Washington D.C., Oct 30, 2017 / 04:36 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- One fated Halloween, 500 years ago, Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of Wittenberg Castle in a dramatic act of defiance against the Catholic Church.
Or, he may have just hung it on the doorknob. Or mailed out copies.
Or, if he did nail it, the act of the nailing itself would not have been all that significant, because the door may have been used as a bulletin board where everyone was nailing announcements.
And he probably wasn’t all that defiant; he likely had the attitude of a scholar trying to raise questions and concerns. At that point, Luther didn’t know how defiant he would eventually become, or that his act, and his subsequent theological work, would lead to one of the greatest disruptions of unity in the Church’s history.
“This was not a declaration of war against the Catholic Church, nor was it a break,” Dr. Alan Schreck with Franciscan University of Steubenville told CNA.
“It was a concerned, Augustinian monk and biblical scholar correcting an abuse, and it was really a call for a dialogue.”
However, it took fewer than five years for this call for dialogue to transform into schism, rejection of the authority of the Church’s tradition and bishops and most of the sacraments, and a growing number of Protestant communities, united only by their rejection of the Catholic Church.
While historians debate just how dramatic was the actual posting of the 95 theses, its anniversary is an occasion to look back at what the role of the most popular Protestant was in the movement that ultimately split Western Christendom in two.
Who was Martin Luther?
Martin Luther was born on November 10, 1483, the oldest son of Hans and Margarethe Luther. His father, a successful business and civic leader, had grand visions for his eldest son’s life and sent him to school with the hopes he would become a lawyer.
While Luther completed his bachelor’s and master’s degree according to his father’s plan, he dropped out of law school, finding himself increasingly drawn to the subjects of philosophy and theology.
Soon after leaving law school, Luther entered an Augustinian monastery, a decision he would later attribute to a vow he made during a precarious horseback ride, when he was nearly struck by lightning in the midst of a storm. Terrified that he was about to die, the 21-year-old Luther cried out to St. Anne, promising that he would become a monk if he survived. He felt it was a vow he could not break; his father felt it was a waste of his education.
By all accounts, Luther was a Catholic success story before he became the leading figure of the Reformation. He joined the monastery in 1505, and by 1507 he was ordained a priest. He became a renowned theologian and biblical scholar within the order, as well as a powerful and popular preacher and lecturer at the University of Wittenberg in Germany.
During his years of study and growing popularity, Luther began developing the groundwork of his theology on salvation and scripture that would ultimately become deal-breakers in his relationship with the Catholic Church.
The offense of selling indulgences
But it wasn’t strictly theological ideas that first drove Luther to the ranks of reformation ringleader – it was his critique of the practice of selling indulgences, the central subject of his 95 theses, that catapulted him into the limelight.
According to Catholic teaching, an indulgence is the remission of all or part of the temporal punishment due to sins which have already been forgiven, and can be applied either to the person performing the prescribed act or to a soul in Purgatory.
To obtain an indulgence, one must complete certain spiritual requirements, such as going to the sacraments of Confession and Communion, in addition to some other act or good work, such as making a pilgrimage or doing a work of mercy.
But even years before Martin Luther, abuses of indulgences were rampant in the Church.
Instead of prescribing an act of prayer or a work of mercy as a way to obtain an indulgence, clerics began also authorizing a “donation” to the Church as a good work needed to remit the temporal punishment due to sin.
Increasingly, people grew critical of the sale of indulgences, as they watched money gleaned from people’s afterlife anxiety go to fund the extravagant lives of some of the clergy. The money was also often used to buy clerical offices, the sin of simony.
During Martin Luther’s time, in northern Germany, the young and ambitious prince-Archbishop Albrecht of Brandenburg was offered the position of the Archbishop of Mainz, but was unwilling to relinquish any of his previously-held power.
Meanwhile in Rome, Pope Leo X was demanding a considerable fee from Albrecht for his new position, as well as from the people of his dioceses for the fund to build St. Peter’s Basilica. Albrecht took out a loan and promised Rome 50 percent of the funds extracted from – as critics would describe it – preying on people’s fear of Purgatory.
For the St. Peter’s fund, the Pope had employed Dominican friar Johann Tetzel to be the Grand Commissioner for Indulgences for the country of Germany.
According to historians, Tetzel liberally preached the indulgence, over-promising remission of sins, extending it to include even future sins one might commit, rather than sins that had already been repented of and confessed. He even allegedly coined the gimmicky indulgence phrase: “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings / the soul from Purgatory springs.”
It was Tetzel’s activities that ultimately pushed Luther to protest by publishing his 95 theses.
The 95 theses and the seeds of reform
“When he posted the 95 theses, he wasn’t a Lutheran yet,” said Michael Root, professor of systematic theology at The Catholic University of America.
“In some ways they get things rolling, but what’s important is what happens after the 95 theses when Luther gets pushed into a more radical position.”
Regardless of how dramatically they were posted to the door of Wittenberg Castle on October 31, 1517, Luther nailed not only his theses but the feelings of many faithful at the time who were also frustrated with the corruption and abuse they saw in the Church.
Christian humanists such as Erasmus and St. Thomas More were contemporaries of Luther who also objected to abuses within Church while not breaking from it.
Meanwhile, Luther’s already-established reputation as a respected professor, as well as access to the printing press, allowed his theses and ideas to spread at a rate previously unmatched by previous reformers who had similar critiques of the Church.
“Clearly there was a kind of symbiosis between Luther and the development of the printing press,” Root said. “What he was writing was able to engage lots of people. Many of them were short pamphlets that could be printed up quickly, they sold well…so he was on the cutting edge of technology and he fit what the technology needed – short, energetic things people wanted to read.”
Most historians agree that Luther’s original intent was not to start a new ecclesial community – that idea would have been “unthinkable at the time,” Root noted. ??“So that’s too much to say; however, it’s too little to say all he want to do was reform abuses.”
By 1518, his theses spread throughout Germany and intellectual Europe. Luther also continued writing prolifically, engaging in disputes with Tetzel and other Catholic critics and further developing his own ideas.
For its part, the Church did not issue an official response for several years, while attempts at discussions dissolved into defensive disputations rather than constructive dialogue. As a result, early opportunities to engage Luther’s criticisms on indulgences instead turned into arguments about Church authority as a whole.
Swatting flies with a sledgehammer – Luther becomes a Lutheran
One of Luther’s most well-known critics was Catholic theologian Johann Eck, who declared Luther’s theses heretical and ordered them to be burned in public.
In 1519, the two sparred in a disputation that pushed Luther to his more extreme view that scripture was the only valid Christian authority, rather than tradition and the bishops.
