I struggle to see Hebrews 9 as being that malleable. The passage seems less about the technicalities of life stages and more about the singularity of our deaths (and thus our lives) prior to judgement - in parallel with Christs singular death prior to judgement.
If you have further argumentation I'd be keen to hear it though.
Upon further reflection.. I could see how there may be some possibility for post mortem opportunity if we place this possibility at the judgement - judgement here being understood as 'to set right'. For that is indeed up to Christ.
So, if this life was not sufficient to make that judgment, then perhaps there may be opportunity.
I.e the fact that *we* only have this life in which we can repent, may not mean that Christ does not offer post mortem chances at the judgement.
Also, this understanding of our having only this life was perhaps not meant in an exhaustive sense, but rather in the normative and colloquial sense of simply the average person who lives for score and twenty and dies..
"[N]either let us dream any more that the souls of the dead are anything at all holpen by our prayers: but, as the Scripture teacheth us, let us think that the soul of man, passing out of the body, goeth straightways either to heaven or else to hell, whereof the one needeth no prayer, and the other is without redemption." The Third Part of the Homily on Prayer.
"Let us not therefore dream either of purgatory, or of prayer for the souls of them that be dead; but let us earnestly and diligently pray for them which are expressly commanded in holy Scripture, namely, for kings and rulers, for ministers of God’s holy word and sacraments, for the saints of this world, otherwise called the faithful, to be short, for all men living, be they never so great enemies to God and his people, as Jews, Turks, pagans, infidels, heretics. Then shall we truly fulfil the commandment of God in that behalf, and plainly declare ourselves to be the true children of our heavenly Father, which suffereth the sun to shine upon the good and the bad, and the rain to fall upon the just and the unjust. For which and all other benefits most abundantly bestowed upon mankind from the beginning let us give him hearty thanks, as we are most bound, and praise his Name for ever and ever. Amen." The Third Part of the Homily on Prayer.
Are you not confessional or do you interpret these words in a way that allows prayer for the dead? How do these things fit together with your post?
Herbert Thorndike, William Forbes, Lancelot Andrewes, and others allowed for prayer for the dead. I think the Homilies aren't as an authoritative formulary as the article, and think Thorndike is right here:
"I will not here allege that the Church of England teaches to pray for the dead where the Litany prays for deliverance in the hour of death and in the day of judgment; or when we pray after the Communion, that by the merits and death of Christ, and through faith in His blood, we and all the whole Church may obtain remission of our sins and all other benefits of His passion. But it is manifest that, in the service appointed in the time of Edward VI, prayer is made for the dead both before the Communion and at the burial, to the same purpose as I maintain. It is manifest also that it was changed in Queen Elizabeth’s time to content the Puritans, who, now it appears, could not be content with less than the breaking of the Church in pieces. And therefore, since unity has not been obtained by parting with the law of the Catholic Church, in my opinion, for the love of it, I continue the resolution to bound Reformation by the rule of the Catholic Church—allowing that it may be a matter of Reformation to restore the prayers which are made for the dead to the original sense of the whole Church, but maintaining that to take away all prayer for the dead is not paring off abuses, but cutting to the quick."
The Articles themselves point to the Homilies as an authoritative formulary.
XXI. Of the Justification of Man.
We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.
To know what we believe about Justification you must read the Homilies.
XXV Of the Homilies.
The Second Book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth; and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people.
They are commanded to be read publicly and are commended as Godly and Wholesome.
Articles 6, 8, 11, 18, and 35 all stand against your idea of a second chance after death as a reason for the practice as well.
I agree the doctrine is Godly and Wholesome; the article does not say they are inerrant. As such, I don't think there is any spiritual harm whatsoever in believing that there is no second chance for repentance. Further, I agree with the Homily on justification completely.
I am not a universalist. I don't see how those Articles stand against the idea of a second chance.
6. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.
Pagans do not have or believe in the Holy Scripture, so don't have any of the things necessary for salvation, like Baptism, as one example of how it doesn't agree with a second chance.
