The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Athanasian Creed

Perhaps part of the answer is how you look at the word “coming.”

As a pre-millennialist, I believe the dead in Christ will be clothed with their glorified bodies when Christ visably comes to the earth, and I believe the rest of the dead will be clothed with bodies suited to judgement after He’s been invisably present as judge of the living for a thousand years.

(I say “invisably” because I don’t believe that He and the glorified saints will be visably present to everyone on earth the whole time He’s here.)

Whether there’s an intermediate state or not, He doesn’t necessarly appear to the rest of the dead untill He come as their judge (at the Great White Throne Judgment.)

In that sense “all men” do rise, and they all rise at His coming (whenever it is that He happens to come for them.)

On reflection it seems to me that it’s possible to hold that view, and receive the creeds as condensed and simplified summaries of the Christian faith (which is the sense in which I believe they’ve always been received.)

BTW: I’m basically trying to think this out myself, and I’m wondering if that makes any sense to anyone here?

P.S. I just had a conversation with a knowledgeable fellow Anglican, and I think it’s safe to say that we don’t view anything in the Athanasian Creed as precluding any particular view of the millennium.

It’s also probably safe to say (with Thomas Allin) that when the creeds use terms from scripture (such as aionian or aeternum) we believe they’re to be understood in the sense they have in scripture.

I realize that I may be the only one interested in this topic, but I feel I should post this for the record here.

Canon F.W. Farrar (of the Church of England) said the following (in the 19th century):

They (Origen and Gregory of Nyssa) believed and said that punishment was “aionian,” they did not believe believe it to be “endless.” Even the Latin Fathers who had risen to a competent knowledge of Greek and had not become quite stereotyped in prejudice were aware that there was no real force in such a position (as advanced by Augustine.) They were also aware that aeternus was used in just the same lose way–for “an indefinite period”–in Latin writers, as aionios was in Greek. (pages 389-390.)

In addition to this, I’ve seen many Anglican sources (not just Thomas Allin, but others who may or may not have believed in the wider hope) say that when creeds use scriptural phrases, they can mean no more than they mean in scripture.

I think it’s therefore safe to say that a Christian Universalist can accept the 3 creeds in the sense they have always had in the historic Church, providing allowance is made for some recognized ambiguity in “aionian” and “aeternum” (as used in scripture, and the Athanasian Creed.)

Blessings to all (and thanks for helping me think this through here.)

It would be nice if we had the actual evidence (vs. simply a second hand conviction of Farrar) of the use of aionios by
Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and the Latin Fathers. Maybe someone can really do the legwork of compiling actual quotes from the various writings of the above. I don’t believe it till I see it in these cases!

Canon F.W. Farrar (of the Church of England) said the following (in the 19th century):

They (Origen and Gregory of Nyssa) believed and said that punishment was “aionian,” they did not believe believe it to be “endless.” Even the Latin Fathers who had risen to a competent knowledge of Greek and had not become quite stereotyped in prejudice were aware that there was no real force in such a position (as advanced by Augustine.) They were also aware that aeternus was used in just the same lose way–for “an indefinite period”–in Latin writers, as aionios was in Greek. (pages 389-390.)

I see I did the late Canon Farrar a disservice (by neglecting to quote the title of his book), so let me first correct that oversight.

The citation should read (“Mercy and Judgment”, pages 189-190.)

The following quotes are from Saint Gregory of Nyssa (and note the last, where he speaks of an “aionian interval.”)

We certainly believe, both because of the prevailing opinion, and still more of Scripture teaching, that there exists another world of beings besides, divested of such bodies as ours are, who are opposed to that which is good and are capable of hurting the lives of men, having by an act of will lapsed from the nobler view, and by this revolt from goodness personified in themselves the contrary principle; and this world is what, some say, the Apostle adds to the number of the “things under the earth,” signifying in that passage that when evil shall have been some day annihilated in the long revolutions of the ages, nothing shall be left outside the world of goodness, but that even from those evil spirits shall rise in harmony the confession of Christ’s Lordship.