“The Catholic critics quickly changed the subject from indulgences to the question of the Church’s authority in relation to indulgences, which was a more dangerous issue,” Root said. “Now you’re getting onto a touchy subject. But there was also an internal dynamic of Luther’s own thought,” that can be seen in his subsequent writings.
In 1520, Luther published three of his most renowned treatises: The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, On the Freedom of a Christian Man, and To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation.
By that time, it was clear that what Luther thought was wrong in the Church was not just the abuse of indulgences, but the understanding of the message of Christianity on some basic levels. Besides denouncing the Pope as a legitimate authority, Luther also declared that faith alone, sola fide, was all that was necessary for salvation, rather than faith and good works.
“Luther was definitely trying to fix what was a legitimate problem, which was pelagian tendencies, or people trying to work their way into heaven,” said Dr. Paul Hilliard, Assistant Professor and Chair of Church History at Mundelein Seminary. It had created a “mercantile attitude” in some people at the time of Luther – “if I do this, God will do this.”
“So Luther was trying to correct these things, but the phrase I sometimes say is that Luther swatted the fly of pelagianism with a sledgehammer. In order to keep any trace of humans earning salvation out of the system, he changed the system.”
Luther’s distrust of human beings did not particularly spring from his criticisms of indulgences and the subsequent pushback from the Church – it was in line with most anthropological thought at the time, which tended toward a very negative view of human nature. Therefore, in his Protestant views, he sought to get rid of any human involvement wherever possible – particularly when it came to interpreting scripture and salvation.
“On the scale of beasts to angels, most people (at the time) would have us a lot closer to beasts,” Hilliard noted.
The Catholic Church officially condemned Luther’s theses in a papal bull, Exsurge Domine, promulgated in June 1520, and in part authored by Eck. The declaration afforded Luther a 60-day window to recant his positions, lest he be excommunicated.
But by the time the papal bull was issued, Luther had not only denounced the authority of the Pope, but had declared him an anti-Christ. The window for reconciling views was all but closed.
The popular and political reforms
Despite Luther’s increasingly radical claims against the Pope and the Church, his popularity spread, due to his compelling and prolific writings and, to Luther’s dismay, his populist appeal.
Luther popularized the idea of a “priesthood of all believers” to the exclusion of an ordained, ministerial priesthood. Rather than bearing an indelible mark on their soul, in Luther’s view ministerial priests did not differ from the “priesthood of believers” except in office and work. This, along with his personality and background, appealed to the poor and working class of the time who were frustrated with the lavish lives of Church hierarchy, which typically came at the expense of the poor in rural areas.
“Luther was very much a populist, he was a man of the people, he was scruff, he came from sort of peasant stock, he spoke the language of the people, so I think a lot of the common people identified with him,” Shreck said.
“He was one of them, he wasn’t far away in Rome or a seemingly wealthy bishop or archbishop…so he appealed particularly to Germans because he wanted a German liturgy and a German bible, and the people said, ‘we want a faith that is close to us and accessible’.”
But Luther balked when his religious ideals spurred the Peasant’s War of 1525, as peasants in rural areas of German revolted, motivated by Luther’s religious language of equality. The year or so of subsequent bloody war seemed to justify those who dismissed Luther as nothing more than a social movement rather than a serious religious reformer.
In order to maintain the esteem of those higher up, Luther disavowed the unruly peasants as not part of the official reform movement, laying the groundwork for the Anabaptists to fill in the religious gaps for the peasants in the future.
However, the Peasant’s War wasn’t the only time the Reformation got political – or lethal. Because of the vacuum of authority that now existed in Luther’s pope-less, emerging ecclesial community, authority was handed over to the local princes, who took advantage of the reformation to break from the fee-demanding Pope.
Much of Germany had embraced Lutheranism by the mid 1500s, though some parts, such as Bavaria, retained their Catholic faith.
For his part, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V officially condemned Luther’s theology at the 1521 Diet of Worms, a meeting of German princes, during which Luther famously refused to recant his position with the words: “Here I stand. God help me. I can do no other.”
Despite Charles V’s opposition to Luther’s views, he allowed for Luther’s safe passage from the diet, rather than enforcing the customary execution of heretics, and thus forfeited his best chance for stomping out the Reformation at its roots.
Historians speculate that while Charles V personally opposed Luther’s views, he let him live because he also saw the decentralizing of power from the Vatican as something of which he could take political advantage.
Reformation fever was also catching throughout Europe, and soon Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and England were all following Germany’s example of breaking from the Catholic Church and establishing state-run, Protestant ecclesial communities.
“I like to think of the story with the little Dutch boy with his the finger in the dyke,” Shreck said. “Once the breach was made, others follows his example. Once Luther did it, it was like the domino effect.”
“In a book by Owen Chadwick, he said the Reformation came not because Europe was irreligious, but because it was fervently religious,” Shreck added. “This was after the black death and a lot of social turmoil – people really wanted to turn to God and seek solace in faith.”
But the reformers were not all agreed on their beliefs, which led to the rise of numerous sects of Protestantism, including Calvinism, Anglicanism, and Anabaptism.
“Protestantism became very divided, though they all claimed to be doing the right thing because they believed they were maintaining the purity of the faith,” Schreck said.
Root noted that once the Protestant-Catholic divide “got embedded in political differences, between southern Europe and northern Europe, between Spain and England, and so the religious differences also became national differences, that just made matters far worse.”
“Once you have the wars of religion in 1546, then attitudes become very harsh. Once you start killing each other, it’s hard to sit down and talk,” he added.
The wars over religion would become especially pronounced in the 30 Years War of the 1600s, though at that point, religion had become more of a political tool for the state, Hilliard said.
“The 30 Years War is a really good indication that while religion was important, it was not the most important thing – it was a war between different competing princes to gain greater control of territories, during which religion was thrown into the mix,” Hilliard noted.
Could the Reformation have been avoided?
The million-dollar question at the center of Reformation history is whether the Reformation and the splitting of Western Christendom could have been avoided.
“Some would say by two years into the Reformation, the theological differences already ran very deep and there was no way you were going to get reconciliation,” Root said.
“But there are others who would argue that as late as the 1540s it was still possible that perhaps the right set of historical circumstances could have brought people together, and there’s no way of knowing, because you can’t run history again and change the variables.”
“Whether one could have settled it all then short of war, there were missed opportunities for reconciliation, that’s clear,” he added.
Luther’s fiery and rebellious personality, matched with the defiant and defensive stance that the Catholic Church took in response to his ideas, created a perfect storm that cemented the Protestant-Catholic divide.
