Picture 1:BishopAnders Nygren, Dr. James S. Tewart, Bishop John Cullberg
Left: Bishop Anders Nygren, of Lund, Sweden—innate immortality not Christian. Center: Dr. James S. Stewart, professor at Edinburgh University—fallacy of surviving disembodied spirits. Right: Bishop John Cullberg, of Vasteras, Sweden—soul as mortal.
Page 783CFF2 783

1. PLATONISM AND CHRISTIANITY IN BATTLE AND COMPROMISE

Bishop Nygren first contrasts the Platonic “Eros” with the New Testament “Agape,” and then traces their “life-and-death struggle,” and final “settlement by compromise” in the Christian Church. They belong, lie says, to “two entirely separate spiritual worlds.” ^{33) Anders Nygi en, Agape and Eros (tr. by Philip S Watson. Published 1953 The Westminster Press Used by permission), pp 30, 31} Then comes this important statement on the “Eros” penetration into Christianity:CFF2 783.1

“At a later stage Christianity received through Platonism (or Neoplatonism) what we might call an official contribution from the Eros motif. When Platonism found its way into Christianity, or-to put it another way-when Christianity tried to express itself in Platonic terms, the Agape motif inev itably underwent a transformation.” ^{44) Ibid., p. 54}CFF2 783.2

That was the great compromise.CFF2 783.3

2. ORPHIC “SOUL,” BODY-PRISON, AND “LIBERATION.”

Turning next to the Greek “Orphic doctrine of salvation”the “way of purification,” with its “goal” as the “final reunion of the soul with the Divine and its absorption into it” ^{55) Ibid., p. 164.}—Nygren says concerning the Greek dualism:CFF2 784.1

“This conception of the double nature of man, of the Divine origin and quality of the soul, its liberation from the things of sense, and its ascent to its original Divine home, is the common basis on which every theory of Eros rests.” ^{66) Ibid.}CFF2 784.2

This includes the widespread “conception of the body as the prison-house of the soul, the idea of the transmigration of souls, belief in the soul’s natural immortality.” ^{77) Ibid. (Italics supplied.)} This divine spark, this “fragment”—man’s “essential being”—is to be retrieved, and returned to its “heavenly home.” According to Greek philosophyCFF2 784.3

“the soul is a pearl which has sunk into the darkness at the bottom of the sea. It is this immortal, divine, essential being of man that the Mysteries seek to redeem. These scattered Divine sparks are to be led back and absorbed into the primal Divine fire. Man is the offspring of God; the rational part of his nature is a fragment of the Divine cosmic reason. What he needs, therefore, is to be made aware of the degradation of his present state, put off the earthly trappings that prevent his true nature from coming to light, and being thus purified ascend to his heavenly home.” ^{88) Ibid., p. 165.}CFF2 784.4

According to such, “the human soul is fundamentally a Divine being.” ^{99) Ibid.} That is the Greek Eros concept.CFF2 784.5

3. “EROS”—INNATE IMMORTALITY; “AGAPE”—RESURRECTION

Discussing next the “Platonic dualism” and its notion of the “pre-existent state of the soul,” Nygren dwells on the conflicting “two sets of ideas” that are “connected with the Eros motif and the Agape motif.” ^{1010) Ibid., pp. 169, 172, 224.} They are, in reality, fundamentally opposite, though often confused. Note carefully that innate “immortality” is the essence of the Platonic concept of the soul:CFF2 784.6

“When Plato speaks of the soul, the thought of the immortality of the soul is always present. Immortality is a natural endowment of the soul, which bespeaks its Divine origin. All that is required is that the soul should purify itself and set itself free from its bondage to sense in order to return to its Divine origin. The Divine life of immortality is its normal condition.” ^{1111) Ibid., p. 224. (Italics supplied.)}CFF2 784.7

Next note the vital Agape “resurrection” contrast:CFF2 785.1

“This idea of the natural immortality of the soul is completely foreign to the Agape motif. Instead, we find a belief in the resurrection of the dead. In the course of history these two-belief in the immortality of the soul and belief in the resurrection of the dead-have constantly been blended together; yet in fact they belong to two opposite religious and ethical worlds.” ^{1212) Ibid.}CFF2 785.2

The contrast is impressive. “Eternal Life” is not based on any human “endowment,” but on the “act of God“:
“Wherever the natural immortality of the soul becomes the fundamental religious dogma, we can be fairly certain that we are within the sphere of Eros. But where the Agape motif is dominant, it regularly expresses itself in belief in the resurrection of the dead. I f participation in the eternal life of God is possible far man, the possibility is not based on any natural quality or endowment of man, but simply and solely on a mighty act of God. just as it is God who makes the sinner righteous, so it is God who makes the dead to live.” ^{1313) Ibid. (Italics supp lied.)}CFF2 785.3

Then Nygren remarks that man is an “entirety“:
“Resurrection is the sign-manual of the Divine Agape. It has nothing to do with the contrast between soul and body, as if one part of man’s being were by nature divine and immortal while the other was impure and perishable. Death is the judgment of God upon human life in its entirety, and resurrection is the renewal of human life, likewise in its entirety, by God’s love.” ^{1414) Ibid., pp. 224, 225.}CFF2 785.4

That is the heart of the Nygren contention.CFF2 785.5

4. INNATE IMMORTALITY CONCEPT HELD “NOT CHRISTIAN.”

The basic destination and provision of the Christian goal is the “resurrection.” This principle is emphasized by Tatian and Justin. Innate Immortality and resurrection are opposites. Nygren’s historical build-up is not only impressive but soundly accurate:CFF2 785.6

