who shall reject it , and prove himself ungrateful to his Maker, inasmuch as he has been created, and has not recognised Him who bestowed [the gift upon him], deprives himself of [the privilege of] continuance for ever and ever . And, for this reason, the Lord declared to those who showed themselves ungrateful towards Him : If you have not been faithful in that which is little, who will give you that which is great? indicating that those who, in this brief temporal life, have shown themselves ungrateful to Him who bestowed it, shall justly not receive from Him length of days for ever and ever . …” - Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter 34 , Section 3 . - CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, II.34 (St. Irenaeus)

These also note the same in some detail - Deprived of continuance: Irenaeus the conditionalist | Rethinking Hell

“… Justin Martyr and Irenaeus , seem to have held the doctrine of the annihilation of the wicked. Justin Martyr, in his First Apology , c. viii., says indeed that the wicked will undergo “everlasting punishment;” but elsewhere, (in Dial. c. Tryph . c 5,) he plainly says, that “those who have appeared worthy of God die no more, but others are punished as long as God wills them to exist and be punished.” Irenaeus has the same language. “The Father of all,” he says, “imparts continuance for ever and ever to those who are saved; for life does not arise from us, nor from our own nature, but is bestowed according to the grace of God. He therefore who shall keep the life given to him, and render thanks to Him who imparted it, shall receive also length of days for ever and ever. But he who shall reject it, and shew himself ungrateful to his Maker, deprives himself of continuance for ever and ever.” ( Contr. Hoeres . lib. ii. c. 34. para. 3.) We find the same doctrine also in the Clementine Homilies , ( Hom . iii. 6.) …” - The Second Death and the Restitution of All Things by Andrew Jukes (Part 5)

 

[NuntioBusiness]

Justin Martyr, conditionalist, and even annihilationist -

"…Chapter 5. The soul is not in its own nature immortal …

… Old Man: They [souls] are not, then, immortal?

Justin: No ; since the world has appeared to us to be begotten. …

… Old Man: … wicked … are punished so long as God wills them to exist and to be punished . …

Justin:

… For those things which exist after God, or shall at any time exist, these have the nature of decay, and are such as may be blotted out and cease to exist ; for God alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and therefore He is God, but all other things after Him are created and corruptible. For this reason souls both die and are punished : since, if they were unbegotten, …" - Dialogue With Trypho, Chapter 5 - CHURCH FATHERS: Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 1-9 (Justin Martyr)

Yet, please notice that Justin is not arguing from a scriptural basis, but a philosophic, teleogistic and nature of the universe one.

Clementine Homilies (marked as ‘spurious’ by Rome), conditionalist and even annihilationist :

“… those who do not repent shall be destroyed by the punishment of fire … But, as I said, at an appointed time a fifth part, being punished with eternal fire, shall be consumed. For they cannot endure for ever who have been impious against the one God . …” - Clementine Homilies, Homily 3, Chapter 6 - CHURCH FATHERS: Clementine Homily 3

 

[NuntioBusiness]

Arnobius on Annihilation of the wicked:

“… 14. Do you dare to laugh at us when we speak of hell, and fires which cannot be quenched, into which we have learned that souls are cast by their foes and enemies? What, does not your Plato also, in the book which he wrote on the immortality of the soul, name the rivers Acheron, Styx, Cocytus, and Pyriphlegethon, and assert that in them souls are rolled along, engulphed, and burned up? But though a man of no little wisdom, and of accurate judgment and discernment, he essays a problem which cannot be solved; so that, while he says that the soul is immortal, everlasting, and without bodily substance, he vet says that they are punished, and makes them suffer pain. But what man does not see that that which is immortal, which is simple, cannot be subject to any pain; that that, on the contrary, cannot be immortal which does suffer pain? And yet his opinion is not very far from the truth. For although the gentle and kindly disposed man thought it inhuman cruelty to condemn souls to death, he yet not unreasonably supposed that they are cast into rivers blazing with masses of flame, and loathsome from their foul abysses. For they are cast in, and being annihilated, pass away vainly in everlasting destruction. For theirs is an intermediate state, as has been learned from Christ’s teaching; and they are such that they may on the one hand perish if they have not known God, and on the other be delivered from death if they have given heed to His threats and proffered favours. And to make manifest what is unknown, this is man’s real death, this which leaves nothing behind. For that which is seen by the eyes is only a separation of soul from body, not the last end — annihilation: this, I say, is man’s real death, when souls which know not God shall be consumed in long-protracted torment with raging fire, into which certain fiercely cruel beings shall cast them, who were unknown before Christ, and brought to light only by His wisdom. …” - Arnobius, Against The Heathen, Book II, section 14. - CHURCH FATHERS: Against the Heathen, Book II (Arnobius)