8. Of the Creeds.
The Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius' Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.
This points to the Athanasius' Creed which says
"Whosoever will be saved : before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith. Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled : without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."
And "Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation : that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ."
And "At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies : and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting : and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholick Faith : which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved."
Article 11, and 35 point to the Homilies which I have already mentioned, disagree directly with your idea.
18. Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ.
They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.
This directly attacks the idea that one can be saved outside of Christ, and that one can be saved in another religion, or natural law, if they live in it their entire life.
As a bonus, an Article which was dropped only because it was thought that it wasn't needed anymore states that "They also are worthy of condemnation who endeavor at this time to restore the dangerous opinion that all men, be they never so ungodly, shall at length be saved when they have suffered pains for their sins a certain time appointed by God’s justice."
Article VI says that Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation. I don't see how affirming that there's a second chance for those who die contradicts this.
Even *if* pagans had everything necessary to salvation (which I obviously deny), that still wouldn't contradict the text of the article. So your point is moot. Even if a pagan had everything they needed to salvation, that wouldn't somehow entail that Scripture didn't contain that which is necessary to salvation.
Article 8: I agree here. Someone who repents after death would obviously come to accept the content of the Athanasian creed, and thus keep the faith; they'd also come to believe in the Incarnation. And as I said in the OP, when our Lord returns and raises all from the dead, there is no second chance after final judgment. But note that it's speaking about what happens *when Christ returns*.
Article 18 - I never said anyone could be saved outside of Christ. If they repented after death in Sheol, it would clearly be on account of having accepted Christ. I don't think natural law would be what would save them, but only because they come to accept Christ.
And as you point out, that quoted text on universalism was dropped and never included in the Articles, so it's not part of our formularies.
"There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: and there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: for I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
How could you not then say that those who repent after death, don't still suffer punishment? You end up with a sort of Purgatorial Universalism, unless you think someone would withstand endless punishment forever without repenting. The dead don't change sides in this parable. They see they were wrong, and are punished anyway for the evil they did in life.
"Behold, now is the day of salvation"
"He hath set fire and water before thee: stretch forth thy hand unto whether thou wilt. Before man is life and death; and whether him liketh shall be given him."
"But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and there shall no torment touch them. In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die: and their departure is taken for misery, And their going from us to be utter destruction: but they are in peace. For though they be punished in the sight of men, yet is their hope full of immortality., And having been a little chastised, they shall be greatly rewarded: for God proved them, and found them worthy for himself. As gold in the furnace hath he tried them, and received them as a burnt offering. And in the time of their visitation they shall shine, and run to and fro like sparks among the stubble. They shall judge the nations, and have dominion over the people, and their Lord shall reign for ever. They that put their trust in him shall understand the truth: and such as be faithful in love shall abide with him: for grace and mercy is to his saints, and he hath care for his elect. But the ungodly shall be punished according to their own imaginations, which have neglected the righteous, and forsaken the Lord. For whoso despiseth wisdom and nurture, he is miserable, and their hope is vain, their labours unfruitful, and their works unprofitable"
In the place where the tree falls, there it shall be.
For myself, I feel hesitant to build beliefs or practices like this on such limited and unclear evidence from the apostles. It’s interesting to think about, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable encouraging others to hold or practise something that lacks clearer support from the apostolic witness.
Enjoyed your article. You said, "I have met non-Christians who have said, 'well if there’s the possibility of post-mortem repentance, then I’ll live it up now and repent later!'" You are correct to say further that "this is a fool’s errand." Those who reason that way seem to think that post-mortem repentance is just stopping doing something bad rather than regretting doing something bad and turning away from it. If you are told to stop doing something and you do, but you would be fine "keeping on" if you could, this is not the same as repentance. It's just avoiding being caught or getting in trouble. Repentance is a sorrow for previous actions and a desire to never do them again.
This actually made a lot of sense, especially when you brought up the Great Divorce. I don't know if I necessarily agree but you've given me a lot to think about!