(On the Soul and the Resurrection)

For it is now as with those who for their cure are subjected to the knife and the cautery; they are angry with the doctors, and wince with the pain of the incision; but if recovery of health be the result of this treatment, and the pain of the cautery passes away, they will feel grateful to those who have wrought this cure upon them. In like manner, when, after long periods of time, the evil of our nature, which now is mixed up with it and has grown with its growth, has been expelled, and when there has been a restoration of those who are now lying in sin to their primal state, a harmony of thanksgiving will arise from all creation, as well from those who in the process of the purgation have suffered chastisement, as from those who needed not any purgation at all. These and the like benefits the great mystery of the Divine incarnation bestows. For in those points in which He was mingled with humanity, passing as He did through all the accidents proper to human nature, such as birth, rearing, growing up, and advancing even to the taste of death, He accomplished all the results before mentioned, freeing both man from evil, and healing even the introducer of evil himself. For the chastisement, however painful, of moral disease is a healing of its weakness.

(The Great Catechism, ch. XXVI)

…agony will be measured by the amount of evil there is in each individual. For it would not be reasonable to think that the man who has remained so long as we have supposed in evil known to be forbidden, and the man who has fallen only into moderate sins, should be tortured to the same amount in the judgment upon their vicious habit; but according to the quantity of material will be the longer or shorter time that that agonizing flame will be burning; that is, as long as there is fuel to feed it. In the case of the man who has acquired a heavy weight of material, the consuming fire must necessarily be very searching; but where that which the fire has to feed upon has spread less far, there the penetrating fierceness of the punishment is mitigated, so far as the subject itself, in the amount of its evil, is diminished. In any and every case evil must be removed out of existence, so that, as we said above, the absolutely non-existent should cease to be at all. Since it is not in its nature that evil should exist outside the will, does it not follow that when it shall be that every will rests in God, evil will be reduced to complete annihilation, owing to no receptacle being left for it? But, said I, what help can one find in this devout hope, when one considers the greatness of the evil in undergoing torture even for a single year; and if that intolerable anguish be prolonged for an aionian interval, what grain of comfort is left from any subsequent expectation to him whose purgation is thus commensurate with an entire age?

(On the Soul and the Resurrection)

As for the Latin Fathers, Jerome translated Micah 4:5 (in the Latin Vulgate) as follows:

quia omnes populi ambulabunt unusquisque in nomine dei sui nos autem ambulabimus in nomine Domini Dei nostri in aeternum et ultra (i.e. aeternum and “further”, or “beyond”.)

"As for the Latin Fathers, Jerome translated Micah 4:5 (in the Latin Vulgate) as follows:

quia omnes populi ambulabunt unusquisque in nomine dei sui nos autem ambulabimus in nomine Domini Dei nostri in aeternum et ultra (i.e. aeternum and “further”, or “beyond”.)"

But couldn’t “further” or “beyond” be non literal? A figure of speech?

Beyond eternity?

Further than forever?

What would such a figure of speech signify?

A powerful way of accentuation and exaggeration. I’ll try to think of an similar figure of speech.
How about this one: “forever and a day”? “She took forever to write the paper”; “we had to wait forever and a day”,
or he wants it done yesterday.

Forever and a day could be a poetic way of saying forever, but not when used in the sentence “we had to wait forever and a day.”

If the wait is over, it wasn’t forever (so it’s a poetic way of simply saying it was a long time.)

So your figure of speech can mean “forever,” or “a long time.”

Do translators normally try to be poetic when translating phrases from one language to another, or do they normally aim for something a little more precise?

I wont argue the point, but literally speaking, forever and further makes no sense.

On the other hand–if aeternum had reference to an age (ages, or a period of indefinite duration) it would make perfect sense to say that Israel would walk in the name of God aeternum and beyond.

And the translator himself made some interesting comments:

…those who maintain that punishment will one day come to an end, and that torments have a limit, though after long periods, use as proofs the following testimonies of Scripture:–‘When the fullness of the Gentiles shall have come in, then all Israel shall be saved;’ and again, ‘God hath concluded all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all;’ and again, ‘I will praise thee, O Lord, for Thou wast angry with me; Thou hadst turned thy face from me; but Thou hast comforted me.’ The Lord Himself also says to the sinner, ‘When the fierceness of my wrath hath passed, I will heal him.’ And this is what is said in another place:–‘Oh, how great is thy goodness, which Thou hast laid up for them that fear Thee.’ All which testimonies of Scripture they urge in reply against us, while they earnestly assert that after certain sufferings and torments there will be restoration. All which nevertheless they allow should not now be openly told to those with whom fear yet acts as a motive, and who may be kept from sinning by the terror of punishment. But this question we ought to leave to the wisdom of God alone, whose judgments as well as mercies are by weight and measure, and who well knows whom, and how, and how long, He ought to judge. (St. Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah.)