 

[NuntioBusiness]

Polycrates wrote:

"… 1. But the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them. He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him:

1. We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints . Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus ; and, moreover, John , who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate.
2. He fell asleep at Ephesus .
3. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna .
4. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea , or the blessed Papirius, or Melito, the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead? …" - Eusebius, Church History, Book V, Chapter 24, The Disagreement in Asia - CHURCH FATHERS: Church History, Book V (Eusebius)

 

[NuntioBusiness]

Aphrahat’s theology:

“… Immediately following the comparison of creation and baptism, Aphrahat asserted, “When people die, the ܪܘܚܐ ܢܦܫܢܝܬܐis buried with the body and sensation/perception(ܪܓܫܬܐ) is taken away from it.”20 …” - SLEEP OF THE SOUL AND RESURRECTION OF THE BODY: APHRAHAT’S ANTHROPOLOGY IN CONTEXT J.EDWARD WALTERS ROCHESTER UNIVERSITY, page 441 - https://hcommons.org/deposits/objects/hc:26452/datastreams/CONTENT/content

“… Beyond the recognition of his association of sense perception with the ܪܘܚܐ ܢܦܫܢܝܬܐ, it is also clear that Aphrahat used this term in reference to the soul based on his description of what happens to this entity at death and then at the resurrection, namely that the ܪܘܚܐ ܢܦܫܢܝܬܐwould be buried along with the body. Thus, Aphrahat teaches the concept of the “sleep of the soul.” Although Aphrahat did not explicitly state that the soul “sleeps,” he did argue that it is buried (ܡܬܛܡܪܐ)28with the body and that the capacity for sensation is removed from it. Thus, the soul remains with the body and exists in some kind of unconscious state.29 Aphrahat expressed his belief in the sleep of the soul even more clearly when he returned to this topic in Dem. 8 (“On the Resurrection of the Dead”) and contrasted the “sleep” of the righteous and the wicked in the time between death and the resurrection. He employed here an analogy of good and bad servants who are sleeping: the bad servants do not sleep well and do not wish to arise because they know that their master will punish them when they do wake up. The good servants, however, sleep soundly, knowing the rewards that await them. Aphrahat concluded the analogy thus: ܐܩܝ̈ܕܙܘܕܡܟܝܢ ܘܫܢܬܗܘܢ ܒܣܡܐ ܠܗܘܢ ܒܐܝܡܡܐ ܘܒܠܠܝܐ :ܘܟܠܗ ܢܘܗ̈ܝܢܝܥܒܒܝܫܚܐܥܫܐܕܚܟܝܐܘܢܝܫܓܪܐܠܪܝܓܢܕܐܝܠܠ .ܗܝܕܝܢ ܒܡܛܪܬܐ ܕܨܦܪܐ ܡܬܬܥܝܪܝܢܘܚܕܝܢ :ܐܠ̈ܘܥܘܫܢܬܗܘܢ ܪܡܝܐ ܥܠܝܗܘܢ ܘܕܡܝܢ ܠܓܒܪܐ ܕܪܡܐ ܒܐܫܬܐ ܪܒܬܐ ܘܥܡܝܩܬܐ :ܘܡܬܗܦܟ ܒܥܪܣܗ ܠܟܐ ܘܠܟܐ ܘܪܗܝܒ ܠܠܝܐ ܟܠܗ ܕܢܓܪ ܠܗ ܥܠܘܗܝ ܘܕܚܠܡܢ ܨܦܪܐ ܕܡܚܝܒ ܠܗ ܡܪܗ.The upright lie down and their sleep is pleasant, throughout day and night. For they do not perceive the whole night to …”- Ibid, page 442 - https://hcommons.org/deposits/objects/hc:26452/datastreams/CONTENT/content