I struggle to see Hebrews 9 as being that malleable. The passage seems less about the technicalities of life stages and more about the singularity of our deaths (and thus our lives) prior to judgement - in parallel with Christs singular death prior to judgement.
If you have further argumentation I'd be keen to hear it though.
Upon further reflection.. I could see how there may be some possibility for post mortem opportunity if we place this possibility at the judgement - judgement here being understood as 'to set right'. For that is indeed up to Christ.
So, if this life was not sufficient to make that judgment, then perhaps there may be opportunity.
I.e the fact that *we* only have this life in which we can repent, may not mean that Christ does not offer post mortem chances at the judgement.
Also, this understanding of our having only this life was perhaps not meant in an exhaustive sense, but rather in the normative and colloquial sense of simply the average person who lives for score and twenty and dies..
"[N]either let us dream any more that the souls of the dead are anything at all holpen by our prayers: but, as the Scripture teacheth us, let us think that the soul of man, passing out of the body, goeth straightways either to heaven or else to hell, whereof the one needeth no prayer, and the other is without redemption." The Third Part of the Homily on Prayer.
"Let us not therefore dream either of purgatory, or of prayer for the souls of them that be dead; but let us earnestly and diligently pray for them which are expressly commanded in holy Scripture, namely, for kings and rulers, for ministers of God’s holy word and sacraments, for the saints of this world, otherwise called the faithful, to be short, for all men living, be they never so great enemies to God and his people, as Jews, Turks, pagans, infidels, heretics. Then shall we truly fulfil the commandment of God in that behalf, and plainly declare ourselves to be the true children of our heavenly Father, which suffereth the sun to shine upon the good and the bad, and the rain to fall upon the just and the unjust. For which and all other benefits most abundantly bestowed upon mankind from the beginning let us give him hearty thanks, as we are most bound, and praise his Name for ever and ever. Amen." The Third Part of the Homily on Prayer.
Are you not confessional or do you interpret these words in a way that allows prayer for the dead? How do these things fit together with your post?
Herbert Thorndike, William Forbes, Lancelot Andrewes, and others allowed for prayer for the dead. I think the Homilies aren't as an authoritative formulary as the article, and think Thorndike is right here:
"I will not here allege that the Church of England teaches to pray for the dead where the Litany prays for deliverance in the hour of death and in the day of judgment; or when we pray after the Communion, that by the merits and death of Christ, and through faith in His blood, we and all the whole Church may obtain remission of our sins and all other benefits of His passion. But it is manifest that, in the service appointed in the time of Edward VI, prayer is made for the dead both before the Communion and at the burial, to the same purpose as I maintain. It is manifest also that it was changed in Queen Elizabeth’s time to content the Puritans, who, now it appears, could not be content with less than the breaking of the Church in pieces. And therefore, since unity has not been obtained by parting with the law of the Catholic Church, in my opinion, for the love of it, I continue the resolution to bound Reformation by the rule of the Catholic Church—allowing that it may be a matter of Reformation to restore the prayers which are made for the dead to the original sense of the whole Church, but maintaining that to take away all prayer for the dead is not paring off abuses, but cutting to the quick."
The Articles themselves point to the Homilies as an authoritative formulary.
XXI. Of the Justification of Man.
We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.
To know what we believe about Justification you must read the Homilies.
XXV Of the Homilies.
The Second Book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth; and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people.
They are commanded to be read publicly and are commended as Godly and Wholesome.
Articles 6, 8, 11, 18, and 35 all stand against your idea of a second chance after death as a reason for the practice as well.
Are you a universalist?
I agree the doctrine is Godly and Wholesome; the article does not say they are inerrant. As such, I don't think there is any spiritual harm whatsoever in believing that there is no second chance for repentance. Further, I agree with the Homily on justification completely.
I am not a universalist. I don't see how those Articles stand against the idea of a second chance.
6. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.
Pagans do not have or believe in the Holy Scripture, so don't have any of the things necessary for salvation, like Baptism, as one example of how it doesn't agree with a second chance.
8. Of the Creeds.
The Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius' Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.