Much of Luther’s thinking remained Catholic throughout his life, Schreck noted, including his devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
“I think if there had been a sincere effort on the part of the Catholic hierarchy that his concerns were legitimate, history might have gone in a different direction.”
It wasn’t until Pope Paul III (1534–1549), 17 years after the fated theses first made their rounds, that the Catholic Church as a whole took a serious and official look at its own need for reform, and its need to respond to the Protestant Reformation.
This is Part 1 in a three-part series on the Reformation. Part 2 will discuss the Council of Trent and the Counter-Reformation. Part 3 will discuss ecumenism today.
[…]
I must state respectfully that the author of this article is willfully deluded. It is an objective fact that Pope Bergoglio has refused to deny and condemn the heretical belief on Hell attributed to him by Scalfari. What Catholic accused in public of such a monstrous lie would hesitate even an instant in doing so, much more so the Pope himself. It is also an objective fact the the Vatican has refused to deny the material accuracy of the Pope’s statement, confining itself only to denying the lack of a formal quotation of the words the Pope used. Finally, it is an objective fact that this is the second time that Scalfari has attributed this heretical position to the Pope, again without denial by the Pope in the earlier interview. Finally, it is objective fact that Pope Bergoglio has asserted this heretical position previously in written statements that the author omits from his article. There are other articles on the internet that deal with this whole debacle in detail. As a useful correction of this article, I would suggest reading the following article by Chris Ferrara: http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/fe/perspective1180.asp
Make your yes mean yes and your no mean no. Anything else is of the fallen one. Matthews 5:37. Confusion is from the devil. The pope is the Shepard which is to guide his sheep. There is right and wrong. Since the pope has been in office all we hear is confusion and he has scattered his sheep. It is the pope call to speak clearly and lead the sheep which jesus calls us all to do. Who am i to judge? Pope perhaps the question is you are NOT so much as judging a person. U r judging the morality of society that has fallen into the abyss. You pope are called to lead and u have failed to lead according to scripture. You pope are a false prophet that we were warned about. This anti pope immediately has to be removed. All catholics need to rise up and remove the pope and the corrupt cardinals and bishops that put him into power . St michael the archangel I call upon you to clean up the house of God in Christ’s name amen.
i agree the hole vatican 2 sect is heretic and from the devil may God destroy it
I would ask, does AL not ‘magisterially’ make this position openly, ” ‘no one is condemned [to hell] forever, because the logic of the Gospel’…is that, after the final Judgement, ‘[hell and] the souls [of hell] simply disappear’ “….? So there is a false hell belief but not the Lord’s and His People’s Gospel Hell Revelation…??
Your addition of “[to hell]” is grossly misleading, to put it nicely. Anyone with a basic knowledge of, well, Catholic theology and the English language recognizes that AL 297 is not talking about eternal judgement or condemnation. Rather, it is saying that in this life, there is no situation (“various situations of weakness or imperfection”, 296) that cannot be resolved and made right if proper steps are taken. It has nothing to do with eternal judgment. Now, having been very critical of AL, especially chapter 8, I still have issues with the passage in question. But the fact that it now taken for granted, in certain echo chambers, that this passage is about hell, is absolutely ridiculous, even laughable.
Carl, the difficulty with your interpretation of AL 297, is that is speaks specifically of condemnation. When has the Church ever taught that it “condemns” anyone “forever”? The Church does teach on mortal sin and the need to confess and amend one’s life in order the fully participate in the life of the Church. But “condemnation” and one that last “forever”? I’m no expert but I doubt if the concept of “condemnation forever” has ever been understood by the Church outside of considerations of God’s final judgement. Thus, those who interpret the language in question in AL 297 to reference Hell, can hardly be said to be “grossly misleading” as you put it, even if at some technical level they may be incorrect.
Suggest that both you and the Pontiff consult Scripture and the Catechism.
IV. Hell
1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: “He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.”610 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.611 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”
1034 Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.612 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he “will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,”613 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!”614
1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.”615 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion:
“Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”616
Agreed!
“Rather, it is saying that in this life, there is no situation (“various situations of weakness or imperfection”, 296) that cannot be resolved and made right if proper steps are taken.”
This is a real stretch. The term “condemned” for Catholics has only one meaning.
Kind of agree with Chris C. I think the sentence and it’s choice of words like “forever” are a slip of the tongue or mind and are out of kilter with the practical on earth D/R et al sinner context since the clergy and Church never condemn to hell or to formal guilt but only to material guilt…even in ex communication. They can retain material mortal sin but still pass no judgement on a soul’s destination.
I think Francis was speaking about living sinners yes but simultaneously slipping half consciously into a private eschatology with a slip of the tongue that stains a Church document. His silence after these offending interviews support that.
His position on Judas supports that wherein he prefers a statue’s catechesis to all of Christ’s consistently dire words on Judas…not to mention Acts which says Judas “fell away to go to his own place”…a lonely connotation out of place with eventual heaven.
Others have made the point quite clearly, but I’ll try to boil it down to its essence: when do we ever talk about condemnation except in relation to hell? Especially when the temporal context is FOREVER?
Carl I agree with you which why you are a principled critic of the Pope and not an extremist.
People who dogmatically insist AL 297 is talking about Hell are actually doing the work of Hell because
their extremist and false attacks on the Pope gets lumped in with your principled criticisms.
Like I said I am NOT having it.
Peace.
Well, blessed Christmas Jim!
I guess the Beloved led me back here today in His mercy.
Your reply seems rather rash and speckled with mocking ridicule and contempt, and yet projects well some of your thoughts.
First, about content and context and understanding: Francis says with AL that the logic of the Gospel is, ‘go and continue sin, living in adultery and not as brother and sister, for the sake of the children’. Jesus’ logic of the Gospel is, ‘go and sin no more, living chastely as brother and sister for the sake of the children’. Now he says and does the same with condemnation, forgiveness and the logic of the Gospel. This is the second thing.
Hence secondly, no one thinks that unforgiveness and condemnation is forever in this life – it is absurd that you [and Francis] make Jesus, me and His Spouse say or think this! Who would rationally believe this or broad paint God’s children of doing or thinking so?? It is beyond laughable to appropriate to Jesus in the Gospel and His Gospel Teaching, that Jesus thinks wrongly that any sin or sinner is forever in this life condemned and will be unforgiven in this world or the next – except the sin against the Holy Spirit. There is no logic of the Gospel, Catholic Theology or Philosophy that proposes this though you [and Francis] do.
Third, the logic of the Gospel inherently always encompasses this life and the life to come in the logic of repentance or unrepentance, condemnation or salvation – this is not laughable or ridiculous. The is the very logic of the Gospel.