"… be long, but experience it as though it were a single moment. Then, when the morning comes, they wake up and rejoice. The sleep of the wicked, however, lies heavily upon them, like a man stricken with a strong,deep fever who tosses and turns on his bed, and who is disturbed throughout the long night. They fear the morning, when their master will condemn them (Dem. 8.19).30

Following this passage, Aphrahat re-emphasized the point that, although the sleep of death may or may not be pleasant, human beings are not conscious during the period of death before the resurrection.Aphrahat argued that when the resurrection takes place, theܪܘܚܐ ܢܦܫܢܝܬܐwillbe raised along with the body and, at least for the righteous, will be transformed …"- SLEEP OF THE SOUL AND RESURRECTION OF THE BODY: APHRAHAT’S ANTHROPOLOGY IN CONTEXT J.EDWARD WALTERS ROCHESTER UNIVERSITY, page 443 - https://hcommons.org/deposits/objects/hc:26452/datastreams/CONTENT/content

 

[BartholomewB]

Are you familiar with the expression TLDR? It means, “Too long, didn’t read.”

Are you asking a question? If so, what is it, very briefly and in your own words?

 

[NuntioBusiness]

Are you asking a question? If so, what is it, very briefly and in your own words?

Did you know about this? That nearly 2/3’s to all the ECF, Syriac, Eastern & others were conditionalists and/or annihilationist?

Even Catholics and Protestants cited John XXII:

“… But in another instance, as Protestants never tired in pointing out, mortalism had been championed by no less an authority than Pope John XXII (1249-1334) . …” - Psychopannychism in Renaissance Europe by C. A. Patrides, page 229 - https://www.jstor.org/stable/417342…EGUOtw857nsJ&seq=3#metadata_info_tab_contents

 

[NuntioBusiness]

Are you familiar with the expression TLDR? It means, “Too long, didn’t read.”

I am actually interested in research, and history, and chain of authority, if no one else is. Forgive me for being enthusiastic on such subjects.

 

[Bithynian]

This is not surprising in the least. Patristics has constantly underscored that the ante-Nicene Fathers were often highly original and innovative in mooting particular theological positions. Some of these were tested and found representative of orthodoxy. Other claims were later found deficient and deemed heterodox. The post-Nicene Fathers were generally reluctant to censor too strictly the positions of their predecessors given that so much dogma had yet to be systematically investigated in the first three centuries after the Incarnation. It would be highly anachronistic, akin to we in the 21st century projecting an understanding of ‘race’ onto the early Fathers.

Even in the post-Nicene period, Fathers including Ss. Jerome and Basil of Caesarea, for all their hindsight, were not immune from beliefs that were excluded from orthodoxy. But those were the risks undertaken when illustrious minds and others were delineating the fine line between truth and falsehood.

 

[NuntioBusiness]

This is not surprising in the least.

If not to you, then it is so to me!

"… That the dead are figuratively in a state of sleep, awaiting the resurrection, “was the prevalent opinion until as late as the 5th century” (D.P. Walker, The Decline of Hell: Seventeenth-Century Discussions of Eternal Torment, 1964, p. 35). - Jesus Christ and Biblical Writers Compare Death to Sleep

Even certain ‘Orthodox’ persons, today, are swinging this:

“… Lazar Puhalo in particular for his theory of the insensibility of the soul “in some state of sleep” …”

 

[NuntioBusiness]

Even in the post-Nicene period, Fathers including Ss. Jerome and Basil of Caesarea, for all their hindsight, were not immune from beliefs that were excluded from orthodoxy.

I think you mean to say ‘that were excluded from [later] orthodoxy’, as they were the so called ‘orthodoxy’ then at present! They (conditionalists/annihilationists) were in the majority. It was only when Augustine, and a few others brought in their ‘sway’ utilizing Neo Platonic Dualism and Philosophical arguments.

"… (1.) "Even Augustine, the champion of eternal torment said in his day, “There are very many (imo quam plurimi, which can be translated majority) who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments” (Enchiria, ad Laurent. c. 29). St. Basil the Great (c. 329-379) in his De Asceticis wrote: “The mass of men (Christians) say that there is to be an end of punishment to those who are punished.” " Appendix Five

(2.) "St. Basil the Great (c. 329-379) in his De Asceticis wrote: “The mass of men (Christians) say that there is to be an end of punishment to those who are punished.” “(The Ascetic Works of St. Basil, pp.329-30…Conc. 14 De. fut judic).” Universalism and the Salvation of Satan

Notice, “are very many” and “the mass of men”, and they weren’t “denying the Holy Scriptures”.

 

[Bithynian]

If not to you, then it is so to me!

I’m not sure to what extent or for how many years you have read patristics scholarship, but this has been well articulated for at least three centuries in the scholarly literature. For a multitude of reasons, scholars post-17th century were less inclined to frame the discourses of the Fathers from later developments, and more given to investigating whatever a Father argued in a theological treatise. On account of that, it became clear that very many Church Fathers often argued for positions that were later excluded from orthodoxy. St Jerome even argued against the inclusion of the deuterocanonical texts in the canon after the Council of Rome had declared them canonical (and he even participated in the Council!).

In any case, I’m not entirely sure what argument you are setting forth. That the apostolic Churches of antiquity are gravely wrong about the nature of the soul for the past 1,500 years and that we ought to return some contemporary interpretation that appears more representative of the claims made on the literature of Christian antiquity?

 

[NuntioBusiness]

That the apostolic Churches of antiquity are gravely wrong

No, I am saying, that the majority of those of the antiquity were basically right, errors slowly crept in, and that it is the modern system that is contrary to them, and in the wrong, having accepted those errors and made them the modern majority!

Does not the Holy Scriptures speak of such things?

II Thess 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first …

Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Act 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Act 20:31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

Apostle Paul’s context is the Bishoprics. The Elders.

I Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Paul warned all of the churches over and over again.

II Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
II Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
II Co 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

 

[NuntioBusiness]

about the nature of the soul for the past 1,500 years and that we ought to return some contemporary interpretation

Look, I am not telling anyone what to do. I am simply saying, based on the evidence, the past ancient churches, in Syria, East, etc were theologically different than they are now. They have actually swapped positions to what was originally believed and taught, even that which was handed on from the Apostles themselves, as also found written, for instance see Peter and Paul:

Act 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet …

Act 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

Act_13:36 For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:

That was the very doctrine of Syria, Antioch, East, and at Jerusalem itself:

Act_7:60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Act 8:2 And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.

that appears more representative of the claims made on the literature of Christian antiquity?

The vast majority of the ‘ecf’, &c, and their literature on this, in “antiquity” and earliest to the times of the Apostles [Peter/Paul, &c], and location, all disagree with “modern”, “recent” ‘orthodoxy’, which back then was ‘unorthodoxy’.

Are we to believe that all those faithful churches (Ephesus, &c) and their primary persons, theologians, were immediately wrong on so massive a subject, even though they had received it directly from the Apostles (II Thess 2:15), and that the few scattering of voices (I Tim 1:20; I John 2:18-19; III John 1:9) that slowly began to creep up was right?

 

[NuntioBusiness]

There were others also in “Arabia”, even during Origens time:

"… Chapter XXXVII.— The Dissension of the Arabians. 2054

About the same time others arose in Arabia, putting forward a doctrine foreign to the truth. They said that during the present time the human soul dies and perishes with the body, but that at the time of the resurrection they will be renewed together . And at that time also a synod of considerable size assembled, and Origen , being again invited thither, spoke publicly on the question with such effect that the opinions of those who had formerly fallen were changed.

2054 The exact nature of the heresy which is here described by Eusebius is somewhat difficult to determine. It is disputed whether these heretics are to be reckoned with the θνητοπσυχίται (whom John of Damascus mentions in his de Hæres. c. 90, and to whom Augustine refers, under the name of Arabici, in his de Hæres, c. 83), that is, those who taught the death of the soul with the body, or with the ὑπνοψυχίται, who taught that the soul slept between the death and the resurrection of the body . Redepenning, in a very thorough discussion of the matter (II. 105 sq.), concludes that the heresy to which Eusebius refers grew up under Jewish influence, which was very strong in Arabia, and that it did not teach the death (as Eusebius asserts), but only the slumber of the soul. He reckons them therefore with the second, not the first, class mentioned . … In fact, there does not seem to be adequate ground for correcting Eusebius’ statement, which describes heretics who must distinctly be classed with the θνητοπσυχίται mentioned later by John of Damascus . We do not know the date at which the synod referred to in this chapter was held. We only know that it was subsequent to the one which dealt with Beryllus, and therefore it must have been toward the close of Philip’s reign. …"

• NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine by Schaff, Philip (1819-1893); Chapter XXXVII.— The Dissension of the Arabians. 2054 - Philip Schaff: NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

“… Eusebius758 mentions … Christians in Arabia who held that the soul remained unconscious from death to the resurrection . …” - Systematic Theology - Volume III by Hodge, Charles (1797-1878) § 2. The Sleep of the Soul. - Charles Hodge: Systematic Theology - Volume III - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

See also - https://research.avondale.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1125&context=theo_chapters

 

[BartholomewB]

@NuntioBusiness, are you a Seventh Day Adventist?

 

[JSRG]

Conditionalists & Annihilationists In ECF, Eastern & Syriac, Catholic, Protestant & Churches In General - What in the …

To get this started some examples.

Well let’s look through those examples. (note: “Conditionalism” and “annihilationism” are technically different but are similar enough insofar as implying that the wicked cease existence rather than experiencing perpetual punishment that I will simply use “annihilationism” to refer to both)

Irenaeus: The claim of Irenaeus being an annihilationist appears to rely on that one specific passage of Against Heresies. While it does, reading it in the abstract, imply annihilationism, I’d still say it isn’t completely clear on that point. However, even if it is, we run into a problem that is specific to Against Heresies.

This passage, and indeed much of Against Heresies, survives only in a Latin translation. This would not necessarily be a problem in and of itself, except for the fact that, as is stated in a forward to an English translation of Against Heresies, it isn’t even a good Latin translation:

“Irenaeus, even in the original Greek, is often a very obscure writer. At times he expresses himself with remarkable clearness and terseness; but, upon the whole, his style is very involved and prolix. And the Latin version adds to these difficulties of the original, by being itself of the most barbarous character. In fact, it is often necessary to make a conjectural re-translation of it into Greek, in order to obtain some inkling of what the author wrote. Dodwell supposes this Latin version to have been made about the end of the fourth century; but as Tertullian seems to have used it, we must rather place it in the beginning of the third. Its author is unknown, but he was certainly little qualified for his task. We have endeavoured to give as close and accurate a translation of the work as possible, but there are not a few passages in which a guess can only be made as to the probable meaning.”

So essentially, arguing that the quote in question proves Irenaeus subscribed to annihilationism appears to rely entirely on a not entirely clear passage that’s taken from a subpar Latin translation of the original. In my view, this cannot be considered particularly effective proof.

I also found this page that, while not mentioning the translation issue, says that to appeal to this as proof of Irenaeus being an annihilationist is misunderstanding it:
http://www.biblicaltrinitarian.com/2018/09/irenaeus-vs-annihilationists.html

I’m not endorsing that article necessarily; just posting it as a counterview (though its points do seem to apply to some of the other writings cited in this topic). But even without that consideration, attempting to cite a single passage as proof positive of Irenaeus accepting annihilationism is rather dubious when one considers the earlier mentioned problems.

 

[JSRG]

(cont.)

Justin Martyr: Look at the quotes offered from Justin. “Those who have appeared worthy of God die no more, but others are punished as long as God wills them to exist and be punished.” “The soul is not in its own nature immortal.” You may notice that while these imply the possibility of annihilationism, they still do not confirm it. After all, “as long as God wills them to exist and be punished” could still mean “permanently” if God never stops willing them to exist, and “the soul is not in its own nature immortal” does not mean that all souls be made immortal by the will of God. At best this can be seen as raising the possibility of annihilationism, but is not expressing belief in it.

Clementine Homilies: Even if this does indicate annihilationism, the Homilies are spurious and of questionable orthodoxy.

Arnobius: Given that Arnobius says “souls which know now God shall be confused in long-protracted torment with raging fire” it seems a stretch to say this is annihilationism. Yes, it says “annihilated” and “annihilation” but right after the usage of “annihilation” it clarifies it by saying “this, I say, is man’s real death, when souls which know not God shall be consumed in long-protracted torment with raging fire” thereby indicating that he does not have what one would now consider annihilationism in mind.

Polycrates: What does this one even have to do with annihilationism at all? The simple fact it says “fell asleep”? That’s just a term for someone dying.

Aphrahat: This is soul sleep, not annihilationism. “Soul sleep” is simply the idea that after death, one stays dead (sleeping) prior to the final resurrection, at which point people are, well, resurrected. This can mean annihilationism if only the righteous are raised, but if everyone is raised (some to glory, some to punishment) then it is not annihilationism at all. And indeed, that appears to be what Aphrahat is saying. Several quotes are cited from the article that is analyzing his beliefs on it, and let’s look at the third one provided:

“Following this passage, Aphrahat re-emphasized the point that, although the sleep of death may or may not be pleasant, human beings are not conscious during the period of death before the resurrection.Aphrahat argued that when the resurrection takes place, theܪܘܚܐ ܢܦܫܢܝܬܐwillbe raised along with the body and, at least for the righteous, will be transformed…”"

However, let’s continue just past the part that was cut off:

“at least for the righteous, will be transformed with the body into its “spiritual” state: “The ܪܘܚܐ ܢܦܫܢܝܬܐ will be swallowed up in the heavenly Spirit and the whole person will become spiritual since the body is in the spirit.”31 Those who are not righteous, however, will )ܢܦܫܢܝܬܐ( ”not be changed; instead, they remain in their “natural condition.32 When the transformed righteous ones are taken away to heaven, the unrighteous, who are not transformed, remain on Earth and descend to Sheol.”

This is quite at odds with annihilationism! They clearly continue to exist. Aphrahat therefore, while expressing belief in so-called “soul sleep” does not appear to be endorsing annihilationism.

 

[JSRG]

One additional point:

BartholomewB:

Are you asking a question? If so, what is it, very briefly and in your own words?

Did you know about this? That nearly 2/3’s to all the ECF, Syriac, Eastern & others were conditionalists and/or annihilationist?

Even Catholics and Protestants cited John XXII:

“… But in another instance, as Protestants never tired in pointing out, mortalism had been championed by no less an authority than Pope John XXII (1249-1334) . …” - Psychopannychism in Renaissance Europe by C. A. Patrides, page 229 - https://www.jstor.org/stable/417342…EGUOtw857nsJ&seq=3#metadata_info_tab_contents

Exactly where this declaration of “nearly 2/3” comes from is unclear, but the invocation of Pope John XXII on this subject is in error. John XXII’s suggestion–which he later backed down from–was that the righteous do not experience the “beatific vision” immediately after death, but only after the final resurrection. This could be considered similar to the “soul sleep” doctrine discussed previously, but is a far cry from annihilationism.

 

[NuntioBusiness]

John XXII’s suggestion–which he later backed down from–was that the righteous do not experience the “beatific vision” immediately after death, but only after the final resurrection. This could be considered similar to the “soul sleep” doctrine discussed previously, but is a far cry from annihilationism.

I think you have overstated what I shared about John XXII, and have presented my position about him incorrectly. Please re-read my citation carefully.

Also, if you believe that ‘death-bed confession’ story, well, that is your prerogative. I for one, do not buy that at all (its not the nature of men to do so), especially with the force of the following papal decree against what John XXII taught which came immediately after.

“… For Pope John XII. made himself very obnoxious by reviving, as it is said by Dupin, the opinion of the ancient Fathers, that the souls of good men do not enjoy the beatific vision till the day of judgment. He was very strenuous in asserting and preaching this doctrine, contrary to the judgment of the divines at Paris, who the king of France assembled for that purpose.…” - Disquisitions Relating To Matter And Spirit: To Which Is Added The History Of The Philosophical Doctrine Concerning The Origin Of The Soul, And The Nature Of Matter; With It Influence On Christianity, Especially With Respect To The Doctrine Of The Preexistence Of Christ, By Joseph Priestly, LL.D. F.R.S., Vol. I., The Second Edition, Improved And Enlarged, Birmingham, Printed By Pearson And Rollason, For J, Johnson, No. 72, St. Paul’s Church-Yard, LONDON, MDCCLXXXII (1782)., page 275 - Disquisitions Relating to Matter and Spirit: To which is Added the History ... - Joseph Priestley - Google Books