He doesn’t say aeternum means without end, and scripture says those on Christ’s left hand will go off into “supplicium aeternum” (as if that settled the matter once and for all.)

He says “this question we ought to leave to the wisdom of God alone, whose judgments as well as mercies are by weight and measure, and who well knows whom, and how, and how long, He ought to judge.”

It seems to me that he could have expressed himself much more strongly than that, if he knew that the only meaning aeternum could have was one of endless duration.

That’s a good point, Mike. He didn’t appeal to what he considered a knock down argument (by referring to Mt 24).
How do you go about these studies? Do you have the Church Fathers on disc or something?

I wish I did.

I usually just google key words that I think might be fruitful, use the “search within results” option until I find something that looks interesting, and send myself emails (if I don’t have the time to really get into what I find immediately, which I usually don’t.)

Thank’s Roofus.

You might find these entries from Samuel Johnson’s 1755 dictionary of the English Language interesting.

Evite’rnal. a. [aviternus. Latin.] Eternal in a limited fenfe; of duration not infinitely, but indefinitely long.
Evite’rnity. f. [aviternitus. Low Latin] Duration not infinitely, but indefinitely long.

P.S. Crosswalk has (or had) a searchable online Patristc library that I had bookmarked at one time (back when I had a working computer at home.)

Ive seen this footnote quoted many times, but have never been able to verify the citation.
**
From what I just stumbled on, it seems to be from the 1972 Loeb Classical Library edition of Augustine’s “City of God” (Footnote 1, book 22, part 1; page 173.)

1 The words “eternal” and “eternity,” from Latin aeternus, aeternitas, are related to aevum, which means both “unending time” and “a period of time”; for the second meaning the commoner word is aetas. Augustine seeks to make it clear that the “eternal” happiness of the saints is unending happiness, that is, an unending immortality for each individual.

The comment is on this part of Augustine’s text:
**
The term “eternal,” as applied here**, does not refer to a long period of time lasting through many ages, but still at some time bound to end. 1

(City of God, book 22, part 1; page 173)

In other words, Augustine argued from context because he recognized that aeternum didn’t necessarily denote endless duration.

BTW: Augustine’s contextual argument was that we’d have no scriptural promise of everlasting life if aionian/aeternum didn’t mean unending–and I think that argument is clearly fallacious for the following reason.

I see unending life and happiness promised clearly enough in passages that don’t use aionian/aeternum (passages like Luke 20:35-36; John 16:22; 1 Cor. 2:9; and 1 Cor. 15:26,42,48,54)

Here are the words of of a 19th century Anglican laywoman who hoped for eternal life, and must have taken aionian/aeternum in much the way we do.

…there lives within my heart
A hope long nursed by me,
(And should its cheering ray depart
How dark my soul would be)

That as in Adam all have died
In Christ shall all men live
And ever round his throne abide
Eternal praise to give;

That even the wicked shall at last
Be fitted for the skies
And when their dreadful doom is past
To life and light arise.

I ask not how remote the day
Nor what the sinner’s woe

Before their dross is purged away,
Enough for me to know

That when the cup of wrath is drained,
The metal purified,
They’ll cling to what they once disdained,
And live by Him that died
.

(A WORD TO THE CALVINISTS, by Ann Bronte.)

She’s buried in ST Mary’s Parish Church, Scarborough England.

flickr.com/photos/stowegarth/3366310012/**

P.S. My interest in the Athanasian Creed is largely due to the wording of the following statement ( from the affirmation of St. Louis, which is one of the founding documents of my denomination. )

Though I have no real problem with the Athanasian Creed itself, I must confess to having had some real reservations about the Affirmation of St. Louis ( because of the Athanasian Creed’s damnatory clauses, the conotations sometimes associated with aeternum, and the words “in the sense they have had always in the Catholic Church.” )

How can I accept this statement?

First, the damnatory clauses are capable of a universalist interpretation.

This was pointed out by a 19th century Anglican Universalist in these words:

Universalism Asserted, by Rev. Thomas Allin.

( And since this point is important, here’s a quote to the same effect from a non-universalist Anglican source. )

The Three Creeds, By Edgar Charles Sumner Gibson.