The logic of the Gospel also includes that condemnation is forever even in this life if there is no repentance – on either side of the Narrow Way Francis is wrong: either in this life and the next condemnation is forever, accordingly, and thus not contrary to God and His Logic [of the Gospel].
Further, you propose illogically that ‘forever’ is ‘specified of the non-forever place of earthly life’ – one cannot but laughably enjoin that Francis is speaking of the ‘passing earthly life’ as the ‘forever’? Really??? These things you propose are more than ridiculous, they are….??
Fourth, you isolate and limit the AL subject to just the present paragraph and this world, when it fact it is joined to the next world and the whole section in which it is found and of the whole of AL as well as to the whole Gospel. Please do not make a whole out of a part, it is not Catholic Theology nor Her Handmaid, Philosophy – this usually happens when goes beyond the Dominican , ‘make a distinction, but not a separation’ and enters the Jesuits ‘make a separation, not just a distinction’ – so the Dominicans keep the fingers and hands distinct but the Jesuits make a mess of separating them…hmm, sounds familiar.
In the Holy Family of Faith, Hope and Love, Padre!!!
Mr Jim the Scott, The Holy Trinity become man testifies to Himself and His Logic [of the Gospel], ‘the sinner who sins against the Holy Spirit is forever unforgiven and condemned, yes, in this life and in hell in the life to come’….seems pretty clear cut, don’t think the Holy Trinity got His Logic wrong…do you???
Also His Logic is the same for those who do not repent in this ‘forever earthly life’, they are and remain unforgiven and condemned, forever as well. So by God’s Logic, it is in this earthly life and hell’s life, forever, accordingly.
Well, blessed Christmas Carl!
I guess the Beloved led me back here today in His mercy.
Your reply seems rather rash and speckled with mocking ridicule and contempt, and yet projects well some of your thoughts.
First, about content and context and understanding: Francis says with AL that the logic of the Gospel is, ‘go and continue sin, living in adultery and not as brother and sister, for the sake of the children’. Jesus’ logic of the Gospel is, ‘go and sin no more, living chastely as brother and sister for the sake of the children’. Now he says and does the same with condemnation, forgiveness and the logic of the Gospel. This is the second thing.
Hence secondly, no one thinks that unforgiveness and condemnation is forever in this life – it is absurd that you [and Francis] make Jesus, me and His Spouse say or think this! Who would rationally believe this or broad paint God’s children of doing or thinking so?? It is beyond laughable to appropriate to Jesus in the Gospel and His Gospel Teaching, that Jesus thinks wrongly that any sin or sinner is forever in this life condemned and will be unforgiven in this world or the next – except the sin against the Holy Spirit. There is no logic of the Gospel, Catholic Theology or Philosophy that proposes this though you [and Francis] do.
Third, the logic of the Gospel inherently always encompasses this life and the life to come in the logic of repentance or unrepentance, condemnation or salvation – this is not laughable or ridiculous. The is the very logic of the Gospel.
The logic of the Gospel also includes that condemnation is forever even in this life if there is no repentance – on either side of the Narrow Way Francis is wrong: either in this life and the next condemnation is forever, accordingly, and thus not contrary to God and His Logic [of the Gospel].
Further, you propose illogically that ‘forever’ is ‘specified of the non-forever place of earthly life’ – one cannot but laughably enjoin that Francis is speaking of the ‘passing earthly life’ as the ‘forever’? Really??? These things you propose are more than ridiculous, they are….??
Fourth, you isolate and limit the AL subject to just the present paragraph and this world, when it fact it is joined to the next world and the whole section in which it is found and of the whole of AL as well as to the whole Gospel. Please do not make a whole out of a part, it is not Catholic Theology nor Her Handmaid, Philosophy – this usually happens when goes beyond the Dominican , ‘make a distinction, but not a separation’ and enters the Jesuits ‘make a separation, not just a distinction’ – so the Dominicans keep the fingers and hands distinct but the Jesuits make a mess of separating them…hmm, sounds familiar.
In the Holy Family of Faith, Hope and Love, Padre!!!
Mr Olson, The Holy Trinity become man testifies to Himself and His Logic [of the Gospel], ‘the sinner who sins against the Holy Spirit is forever unforgiven and condemned, yes, in this life and in hell in the life to come’….seems pretty clear cut, don’t think the Holy Trinity got His Logic wrong…do you???
Also His Logic is the same for those who do not repent in this ‘forever earthly life’, they are and remain unforgiven and condemned, forever as well. So by God’s Logic, it is in this earthly life and hell’s life, forever, accordingly.
Carl, perhaps:
Jesus and His Gospel mercy accompanies and teaches His right and proper steps: ‘go and sin no more’; ‘you are not married’, ‘you do not have God’s grace’, ‘it is NOT a true marriage’; it is not God’s will that you continue [in adultery] sin’; ‘you must live chastely and continent for the sake of the children [old/already]’; ‘you cannot until full Confession and Re-Communion approach the Altar for an Holy Communion’; ‘it is NOT the best you can do for now’, “My Grace is sufficient for you’; ‘convert and repent’ ….and so on.
Francis and his gospel mercy accompanies and teaches these ‘right and proper steps’, ‘go and sin more’; ‘you are married’, ‘you have God’s grace’, ‘it is a true marriage’; ‘it is God’s will that you not discontinue [in adultery] sin’; ‘you must NOT live chastely and continent for the sake of the children’; ‘you can withOUT full Confession and It’s Re-Communion approach the Altar for an Holy Communion’; ‘it is the best you can do for now’, “My Grace is INsufficient for you’, ‘DO NOT convert and repent’ ….and so on.
For the Beloved ‘these are various situations of sin’ that need full repentance, ‘going and sinning no more’ for forgiveness and restoring reconciliation, not being condemned. Without this conversion one is even in this life, but also in the next, forever condemned – this why the Father rejoiced in the younger prodigal’s sinning no more and why He was saddened that the older son rejected this mystery enjoining being lost and dead himself. This is God’s and His Gospel’s Logic of Mercy.
For the Francis ‘these are various situations only of weakness and imperfection, that must not be called sin, or culpable sin, and so there is no need for full repentance for forgiveness and restoring reconciliation, ‘go and continue in your sins’ [adultery] for they do not condemn you. The younger prodigal didn’t need to fully repent, he only needed to worm his way to understand the Father’s mercy would accompany him as he was doing his best, nothing to fear forever, you’re already in the Father’s Holy Communion Grace and Sacrifice. This is Francis’ and his gospel’s logic of mercy.