This points to the Athanasius' Creed which says
"Whosoever will be saved : before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith. Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled : without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."
And "Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation : that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ."
And "At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies : and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting : and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholick Faith : which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved."
Article 11, and 35 point to the Homilies which I have already mentioned, disagree directly with your idea.
18. Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ.
They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.
This directly attacks the idea that one can be saved outside of Christ, and that one can be saved in another religion, or natural law, if they live in it their entire life.
As a bonus, an Article which was dropped only because it was thought that it wasn't needed anymore states that "They also are worthy of condemnation who endeavor at this time to restore the dangerous opinion that all men, be they never so ungodly, shall at length be saved when they have suffered pains for their sins a certain time appointed by God’s justice."
Also attacking the idea of a second chance.
Article VI says that Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation. I don't see how affirming that there's a second chance for those who die contradicts this.
Even *if* pagans had everything necessary to salvation (which I obviously deny), that still wouldn't contradict the text of the article. So your point is moot. Even if a pagan had everything they needed to salvation, that wouldn't somehow entail that Scripture didn't contain that which is necessary to salvation.
Article 8: I agree here. Someone who repents after death would obviously come to accept the content of the Athanasian creed, and thus keep the faith; they'd also come to believe in the Incarnation. And as I said in the OP, when our Lord returns and raises all from the dead, there is no second chance after final judgment. But note that it's speaking about what happens *when Christ returns*.
Article 18 - I never said anyone could be saved outside of Christ. If they repented after death in Sheol, it would clearly be on account of having accepted Christ. I don't think natural law would be what would save them, but only because they come to accept Christ.
And as you point out, that quoted text on universalism was dropped and never included in the Articles, so it's not part of our formularies.
And what about The Rich man and Lazarus?
"There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: and there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: for I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
How could you not then say that those who repent after death, don't still suffer punishment? You end up with a sort of Purgatorial Universalism, unless you think someone would withstand endless punishment forever without repenting. The dead don't change sides in this parable. They see they were wrong, and are punished anyway for the evil they did in life.
"Behold, now is the day of salvation"
"He hath set fire and water before thee: stretch forth thy hand unto whether thou wilt. Before man is life and death; and whether him liketh shall be given him."
"But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and there shall no torment touch them. In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die: and their departure is taken for misery, And their going from us to be utter destruction: but they are in peace. For though they be punished in the sight of men, yet is their hope full of immortality., And having been a little chastised, they shall be greatly rewarded: for God proved them, and found them worthy for himself. As gold in the furnace hath he tried them, and received them as a burnt offering. And in the time of their visitation they shall shine, and run to and fro like sparks among the stubble. They shall judge the nations, and have dominion over the people, and their Lord shall reign for ever. They that put their trust in him shall understand the truth: and such as be faithful in love shall abide with him: for grace and mercy is to his saints, and he hath care for his elect. But the ungodly shall be punished according to their own imaginations, which have neglected the righteous, and forsaken the Lord. For whoso despiseth wisdom and nurture, he is miserable, and their hope is vain, their labours unfruitful, and their works unprofitable"
In the place where the tree falls, there it shall be.
For myself, I feel hesitant to build beliefs or practices like this on such limited and unclear evidence from the apostles. It’s interesting to think about, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable encouraging others to hold or practise something that lacks clearer support from the apostolic witness.
Enjoyed your article. You said, "I have met non-Christians who have said, 'well if there’s the possibility of post-mortem repentance, then I’ll live it up now and repent later!'" You are correct to say further that "this is a fool’s errand." Those who reason that way seem to think that post-mortem repentance is just stopping doing something bad rather than regretting doing something bad and turning away from it. If you are told to stop doing something and you do, but you would be fine "keeping on" if you could, this is not the same as repentance. It's just avoiding being caught or getting in trouble. Repentance is a sorrow for previous actions and a desire to never do them again.
This actually made a lot of sense, especially when you brought up the Great Divorce. I don't know if I necessarily agree but you've given me a lot to think about!