“The ancient Church differs most of all from Hellenism in its belief in Resurrection. Christian tradition affirmed the ‘Resurrection of the flesh,’ which the Apologists opposed to the Hellenistic doctrine of the ‘Immortality of the soul.’ The antithesis was conscious and intentional, for at no point so much as this was their opposition to the Hellenistic spirit felt by the early Christians. The Platonic, Hellenistic doctrine of the Immortality of the soul seemed to the Apologists a godless and blasphemous doctrine, which above all they must attack and destroy. Their motto in this regard might well be Tatian’s word: ‘Not immortal, O Greeks, is the soul in itself, but mortal. Yet it is possible for it not to die.”CFF2 785.7

“The difference between Christian and non-Christian in this matter was so great that belief in the ‘Resurrection of the flesh’ could become a shibboleth. One who believes in the ‘Immortality of the soul’ shows thereby that he is not a Christian. As Justin says: ‘If you have fallen in with some who are called Christians... and who say that there is no resurrection of the dead, but that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians.’” ^{1515) Ibid., pp. 280, 281. Nygren gives the precise documentation for all quotations.}CFF2 786.1

Moreover, Greek innatism is a “blasphemous” assault on “God’s divinity”CFF2 786.2

“In the Platonic, Hellenistic view, immortality is a native possession of the human soul. But such a doctrine, from the Christian point of view, is in line with the Fall; it is man’s attempt to make himself like God, to make himself God; it is an assault on God’s divinity. Instead of taking eternal life from God’s hand as a gift of his unmerited Agape, man insists that he possesses it in his own right in virtue of the divine nature of the soul. That is why the idea is godless and blasphemous.” ^{1616) Ibid., p. 281.}CFF2 786.3

Justin, on the contrary, insisted “God alone is eternal and incorruptible.” Life for man is ever and always a “gift“:
“The human soul lives, not because it is life, as God, but because it has life, because God imparts life to it. Life does not belong to the soul as it belongs to God. If man that dies does not remain in death, that can only be due to an act of the Divine will.” ^{1717) Ibid., p. 282.1}CFF2 786.4

And Tatian held a similar view. But not all so believed. There was a growing division of view.CFF2 786.5

5. ORIGEN: BODY IS SPIRIT’S “PRISON-HOUSE.”

After noting again the “Hellenistic view” that “the body is the prison and tomb of the immortal, divine spirit,” ^{1818 Ibid., p. 284.} Nygren comes to Tertullian’s pronounced “Catholic Faith,” and his eternal retribution-suffering emphasis. Speaking of the Alexandrian “philosophical syncretism,” Nygren says: “The fusion of the Eros and Agape motifs, which had occurred personally in Clement of Alexandria, is systematically worked out by Origen.” ^{1919) Ibid., p. 368.}CFF2 786.6

This “Platonic philosopher,” Origen, “pours the content of the Christian faith into Greek moulds, but he produces a real religious synthesis.” ^{2020) Ibid., p. 369.}CFF2 787.1

Origen never deviated from Dualism. On this Nygren is emphatic. He cites Origen:
“Man has thus a dual nature: on the one hand, the fallen spirit, on the other, the body which is the spirit’s prisonhouse.” ^{2121) Ibid., p. 384.}CFF2 787.2

“It is indisputable that Origen holds the Hellenistic belief in the ‘Immortality of the soul.’” ^{2222) Ibid., p. 385.}CFF2 787.3

“Thus, in Origen, primitive Christian eschatology is replaced by a spiritualizing evolutionary process.” ^{2323) Ibid., p. 386.}CFF2 787.4

6. IRENAEUS REJECTS “NATURAL IMMORTALITY” CONCEPT

Turning, in contrast, to Irenaeus, Nygren stresses his fidelity to the primitive Agape faith. Life is not inherent in man. Such a view is a “rejection” of God:CFF2 787.5

“The heretics, following Hellenistic tradition, spoke of the ‘Immortality of the soul’ as something inseparable from its ‘nature’ or essence; but to Irenaeus this is vain conceit, ingratitude to God and rejection of Him—‘as if we had life from ourselves.’” ^{2424) Ibid., p. 404.}CFF2 787.6

In contradistinction to Greek “natural immortality” Irenaeus stoutly affirms:CFF2 787.7

“Our life, present and future alike, is absolutely dependent on the will of God. Our whole being therefore, spirit, soul, and body, possesses life because and for so long as God wills that we shall live; and when He sometime recalls us to life in the Resurrection, even then we shall live only because it is His will, and not by reason of any given necessity of our nature.” ^{2525) Ibid., p. 405.}CFF2 787.8

Thus Irenaeus “in the interests of the idea of Agape... combats the idea of ‘Natural Immortality.’” ^{2626) Ibid., p. 406.} Nygren’s considered conclusion is:CFF2 787.9

“When mortal and corruptible flesh becomes, in the Resurrection, immortal and incorruptible, obviously this transformation is not due to its own nature, but to the operation of the Lord, who can give the mortal immortality and the corruptible incorruptibility. If man’s body represents the very essence of mortality, it in particular is the object of the deed of Divine might, the Resurrection.” ^{2727) Ibid., pp. 407, 408.}CFF2 787.10

Such is the remarkable witness of Bishop Nygren of Sweden. It reminds one of the stalwart championship of Petavel of Switzerland, in 1890.CFF2 788.1

CHAPTER THIRTY-EIGHT: Swedish, English, Scottish, and American Voices Attest

II. Bristol’s Findlay-Conditionalism Both “Reasonable and Consistent”