Proposing that presenting God’s Truth and Logic is laughable and ridiculous? Pretending that Francis is teaching God’s Gospel and Salvation in this is sadly what is ridiculous and calls for abundant tears.
No, this is the usual Teaching of the Holy Spirit viz-a-viz ‘condemnation.
Second, you make Jesus laughable and ridiculous and errant for Teaching John 20:23b.
Third, Francis it seems does not believe. He has purportedly just told the seminarians in spain [barcelona],”to forgive all sins even if there is no repentance because condemnation is not forever so always give absolution”. Thus demanding, diabolically that we disobey Christ Jesus and “do not retain sins”.
There is a moral obligation to revisit this.
Benedict notes that the biblical “sheol” has two meanings–one is Death and the other is Hell. His point is that we are freed from the fear of the abysmal desolation of personal Death (which is revealed as our passage into eternity), but that Hell still remains for those who choose to condemn themselves to total self-isolation from the infinite–which is beyond themselves (Introduction to Christianity, 1968).
At the beginning of his pontificate, Pope Francis announced that he was no theologian. Indeed.
Mr. Ferrara has long appointed himself the judge of the popes, who are generally found wanting. His opinion is tainted with that spiritual jaundice that St. Francis de Sales warned against in his Introduction to the Devout Life. As such, it is less helpful than Mr. Brumley’s article, which treated everyone involved with charity and a lack of rash judgment, while at the same time calling out the actions involved as problematical and preventable. This is a balanced take. As for the other, caveat emptor; to paraphrase an old saying, We risk becoming what we consume, and that includes reading.
Being “balanced” is the most superficial of values.
Truth is what really matters.
If Ferrara has found much to criticize in a string of Popes, perhaps the problem is not jaundice in Ferrara, but flaws in those Popes, who just happen to have presided over an unprecedented dissolution of the Church.
One can judge popes.
Chris Ferrara is a better representative of the gift of Faith than Bergoglio.
We all have a right to give witness.
Ferrara has never met a Pope he liked. If the head of the SSPX somehow was made Pope then I believe Ferrara would still find a way to complain or die like a Greek women because he can’t complain.
I hope that Pope Francis’ disastrous pontificate terminates soon.
Pope Francis already explicitly denied doctrine on hell in Amoris Laetitia by writing that “nobody can be condemned forever” while Jesus said “many” go to hell.
The Scalfari interview only exhibits Bergoglios manifest persistence in the heresy written in Amoris Laetitia.
But nobody really cares anymore. I’m not even sure why publications like CWR even exist if they are going to merely spin the Popes heretical words to attempt to make it look like a mistake or merely an allegation.
Jesus became flesh, suffered, and was murdered in order to, in part, give us words that He demanded be preserved forever.
Pope Francis and many US bishops and priests are changing the meaning of Jesus’ words, yet only a few care. Those few must be the one who end up in heaven, while the many frauds end up in hell.
I have observed in my 86 years the tendency of some Catholics is to gradually become agnostic regarding spiritual questions, and I suspect this is the agenda of Popes and Priests.
Nonsense! Pope Francis never said that.
Max you are worst then CNN on Trump.
Quote”It is a matter of reaching out to everyone,
of needing to help each person find his or her
proper way of participating in the ecclesial community
and thus to experience being touched by
an “unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous”
mercy. No one can be condemned for ever, because
that is not the logic of the Gospel! . Here
I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried,
but of everyone, in whatever situation
they find themselves. Naturally, if someone
flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the
Christian ideal, or wants to impose something
other than what the Church teaches, he or she
can in no way presume to teach or preach to
others; this is a case of something which separates
from the community (cf. Mt 18:17). “END
Yeh given the context I don’t see how you get universalism out of that? It seems to be talking about visible
membership in the earthly church and participation in the community not one of the Last Things.
People who slander the Pope give service to the Devil & do the work of Hell. If Pope Francis is destined to burn in he unmentionalble place for all his sins people who run around slandering are in danger of burning with him. Also the work of focused and fair critics of the Pope is undermined by persons who tell easily disprovable falsehoods about him. So Cardinal Burke or anybody who wants to point out why it is stupid for the Pope to continue to talk to Scalfari get lumped in with fanatics who are out to smear the Holy Father. I’m NOT having it.
“Let’s hope the lesson regarding Mr. Scalfari has finally been learned so we don’t see further international headlines recounting this or that alleged contradiction by Pope Francis of some basic Christian tenet.”
The lesson has been learned by whom? Francis is the one who keeps going back to this guy. What exactly does the author make of that?
And, for Mr. Brumley’s edification, this statement as part of Francis’ authentic magisterium from AL 297: “No one can be condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone.”
That’s from Amoris Laetitia. Can’t blame that one on Scalfari.
If it looks like a duck…
Pope Francis isn`t talking of the afterlife. Read Carl Olson explanation above.
I wish Mr Brumley would be hired by the Vatican.
Thank you, Mr Ferrara!
What Bergoglio said to Scalfari on this particular occasion is irrelevant. What is relevant is what Scalfari has published in the past, repeatedly, and the fact that Bergoglio obviously approves of it. There will be more such interviews in the future, with more heresy reported, with more plausible deniability, but no real denial. And that’s how Bergoglio moves the ball down the field.
Indeed. Thank you
For a man of his age and a man in his position, this pope has spoken carelessly time and time again.
He lacks precision in thought and speech and he does not seem to care about the consequences. But this is old news.
A true leader and defender of Faith and flock would have clarified this “misunderstanding” in very short order. The faithful here nothing said in contradiction to Mr Scalfari. The pope is not moved that his flock has every right to be uncomfortable and unhappy with the mess he made.
I believe Mr Scalfari heard what the pope said, correctly. Silence is consent.
The author’s theological gymnastics are intellectually stimulating but solve nothing.
You are on the same level as Scalfari, sorry, since he never records his interviews. He rewrites them by memory.
Bergoglio has a distorted view of “mercy.” He replaces the genuine mercy of Christ, which saved the very life of the woman caught in adultery, yet included the admonition “Go, and sin no more,” with a defective mercy that leaves out that admonition and instead accompanies the sinner all the way to Hell. That is okay, of course, because there really is no Hell.
Bergoglio’s disbelief of the reality of Hell helps one understand his badly deformed view of mercy.
It’s rather naive to think that the Pontiff will in the future stop putting himself in situations where he ends up with both of his feet in his mouth. Based on his track record, most of us know what to expect and I seriously doubt that we will end up being surprised. It would be uncharacteristic of him to unambiguously and unequivocally affirm the teaching of the Church. Pray for his conversion but don’t expect it.
As there was no “reply” link to your earlier comment in response to mine, I’ll have to answer that post here.
I’m not clear where you’re coming from or why you think or implied that I was unaware of the clear teachings of our faith on the existence of Hell. My point as I thought was clear, was that the term “condemnation forever” which appears in AL 297, has never been understood by the Church apart from considerations of God’s Judgement. Hence when some state that the “condemnation forever” spoken of in AL 297 refers not to Hell and eternal judgement but something else such as denial of the sacraments for those in a state of sin, they are incorrect. Hope that clarifies things.
exactly
Many of us including myself have strong convictions in respect to the Pontiff’s intent that may well be true yet not irrefutable. For example AL 297 addresses D&R in which the Pope questions whether they must remain permanently in a state of mortal sin or should the Church forgive the sin if repentant. Insofar as Scalfari there is no irrefutable evidence that the Pontiff denied Hell except for the words of an elderly atheist. Although silence may indicate guilt silence does not convict. That is why eminent canon lawyers Cardinal Burke and Fr Weinandy do not accuse the Pontiff of heresy. Otherwise Christ would have been justifiably condemned by the Sanhedrin. Perhaps the best approach to this quandary is that of canon lawyer Edward Peters who opined the Pontiff may be indictable on the preponderance of ambiguity due to wording and silence on moral issues and its effect. For a person to be convicted under the law as a heretic he must be adamant and persistent in stating a heresy. There is no evidence of that kind on any issue. There is however moral certitude [as distinct from reasonable certitude based on incontrovertible evidence] of intent due to the preponderance of misleading statements evasive responses and silence. The quandary it seems if the Pontiff who has strong support remains in Office and doesn’t make corrections may only be resolved by divine intervention. If that’s the case I hope soon.
This is the second time Bergoglio has propagated through Scalfari his disbelief of the reality of Hell, and then refused to aggressively clarify the matter.
This is an intentional tactic, not an accident of his personality. As I mentioned in a previous post, his disbelief of the reality of Hell also explains his distorted idea of Christian mercy.
It is time to look again at the legitimacy of his election — for the good of the Church.
“For example AL 297 addresses D&R in which the Pope questions whether they must remain permanently in a state of mortal sin or should the Church forgive the sin if repentant.”
AL 297 (emphasis mine): “No one can be condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone.”
Of course Liuzza it’s misleading if you remove it from context. That last phrase in context refers to all living in an objective state of serious sin. Perhaps gays, those in a civil marriage, cohabitation. Certainly I don’t agree with him. Nonetheless it is not a definitive denial of an eternal hell.
Post-synodal apostolic exhortations are not typically used to make definitive statements of Church teaching. So Bergoglio hasn’t officially taught error. The Holy Spirit doesn’t let that happen. So if Bergoglio finally steps over the line he continually dances so close to, he will only be proving his election was not legitimate and that he is an antipope.
It may not be “definitive,” Father, but it’s fairly straightforward (and damning) nevertheless.
That someone could be “condemned forever” is precisely the logic of the Gospel, not to mention the express words of Jesus.
Then again, Jesus is only the Son of God. What does he know? Not nearly as much as Francis the Merciful.
Honestly, Father, why at this late hour of Francis’s disastrous papacy, do you and the others still strain so hard to deny the undeniable and defend the indefensible?
Actually Gerard my purpose is not to mitigate the grave damage to the Church and salvation of souls that are the effect of this Pontiff’s intentional ambiguity and misleading statements. He is apparently using the Scalfari interviews to disseminate his ‘revolutionary’ vision of the Church’s New Paradigm. My expressed purpose is twofold. It is to confirm nothing that he has said is definitive. And thus not Magisterial doctrine. God will not permit it. The Chair of Peter is preserved from error not the person who occupies it.
Excellent point.
So Christ, when He says He will announce to the goats on His left hand “Depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” didn’t know what He was talking about, and Bergoglio is now going to straighten things out for Him.
So Christ and twenty centuries of teaching the Holy Spirit has preserved in the Church is wrong and Bergoglio is right?
The arrogance!
Absolutely.
Cardinals now have enough evidence – on multiple issues – not just of heresy but of pertinacity (stubborn non-retraction).
This means that, tomorrow, a few cardinals can, under church law, say simply, “pertinacity is firmly manifest and Jorge Bergoglio has lost the chair by automatic metaphysical realities.”
Then they chose a new pope before the end of this month while Bergoglio lives.
Then they must not blink and hold the line while Bergoglio refuses to step down – but he will another month after because the People of God have charismatic gifts to support the true pope.
If only Pope Francis and the Vatican would work as hard as Mr. Brumley to clear up this “misunderstanding.”
Lol….very true. The position is Pope. One would think Catholicism has about several thousand more precise, more prudent, more orthodox careful, more gravitas laden papabile to have chosen from …to fill this job title. He is some kind of punitive lesson from the permissive willing of God.
Yes. Mark summed it up well. It is imprudent at best and scandalous at worst for him to speak further with this “journalist.”
The fundamental point is that Pope Francis cannot be trusted in matters of Church doctrine. A Pope who compromises in moral issues will not hesitate to do the same in doctrinal issues.
May Jesus soon clear up the confusion in the Church.
Bergoglio and Scalfari have an agreement. Bergoglio pushes confusion, Scalfari pushes atheism. And the devil pushes them both.
In an article dated March 24, 2015, LifeSiteNews.com reports that: “… Scalfari has the pope denying hell. The article says: ‘What happens to that lost soul? Will it be punished? And how? The response of Francis is distinct and clear: there is no punishment, but the annihilation of that soul. All the others will participate in the beatitude of living in the presence of the Father. The souls that are annihilated will not take part in that banquet; with the death of the body their journey is finished.’”
If Scalfari misrepresented the Pope’s comments in 2015, why on earth would the Pope grant an interview in 2018 to Scalfari only to have Scalfari turn around and repeat the same allegedly erroneous narrative? What on earth is going on here?
I believe that Pope Francis said to Scalfari what Scalfari says Pope Francis said and, further, that Pope Francis intended Scalfari to publish the statement. If Pope Francis (a) in fact said nothing about hell, or (b) recited Catholic teaching about the reality of hell, he would be outraged at what Scalfari said and the Vatican statement would not be so non-committal about whether Scalfari made any material misrepresentation. So I have no doubt that Scalfari’s statement is not materially inaccurate. If Pope Francis in fact said what Scalfari says Pope Francis said, there can be no doubt that Pope Francis knew, before saying it, that Scalfari would publish it. One thing that Pope Francis isn’t is naïve.
So all I can conclude, rationally, is that Pope Francis disagrees with the Church’s teaching concerning hell and knowing that he cannot overtly deny the teaching is seeking to undermine it by sowing doubt about it through means that allow him plausible deniability.
Your take on this is rational…very rational and succinct. It helps me because I keep seeing him as spacey…and that might be a furtive way of excusing him as though he is an imbecile. You are saying he is more intentional…than a person who is chaotic of mind. Bottom line….I don’t think any of us would leave children with him for an hour for instruction on heaven and hell…and yet he’s Pope. None of us would have left daughters with Pope Alexander VI in 1494 for an hour…and yet he was Pope. We need a better theology of deficient Pope periods. I had 16 years of Catholic school. I don’t remember having one hour on the topic….and 8 of those years were Jesuit.
Imagine the chaos that would result if the SAT Reading Test had “brief passages” from “Amoris Laetitia” followed by the usual challenge to pick which statement below best expresses the meaning of the passage.
“Pope Francis has taught the reality of hell, understood as a *permanent state of existence*. He has. Repeatedly.”
As I re-read this, I can’t help but think citations would be helpful. Also, how can Hell be permanent state if we are hoping no one even goes there? Really, it all doesn’t especially add up. Given the fact the only denial is that the recollections should not be considered exact quotes. And the pope obviously does not care enough to clear up the confusion himself. Doctrinal teaching is HIS responsibility, and here we are. I for one have decided either Francis suffers from Third World cultural blindness to America, or he is willfully trying to nudge centuries of doctrine leftward. I hopeful the former, but it’s anyone’s call. This papacy cannot end soon enough.There are good popes and bad popes. From American shores, Francis seems like a bad pope.
Christopher Altieri links to at least four texts/stories about Pope Francis discussing hell: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/03/30/pope-francis-believes-in-hell-and-he-needs-to-stop-talking-to-eugenio-scalfari/
Pope Francis is a great Pope who internalizes the Beatitudes as set forth by our Lord in his great Sermohich is the essence of our Chri
Our wonderful Pope Francis internalizes the Beatitudes as set forth by our Lord in his great Sermon, which is the essence of our Christian faith. May Pope Francis have a long papacy!
This is a head in the sand article.
Pope Francis epitomizes the Sermon on the Mount, which is the essence of Christianity. May Francis have a long Papacy!
Actually Ray….Christ said to Satan in the desert that man does not live by bread alone but by
” every word that comes forth from the mouth of God”. Not some words…every word that God sent. That means the tens of thousands of words that are outside the sermon of the mount. That of course includes so many verses on punishment, several on the death penalty for us gentiles, many death penalties for the old covenant Jews only, Christ saying of hell…” where the worm dies not and the fire is not quenched”.
Read the entire Bible ,Ray, in other words and Aquinas will tell you what is void from the OT….the judicial laws and the ritual laws and the Sinai covenant blessings and punishments etc.
So if you think Christ who quoted the Bible well outside the beatitudes would agree with you and your abridged version….that it suffices….no….Christ wants you to read the whole thing in time. People read 400 page novels….many…..but the whole Bible…no.
It seems to me you did not read the full text of the Sermon on the Mount. Might be a good idea to get fully acquainted with it.
“Let’s hope…”
How long has the author been observing this catastrophe?
Wishful thinking will not bring an end to this most devastating event in the history of the Church. A pope hell bent on the deconstruction of Roman Catholicism and replacing it with a contrived cult — The New Paradigm.
Everyone need shed the rose colored shades.
Wishful thinking is not going to provide an adequate rationale for this demonstration of “odium fidei” on the Chair of Saint Peter.
How long do we have to endure “sixties priests” before we call it for what it is? What exactly compels us to embrace the level of denial required to keep this individual in a position of power and privilege which he boldly abuses?
No more deference to deception.
If the fact that we are debating whether or not the pope believes in hell does not send chills down the spine… does not convince someone that there is something seriously wrong with the church then there’s no point in talking further.
Given Scalfari’s trwck record it is not “commendable” in the least that Pope Francis continues to agree to interview requests from this manipulative atheist reporter.
The Successor to Peter should not be the source of confusion, something Francis has in fact been since he was first elected.
Francis’ insistance on “making a mess” has resulted in repeated instances of confusion, and concern for the content of our faith is at an all time high among devout Catholics.
If Francis continues to spread confusion and to teach, or at least hint at teaching heresy and error, the College of Cardinals should consider either removing him from office or allowing him to save face by resigning.
With all due respect, Mark Brumley, you are basing your entire argument on speculation, and you lay blame on Scalfari and the media in general, when the confusion is to be blamed on (1) the pope and (2) the Vatican’s sloppy response. Your point #5, in particular, makes that perfectly clear: “…Although the Vatican’s statement implicitly warns against relying on the Scalfari account, it doesn’t state what, in fact, Pope Francis said to Scalfari.” It matters not what it “seems” to you or any of us what the pope “might” have said. He and his handlers missed the short window of opportunity to nip this in the bud by EXPLICITLY refuting Scalfari’s report with the pope’s affirmation of Church doctrine on the existence of hell. That this did not take place is telling beyond words. Instead, and as usual under this pope, the faithful laity is left to clean up the mess without support of the hierarchy. I can give you personal examples of how this plays out at the parish level. Lord have mercy.
There is little doubt in my mind after 5 years of these Pope Francis “tragedies” wherein he misleads by ambiguity, lack of clarification and his frequent use of his clerical supporters to really state what the Pope thinks. Pretty clear when his advisers are folks like Kasper, Parolin, Vigano, Sorando, etc. Isn’t it telling when he does not speak a word of correction re the German bishops outrageous and heretical statements?
With all the chaos around us regarding Pope’s supposed statement on hell, Bible, Lord’s prayer and Lucifer why not the Vatican publish an OFFICIAL STATEMENT ON THESE TOPICS? Many million souls could be at rest if authentic declaration from the holy see appears in all international media.
A.J.B. JERARD,INDIA.
“1. There is the issue of whether in general Pope Francis has taught the reality of hell, understood as a permanent state of existence. He has. Repeatedly…..”
Carl – I know I am very late to this discussion (article originally published over a year ago) but, can you point me to any specific instances of the above (i.e., where Pope Francis has unambiguously stated that hell is real and that damned souls will spend eternity there? It would be very helpful. Thank you.
Hello Mark and thank you for this article here about Pope Francis. I think the reason many priests and pastors (and maybe popes) may be revising their stance on hell is because God has written the truth on our hearts about this. The truth is that if we are invited to enter into a marriage with someone and that someone offers their love, but then says they will put us in a basement and torture us for 50 years if we don’t marry them, this is not an offer of love. There has to be a way out, or a way to voluntarily turn down the marriage proposal in order for that proposal to be a proposal which is accompanied by real love. God offering us eternal life or else being tortured for eternity is not a choice and does not allow us to see who God really is and what his love really is. It obscures our view of his kindness:
[Romans 2:4 NASB20] 4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and restraint and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?
Would you advise your sister or niece to accept a marriage proposal which is accompanied by a threat of 50 years of torture if she did not accept the proposal? This is likely why polling such as that done by McCrindle and olive tree media in Australia has shown repeatedly for many years that the mainstream concept of hell and judgment, which involves eternal conscious torment, is reported by non-christians as one of the biggest reasons why they want nothing to do with Christianity. The traditional view of hell as eternal conscious torment is not bringing people to God. It is driving them away. I have personally spoken with many of these people who have deconstructed from and left Christianity or simply stayed away for a long time until they learned more of what the Bible really says about hell. In regard to hell, many who hold to the eternal conscious torment view will mention that punishment is “eternal” in the Bible, meaning that the torment lasts forever. This is in spite of the fact that the same Greek word aionios, eternal is used in the New Testament to describe verbal nouns over and over again which by their very nature are not themselves things which last for eternity. They are things which have endless results. A few examples are:
eternal sin
eternal salvation
eternal judgment
eternal redemption
None of these things above last for eternity. They are processes which are accomplished in a finite amount of time and then the results are endless. Considering all of the passages below, could eternal punishment also be in this category?
[Hebrews 10:26-27, 39 ESV] 26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. … 39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.
The author of Hebrews above is using the phrase “fire that will consume the adversaries” to intentionally contextualize his wording, “preserve their souls” in verse 39 above. Look below in Isaiah where the author of Hebrews is borrowing this fiery phrase from:
[Isaiah 26:11, 14, 19 CSB] 11 LORD, your hand is lifted up to take action, but they do not see it. Let them see your zeal for your people and be put to shame. Let fire consume your adversaries. … 14 The dead do not live; departed spirits do not rise up. Indeed, you have punished and destroyed them; you have wiped out all memory of them. … 19 Your dead will live; their bodies will rise. Awake and sing, you who dwell in the dust! For you will be covered with the morning dew, and the earth will bring out the departed spirits.
The content of Isaiah 26 above sounds a lot like Jesus in Matthew here:
[Matthew 10:28 NASB20] 28 “And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
And then here’s Isaiah saying almost the same thing as Jesus above in regard to those who side with antichrist during the tribulation:
[Isaiah 10:17-18 NASB20] 17 And the Light of Israel will become a fire and Israel’s Holy One a flame, And it will burn and devour his thorns and his briars in a single day. 18 And He will destroy the glory of his forest and of his fruitful garden, both soul and body, And it will be as when a sick person wastes away.
And then considering the content of the passages I’ve just shown, is it possible that these Thessalonians verses below are translated properly, expressing the same concept? The Thessalonians verses below are about the day of the Lord, just as Isaiah 26 and Isaiah 10 above are:
[1 Thessalonians 5:2-3, 23 LSB] 2 For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. 3 While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman who is pregnant, and they will never escape. … 23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely, and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
And then we might see James adding onto the same theme here:
[James 5:19-20 NASB20] 19 My brothers and sisters, if anyone among you strays from the truth and someone turns him back, 20 let him know that the one who has turned a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.
James above sounds a lot like Ezekiel here from the Septuagint:
[Ezekiel 18:4, 27 Lexham English Septuagint] 4 For all lives are mine; the way is the life of the father, so also the life of the son; they are mine; the soul that sins, this is the one that will die. ……. 27 But when a lawless person turns back from his lawlessness which he committed, and he does justice and righteousness, this one has kept his soul.
Of course, what I’m hinting at here is the doctrine of annihilationism, just as you mention it in your article, that the wicked finally cease to exist after having received a just period of torment which is commensurate to the severity of their sins. To address the eternal life versus eternal punishment argument regarding hell, which has its basis in Matthew 25:46, we could understand that, part of the eternal punishment for sin is just death, and both its results and the process of it being administered both last forever. The wicked are just dead and gone forever, just as Jesus describes above in Matthew 10:28. They are endlessly being punished with an ongoing punishment of death and the results of that ongoing punishment are also endless. They are endlessly dead:
[Romans 6:23 NASB20] 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gracious gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
[John 3:16 NASB20] 16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.
Giving consideration to the doctrine of annihilationism of course runs us right into Revelation 14:11 and revelation 20:10 which seem so definitively to have no agreement with annihilationism whatsoever. In my latest work “Hell is Made Holy”, I tackle Revelation 14:11 and Revelation 20:10 to show how the language of the smoke going up forever is a reference to the Old Testament sacrificial system, not a description of endless torment. The smoke from the sacrificial system represents complete and utter destruction under God’s wrath against sin, not endless torment. In regard to Revelation 20:10, there are eight Old Testament prophecies which foretell that satan will be killed in the future not tormented endlessly. These passages are Genesis 3:14-15; Matthew 4:5-6; Psalm 91:11-13; Romans 16:19-20; Habakkuk 3:12-13; Ezekiel 28:11-19; Isaiah 27:1; Job 26:12-13. To see a few:
[Isaiah 27:1 NASB20] 1 On that day the LORD will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, With His fierce and great and mighty sword, Even Leviathan the twisted serpent; And He will kill the dragon who lives in the sea.
[Ezekiel 28:13-14, 18-19 NASB20] 13 “You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The ruby, the topaz and the diamond; The beryl, the onyx and the jasper; The lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald; And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets, Was in you. On the day that you were created They were prepared. 14 “You were the anointed cherub who covers, And I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked in the midst of the stones of fire. … 18 “By the multitude of your wrongdoings, In the unrighteousness of your trade You profaned your sanctuaries. Therefore I have brought fire from the midst of you; It has consumed you, And I have turned you to ashes on the earth In the eyes of all who see you. 19 “All who know you among the peoples Are appalled at you; You have become terrified And you will cease to be forever.”‘”
I believe Revelation 14:11 and 20:10 are the only ones remaining that don’t elsewhere have a fully developed annihilationist interpretation. Many have proposed different solutions as to what the symbolism in these verses represents, but none have been able to make a very strong case to support their theories. If you or your readers would be interested in seeing the full evidence, you can easily find “Hell is Made Holy” for no green using just my full name, David Aaron Beaty. Thank you again for your article and God bless you, your readers, and your ministry.
“Hell Is Made Holy” mentioned above can specifically be found for no green here https://go.davidaaronbeaty.com/hellbook