III. Arabian Believers in Soul’s Death and Resurrection

As shown elsewhere by the latter half of the third century the doctrine of the Innate Immortality of the soul had now become widely received by many professing Christians. And, proportionately, the primitive doctrine of the basic mortality of man and the sleep of the dead was being increasingly abandoned. Nevertheless, there were those who persisted in holding to the earlier faith, though, according to Eusebius, they were now counted as heretical. One such group was down in Arabia, and illustrates the other side of the picture. This is the clear record of EUSEBIUS (C. A.D. 260-340), ^{2424) EUSEBIUS PAMPHILI (c. 260-340), of vast learning, was a teacher in the theological school in Caesarea. He used the great library of his teacher, Pamphilius, for the sources for his famous church history As bishop of Caesarea he occupied a prominent place in the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325). He was seated at the right of Emperor Constantine, and made the opening address. He was the leader of the moderate party in the controversy over Arianism. However, he believed in Innate Immortality, and in ultimate restorationism for all the wicked.} bishop of Caesarea, and “father of church history.” He himself was an Immortal-Soulist and Restorationist—following Origen—hence his castigation of others as holders of “false opinions.”CFF1 909.2

“About the same time [latter part of third century] 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.” ^{2525) Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 6 chap. 37, in NPNF, 2nd series, vo, 1, 279. Cf. Mosheim, Historical Commentaries on the State of Christianity (vi dal tr,), vol., pp. 242, 243.}CFF1 910.1

Four points are to be noted: (1) The group in Arabia denied the life and consciousness of the dead between death and the resurrection. (2) Both soul and body live again at the resurrection. (3) Believers in this unconsciousness-in-death doctrine were still sufficiently numerous to require a considerable council to repress them. (4) Origen was “again” requested to discuss the soul question in this council—indicating that at least once previously he had been called upon to defend this new doctrine of the immortality of the soul, for it was chiefly through Origen and Tertullian that this teaching came to be established in the church.CFF1 910.2

1. CONDITIONAL IMMORTALITY “NO NEW DOCTRINE.”

Dr. Johann Neander, of Heidelberg and Berlin, likewise refers to this Arabian group. He states that this older teaching—and the fact that immortality is not based upon the “nature of the soul,” but is a “gift” from God—was the Hebrew teaching of the Old Testament, “transferred from Judaism to Christianity” and “predominant” from “ancient times.” He says:CFF1 910.3

“We may here mention another instance of this kind, that a controversy had been excited by a party among the Arabian Christians, who asserted, that the human soul died with the body and that it was to be revived only with the body at the resurrection,—an ancient Jewish notion. Perhaps, too, in these districts, whose situation brought them into frequent contact with the Jews, it was no new doctrine, but one which had prevailed there from ancient times.” ^{2626) Johann A. W. Neander, Church History, vol. 1, p. 710.}CFF1 910.4

2. ORIGEN ESTABLISHED “IMMORTAL-SOULISM” IN ALEXANDRIA

Neander ^{2727) The noted German church historian Dr. Johann A. W. Neander (1777-1850) was a converted Jew and hence well qualified to state the original Jewish doctrine on immortality. He was professor of theology at Heidelberg and of church history at Berlin. As to his competency, his General History of the Christian Religion and Church earned for him the title Prince of Church Historians.} frankly states the historical fact that it was Origen who “first” fastened this “doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul” upon the church at Alexandria, which later obtained “universal acceptance.” Meanwhile the Arabian Christians, who had “maintained the old opinion,” now appeared “heretical,” though the “old,” formerly predominant opinion, had “previously” “pronounced itself against” “the new opinion.” That was why a “great synod” was necessary, and Origen’s presence requested to quiet the controversy.CFF1 911.1

“Perhaps it was first brought about through the influence of Origen,—in whose system the doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul, which is related to God, held an important place,—that this latter doctrine now became here the more general one, and the small party who still adhered to the old opinion, appeared to be heretical; if the case really was, that the prevailing voice had expressed itself thus early against them. Hence it is explained, how the convention of a great synod came to be thought necessary for the purpose of settling disputes. As they could not come to an agreement, Origen was sent for; and it was brought about by his influence, that the opponents of the soul’s natural immortality confessed and renounced their error.” ^{2828) Neander, op. cit., p. 444.}CFF1 911.2

So it was that this lay Christian group in Arabia held fast to the ancient doctrine of the sleep of the dead, and denied the new inherent-immortality-of-the-soul postulate. Not until this intensive effort by Origen, in the middle of the third century, were they weaned away from it. Thus the controversy continued in different parts of the empire.CFF1 911.3