Secondly, even in the 7th century ( and the Athanasian Creed probably goes back at least as far as the 5th century ), the meaning of scriptural terms like aionian and aeternum retained enough ambiguity for St. Isaac the Syrian ( Bishop of Ninevah ) to teach Universal Reconciliation

Universal Salvation.

As St. Isaac died in communion with Contantinople and Rome, is regarded as a Saint in the East, and would have to be recognized as “Catholic” by traditional Anglicans–I would argue that the sense the Athanasian Creed has always had in the Catholic Church leaves room for a universalist interpretation of the damnatory clauses.

And even if some in my denomination might disagree with me, I believe my view is entirely consistent with traditional Anglicanism ( and even with the Affirmation of St. Louis. )

Incidentally, Ignatius publishes a really nice “Faith Database” for Windows systems (and supposedly for the Mac, although mine was backordered and has never come in!) It doesn’t have many of the Fathers after the split, of course, but for our purposes it’s still pretty good: 88 Council Docs from all 21 Ecumenical Councils; 400 early Church writings; 165 writings from Doctors of the Church; 1300 Papal writings/encyclicals. Plus 10 Bible Translations (approved by the RCC I suppose.)

(Also 74 books from John Henry Newman, 112 books(!!!) from G. K. Chesterton–I didn’t know he had written that many–over 100 maps, 1000 art images, and a good selection of RCC literature.)

I wish my Mac version would come in; I’d like to research some things for posting here on EU. I could use the Win version at home, but most of my research material is here at the office.

I will add that my problem with the framework statements of the AthCreed isn’t whether they can be interpreted according to leeway about aeturnus etc., but because the language is blatantly gnostic and thus technically heretical in comparison with the material it surrounds.

(We’re discussing that contention over here every once in a while when I get around to it… :laughing: )

Only given a certain interpretation of those framework statements ( i.e. that individuals will be punished “for being logically inept and/or for having accidentally gotten some data incorrect.” )

I’ve rarely ( if ever ) seen the damnatory clauses interpreted in that way.

I tried to reproduce the Old English “s” the way it appears in the online google text I cited, but that really should be “Eternal in a limmited sense; of duration not infinitely, but indefinitely long.”

Also, now that I finally have a working home computer again, I can bookmark ( and I don’t have to send myself those emails anymorre. )

One of the reasons I started this thread is that there are critics of UR who conceed that aeternum originally meant indefinite duration, but argue that the only meaning it had in the 6th century A. D. (when the Athanasian Creed was received by the Church) was that of endless duration.

I didn’t have access to the Latin text when I posted on this earlier, but I believe a quote from Isidore of Seville (western bishop–who presided at the local synod of Toledo, and who wrote the first encyclopedia) refutes that argument.

In the 7th century (Etymologies, Book 5, Chapter 38, section 4) he defined aeternum as follows:

Nam aevum est aetas perpetua, cuius neque initium neque extremum noscitur, quod Graeci vocant αἰῶνας; quod aliquando apud eos pro saeculo, aliquando pro aeterno ponitur. Unde et apud Latinos est derivatum.

penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/R … re/5*.html

Translation:

The eon, avum, is an uniterrupted age, whose beginning and end is unknown. The Greeks call them aions, eons, a term they sometimes use for saeculum, sometimes for aeternum; Whence the Latins derrived it.

Which personally brings me back to a quote fron a fellow Anglican named Thomas Allin:

Whatever we may think of the Athanasian Creed - its want of conciliar authority - its comparatively late date - its uncertain origin - its doubtful acceptance in the East - when it speaks of “everlasting,” that term can mean no more than the Scriptural aionios, which it represents: and as it is clear that everlasting is not the necessary or even the usual meaning of aionios, this Creed is really quite consistent with the larger hope.

I wonder if the crafters of all these various and sundry creeds gave a thought to the biblical injunction against swearing (giving oath) by anything. (Including, presumably, creeds such as these)

Mat 5:34 Yet I am saying to you absolutely not to swear, neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God,
Mat 5:35 nor by the earth, for it is a footstool for His feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King;
Mat 5:36 nor by your head should you be swearing, for you are not able to make one hair white or black.
Mat 5:37 Yet let your word be ‘Yes, Yes,’ ‘No, No.’ Now what is in excess of these is of the wicked one. :blush: