Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents

The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2

 - Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    I. Milton the Outspoken Proponent of Conditionalism

    Milton was a prolific writer of prose as well, and engaged with zest in religious polemics and political controversy all through this time of re-evaluation of church and state. And he was a disputant in his own right. A man of high principles, he possessed a never-failing zeal for truth and freedom. As might be expected, with such a background he too was a stalwart Conditionalist.CFF2 152.3

    1. MAN A UNIT, NOT A COMPOUND

    This is forcefully presented in his A Treatise on Christian Doctrine, written originally in Latin. 33) J. Miltoni Angli de doctrina Christiana Libro duo posthumio. Charles R Sumner, the translator, was bishop of Winchester, and the English translation was published in 1825. The date of writing is unknown, except that it was in Milton’s maturity. In its composition his theological training and his knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, and Latin for footnote 3eferences were put to full use. He went straight to the heart of the issue when he wrote: “It may be inferred, unless we had rather take the heathen writers for our teachers respecting the nature of the soul, that man is a living being, intrinsically and properly one and individual not compounded or separable, not—according to the common opinion—made up and formed of two distinct and separate natures as of soul and body; but that the whole man is soul, and the soul man; that is to say, a body or substance, individual, animated, sensitive and rational; and that the breath of life was neither a part of the Divine essence, nor the soul itself, but as it were, the inspiration of some Divine virtue fitted for the exercise of life and reason, and infused into the organic body; for man himself, the whole man, when finally created, is called in express terms, ‘a living soul.’” 44) Milton, The Prose Works of John Milton, Vol. 4, p 188.CFF2 152.4

    2. DEATH OF BODY IS EXTINCTION OF LIFE

    Declaring that the grave is “the common guardian of all till the day of judgment,” and denying that the soul of, man is separate from the body, with independent and intelligent existence, he adds that such a view is “nowhere said in Scripture; and the doctrine is evidently at variance both with nature and reason.” In chapter thirteen, dealing with “Of the Death of the Body,” Milton states:CFF2 153.1

    “The death of the body is the loss or extinction of life. The common definition, which supposes it to consist in the separation of soul and body, is inadmissible. For what part of man is it that dies when this separation takes place? Is it the soul? This will not be admitted by the supporters of the above definition. Is it then the body? But how can that be said to die, which never had any life of itself? Therefore the separation of soul and body cannot be called the death of man.” 55) Ibid., p. 279.CFF2 153.2

    3. WHOLE MAN SUFFERS PRIVATION OF LIFE

    Appealing for a restudy of the soul question, Milton presents the problem and gives his own convictions, based on Scripture:
    “Here then arises an important question, which, owing to the prejudice of divines in behalf of their preconceived opinions, has usually been dismissed without examination, instead of being treated with the attention it deserves. Is it the whole man, or the body alone, that is deprived of vitality? And as this is a subject which may be discussed without endangering our faith or devotion, whichever side of the controversy we espouse, I shall declare freely what seems to me the true doctrine, as collected from numberless passages of Scripture; without regarding the opinion of those, who think that truth is to be sought in the schools of philosophy, rather than in the sacred writings.” 66) Ibid.
    CFF2 153.3

    4. SENTENCE OF DEATH EXECUTED UPON WHOLE MAN

    Continuing his line of reasoning, Milton insists that the “whole person” dies, and invokes the testimony of patriarch, prophet, and apostle in support:
    “Inasmuch then as the whole man is uniformly said to consist of body, spirit, and soul, (whatever may be the distinct provinces severally assigned to these divisions), I will show, that in death, first, the whole man, and secondly, each component part suffers privation of life. It is to be observed, first of all, that God denounced the punishment of death against the whole man that sinned, without excepting any part. For what could be more just, than that he who had sinned in his whole person, should die in his whole person? Or, on the other hand, what could be more absurd than that the mind, which is the part principally offending, should escape the threatened death; and that the body alone, to which immortality was equally allotted, before death came into the world by sin, should pay the penalty of sin by undergoing death, though not implicated in the transgression.
    CFF2 154.1

    “It is evident that the saints and believers of old, the patriarchs, prophets and apostles, without exception, held this doctrine.” 77) Ibid., p. 271. In support Milton cites Jacob (Genesis 37:35), Job (Job 3:12-18; Job 10:21; Job 14:10-13; Job 17:13, 15, 16), David (Psalm 6:5; Psalm 88:11-13; Psalm 39:13; Psalm 146:2), Peter (Acts 2:29, 34), Hezekiah (Isaiah 38:18, 19). Also Isaiah 57:1, 2; Jeremiah 31:15. Cf. Matthew 2:18; Daniel 12:2—with many additional texts from the New Testament, citing Christ, Paul, and Peter.CFF2 154.2

    5. CROWN OF RIGHTEOUSNESS NOT YET RECEIVED

    This contention he proceeds to support by many Old and New Testament texts. Here is just one example:
    1 Corinthians 15:17-19. ‘If Christ be not raised (which resurrection took place for the very purpose that mankind might likewise rise again) then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ, are perished;’ whence it appears that there were only two alternatives, one of which must ensue; either they must rise again, or perish: for ‘if in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable’; which again indicates that we must either believe in the resurrection or have our hope in this life only; v. 29, 30, ‘if the dead rise not at all, why stand we in jeopardy every hour?’ v. 32, ‘Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die;’ that is, die altogether, for otherwise the argument would have no force. In the verses which follow, from v. 42. to v. 50. the reasoning proceeds on the supposition that there are only two states, the mortal and the immortal, death and resurrection; not a word is said of any intermediate condition. Nay, Paul himself affirms that the crown of righteousness which was laid up for him was not to be received before that last day .... If a crown were laid up for the apostle, it follows that it was not to be received immediately after death. At what time then was it to be received? At the same time when it was to be conferred on the rest of the saints, that is, not till the appearance of Christ in glory.” 88) Ibid., pp. 272, 273.
    CFF2 154.3

    6. SOULS NOT IN HEAVEN DURING DEATH

    Eleven pages are devoted by Milton to proving from Job, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Peter, and Paul that in death the whole man—body and soul—sleeps unconsciously until the resurrection. Nine leading texts are cited and analyzed in support. Milton here categorically denies that at death the soul is “received immediately into heaven.” 99) Ibid., p. 272. The souls are in their graves, and “either they must rise again, or perish.” 1010) Ibid., p. 273. So, he concludes, “The soul ... is subject to death.” 1111) Ibid., p. 275. Then he adds:CFF2 155.1

    “Nor do we anywhere read that the souls assemble, or are summoned to judgment from heaven or from hell, but that they are all called out of the tomb, or at least that they were previously in the state of the dead.” 1212) Ibid., p. 278.CFF2 155.2

    7. SOUL OF LAZARUS NOT RECALLED FROM HEAVEN

    Speaking specifically of the Master’s calling of Lazarus from his “sleep,” Milton asks pointedly:
    “If the soul of Lazarus, that is, if Lazarus himself was not within the grave, why did Christ call on the lifeless body which could not hear? If it were the soul which he addressed, why did he call it from a place where it was not?” 1313) Ibid., p. 277.
    CFF2 155.3

    Milton held consistently to the absolute necessity of resurrection to obtain life immortal and the reward of the righteous at the second coming of Christ. And he repeats: “It is evident that the saints and believers of old, the patriarchs, prophets and apostles, without exception, held this doctrine.” 1414) Ibid., p. 271.CFF2 155.4

    8. NATURAL PROPAGATION, NOT SPECIAL CREATIONS

    Entering into the issues of the hour, Milton held that since the creation of Adam “the human soul is not created daily by the immediate act of God, but propagated from father to son in a natural order’’—as Tertullian, Apollinaris, Augustine, and Jerome held. He denied that God continues “to create as many souls daily as there are bodies multiplied throughout the whole world, at the bidding of what is not seldom the flagitious wantonness of man.” 1515) Ibid., pp. 189, 190.CFF2 155.5

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents