The allowance of damnation: Irenaeus of Lyons and John of Damascus

 The allowance of damnation: Irenaeus of Lyons and John of Damascus

According to some, the idea that ‘unending damnation’ (either as unending torments or permanent annihilation) is merely allowed and not ‘imposed’ by God is a recent idea. However, in what follows, I provide some quotes from Irenaeus of Lyons (fl. 2nd century) and John of Damascus (fl. 8th century) that seem to imply that, indeed, if there is such a thing as ‘unending damnation’ it might, indeed, be allowed by God rather than truly imposed.

The idea might be compared to the following scenario: let’s say that someone decides to smoke. If the person continues to smoke, it becomes harder and harder to quit smoking as time passes. At the extreme limit, it might be the case that the obstinate smoker reaches a point in which ceasing to smoke becomes impossible. At that point, it might be argues that even with the help of others, the smoker can’t stop smoking.

In a similar way, it might be the case that sinning might lead to become ‘addicted’ to sin. Each time one sins, it becomes easier to sin again. It is notable that even in the Gospels, the state of sinners is compared to an illness[1] and to a condition of enslavement[2]. It might be the case that a sinner can reach the point in which changing his or her will becomes impossible (we might suppose that in such a state even God can’t ‘cure’ the sinner). So, for instance, Pope Benedict XVI (1927-2022), in his Encyclical ‘Spe Salvi’ wrote:

“With death, our life-choice becomes definitive—our life stands before the judge. Our choice, which in the course of an entire life takes on a certain shape, can have a variety of forms. There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves. This is a terrifying thought, but alarming profiles of this type can be seen in certain figures of our own history. In such people all would be beyond remedy and the destruction of good would be irrevocable: this is what we mean by the word Hell.” (source: https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi.html )

As I will proceed to show, the idea that sinning is a damage to oneself and that one might reach the point of losing one’s ability to change one’s will is not new. Indeed, it seems that both Irenaeus of Lyons and John of Damascus believed that (1) it is possible that one can reach the ‘point of no return’ during this life and (2) the punishment isn’t imposed directly from God but, rather, it is the consequence of the disordered condition, the ruined nature of the soul (or to make another analogy: the soul of the damned is like a burnt seed).   

Irenaeus of Lyons

From ‘Against Heresies’:

“But he who shall reject it, and prove himself ungrateful to his Maker, inasmuch as he has been created, and has not recognised Him who bestowed [the gift upon him], deprives himself of [the privilege of] continuance for ever and ever. And, for this reason, the Lord declared to those who showed themselves ungrateful towards Him: If you have not been faithful in that which is little, who will give you that which is great? indicating that those who, in this brief temporal life, have shown themselves ungrateful to Him who bestowed it, shall justly not receive from Him length of days for ever and ever.” (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against All Heresies, book 2, 34.3; source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103234.htm )

“And to as many as continue in their love towards God, does He grant communion with Him. But communion with God is life and light, and the enjoyment of all the benefits which He has in store. But on as many as, according to their own choice, depart from God, He inflicts that separation from Himself which they have chosen of their own accord. But separation from God is death, and separation from light is darkness; and separation from God consists in the loss of all the benefits which He has in store. Those, therefore, who cast away by apostasy these forementioned things, being in fact destitute of all good, do experience every kind of punishment. God, however, does not punish them immediately of Himself, but that punishment falls upon them because they are destitute of all that is good. Now, good things are eternal and without end with God, and therefore the loss of these is also eternal and never-ending. It is in this matter just as occurs in the case of a flood of light: those who have blinded themselves, or have been blinded by others, are for ever deprived of the enjoyment of light. It is not, [however], that the light has inflicted upon them the penalty of blindness, but it is that the blindness itself has brought calamity upon them: and therefore the Lord declared, “He that believes in Me is not condemned”, that is, is not separated from God, for he is united to God through faith. On the other hand, He says, “He that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God”; that is, he separated himself from God of his own accord. “For this is the condemnation, that light has come into this world, and men have loved darkness rather than light. For every one who does evil hates the light, and comes not to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that he has wrought them in God.”” (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against all Heresies, book 5, 27.2; source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103527.htm )[3]

The second quote, in particular, states that God does not punish the ‘damned’ immediately by Himself but, rather, the punishment falls upon them because they are destitute of all good. He also compares the damned to people who are blind and cannot see the light of the sun: it is not the sun that make them blind but, rather, it is the damage of their own eyes that keep them from seeing.  

John of Damascus

From the ‘Exposition of the Orthodox Faith’:

“Now there are two forms of desertion: for there is desertion in the matters of guidance and training, and there is complete and hopeless desertion. The former has in view the restoration and safety and glory of the sufferer, or the rousing of feelings of emulation and imitation in others, or the glory of God: but the latter is when man, after God has done all that was possible to save him, remains of his own set purpose blind and uncured, or rather incurable, and then he is handed over to utter destruction, as was Judas (Matthew 26:24). May God be gracious to us, and deliver us from such desertion.” (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 2.29; source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33042.htm )

From ‘Against the Manicheans’:

“And so we know, that God does not punish anyone in the future, but everyone makes themselves receptive to share in God. And so to share in God is a delight, while not sharing in Him is hell.” (“Against the Manicheans”, PG 94:1545D-1548A; source: https://preachersinstitute.com/2013/12/04/st-john-of-damascus-on-hell/ )

“… after death, there is no means for repentance, not because God does not accept repentance – He cannot deny Himself nor lose His compassion – but the soul does not change anymore … people after death are unchangeable, so that on the one hand the righteous desire God and always have Him to rejoice in, while sinners desire sin though they do not have the material means to sin … they are punished without any consolation. For what is hell but the deprivation of that which is exceedingly desired by someone? Therefore, according to the analogy of desire, whoever desires God rejoices and whoever desires sin is punished.” (“Against the Manicheans”, PG 94:1573??; source: https://preachersinstitute.com/2013/12/04/st-john-of-damascus-on-hell/ )

““God forever supplies good things even to the devil, but he does not want to receive it. And in eternity God supplies good things to all because He is the source of good things gushing forth goodness to all, while everyone makes themselves receptive, and they share in the good … those who do not have habitual pleasures and suffer without being healed, without God making hell, but because we lay out hell for ourselves, and indeed nor did God make death, but we ourselves caused this for us.”” (“Against the Manicheans”, PG 94:1569B; source: https://preachersinstitute.com/2013/12/04/st-john-of-damascus-on-hell/ )

 

 


[1] Cf. Mark 2:17, Matthew 9:12-13; Luke 5:31-32

[2] “ Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.” (John 8:34, NIV translation. Source: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208%3A34&version=NIV )

[3] The analogy of blindness is also present in Theophilus of Antioch (2nd century):

“For God is seen by those who are enabled to see Him when they have the eyes of their soul opened: for all have eyes; but in some they are overspread, and do not see the light of the sun. Yet it does not follow, because the blind do not see, that the light of the sun does not shine; but let the blind blame themselves and their own eyes. So also you, O man, have the eyes of your soul overspread by your sins and evil deeds.” (To Autolycus, book 1, chapter 2; source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02041.htm )

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ancient and Medieval witnesses of the presence of ‘universalism’ in Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia

Ancient and Medieval witnesses of the presence of ‘universalism’ [1] in  Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia Introduction In this text, witnesses of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s and Diodore of Tarsus’ eschatological ‘universalist’ views, are reported.  As shall we see, the attestations of Diodore’s endorsement of a form of apokatastasis are always accompanied by an attestation of his disciple, Theodore, endorsing the same view. All these common testimonies are from Syriac sources, both Eastern-Syriac - Isaac of Nineveh (fl. 7 th century in his Second Part, 39.7-14; for Theodore only in his Second Part, 3.3.94 ), Solomon of Basra (fl. 13 th century in his book of the Bee, 60 ), Theodore bar Konai (fl. 8 th century in his Liber Scholiorum 2.63 ) - and Western-Syriac - John of Dara (fl. 9 th century in his On the Resurrection of Human Bodies 4.21 ). There is a brief comparison of a passage in Isaac’s Third Part (discourse 6) about eschatological punishments and the cont...
Read more

On the presence of universalism in East Syrian tradition

On the presence of universalism [1] in East Syrian tradition East Syrian theologians were influenced by Diodore of Tarsus (fl. 4 th century), his disciple Theodore of Mopsuestia (fl. 4-5 th century) who is called the ‘Interpreter/Exegete/Expositor’ in the East Syrian church (also called ‘Church of the East’), and Evagrius Ponticus (fl. 4 th century) [2] .  The point of this text is to show that there a was significant prevalence of the idea in this tradition (this doesn’t necessarily mean that it was a majority view). For more details about Diodore and Theodore see my previous post: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/01/ancient-and-medieval-witnesses-of_28.html An updated version of this post can be found here:  https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/03/on-presence-of-universalism-in-east.html  A testimony of an opponent: Babai the Great (fl. 6 th century): Let me start with the testimony of an opponent of ‘universalism’ in the East-Syrian Ch...
Read more

On the possible presence of universalism in some ancient Christians Latin authors

  On the possible presence of universalism in some ancient Christians Latin authors Introduction In what follows, I’ll present some evidence for the presence of a doctrine or a sympathy of universalism (i.e. the belief that all human beings will be ultimately saved) in some Latin Fathers. There are some suggestive passages in the writings of Ambrose of Milan and John Cassian. Also, Rufinus of Aquileia, in his quarrel against Jerome of Stridon, while admitting that the fate of the wicked is a mystery shows a clear sympathy for the doctrine of universalism. However, it should be noted that none of the figures I quote in this post have been cited as universalists (as far as I know) before the 19 th century and, also, the interpretation of their texts never seem to have caused controversy among later writers (again, as far as I know) about the possible presence of genuine universalist beliefs or interpolations in their texts. While this fact alone doesn’t exclude an universalist...
Read more