A reader writes:
Your perspective [Biblical Universalism*] is "a
fascinating proposition but the problem I have with it is
your use of hermeneutics. There is no historical stream behind
this position and the question I can't run from is 'Why did
God allow this truth to be seen just now when it had not (been
articulated) for the last 1900 years (outside of the Hodge
quote)?' Certainly exegetically this position has compelling
merit (as does annihilationism [conditional immortality])
but I think God set forth an unbroken ladder of truth (the
established teaching of His church) rather than a broken (or
short) one. I think you can see the 'historical' problem with
your position but I guess you must have decided the weight
of the history of the church tradition concerning the interpretation
of these passages [the so-called universalistic passages]
is not enough to overthrow your interpretation. I would rather
stand with the saints and the doctors of antiquity than to
stand alone. Blessings, ____________________"
A book page with this heading
-- "THEOLOGICAL TRADITION" provides an answer to the above
concern. I received this anonymously a few years ago. If any of my
readers can identify the source of this page I would greatly appreciate
receiving the reference. It reads:
"Some readers may
be put on guard by the assertions we have just made. They may be
inclined to feel that to suggest a new understanding of a well-known
text is to call into question the historic convictions of Christian
people down through the centuries. Surely, after many centuries
of Christian teaching, the church will not just now discover the
true meaning of an important Biblical passage, will it?
Ironically, such sentiments
are likely to be expressed by many who call themselves Protestants.
It is probably fortunate that these modern Christians were not around
in the days of Martin Luther or John Calvin! They might well have
discouraged those theological pioneers from expressing views that
clashed with the church consensus of their own time. Indeed, it
was Emperor Charles V who was supposed to have said of Luther at
the Diet of Worms, "A single friar who goes counter to all
Christianity for 1,000 years must be wrong!"
Yet today, many who feel
they could have stood shoulder to shoulder with Luther at Worms
do not accept Luther's principle of authority. They are reluctant
to adopt any position that does not have a strong theological tradition
behind it. And in feeling this way, they actually surrendered one
of the greatest convictions of the Reformation, namely the supremacy
of an appeal to Scripture over against the tradition of the church.
'But,' someone will object,
'would God allow His truths to be lost to the church at large over
so long a span of time?' In reply, one may ask a counter question:
'Why was there need for the Reformation in the first place? Would
not the opponents of the Reformers have had just as much right to
allege this principle against the new teachings?' In fact, as we
know, the authorities of the pre-Reformation did exactly that.
Accordingly, there can
be no valid appeal to theological tradition--even post-Reformation
theological tradition--against arguments that are basically about
what the Biblical text actually says. All post-Reformation Christians
should disallow such appeals. We therefore invite the reader to
think about one fundamental question only; What do the Scriptures
say?"
A
Historical Stream
The supposed "historical
problem" of Biblical Universalism is not nearly as severe as
the questioner surmises. According to Dr. John Sanders there are three
streams of historical development regarding the extent of salvation.
Very broadly speaking they are: (1) Restrictivism
- Few will be saved, basically only those with a New Testament knowledge
of Jesus Christ. (2) Inclusivism - Many will be saved.
Although salvation is found only in Christ, some unevangelized may
be included. (3) Universalism - All will finally
be saved. Sanders gives his reasons for judging that "Inclusivism"
is most consistent with the Scriptures.
In his book, No Other
Name, An Investigation into the Fate of the Unevangelized, (Eerdmans,
1990) Sanders presents a fourteen page "Historical Bibliography"
of theologians who have espoused Inclusivism (PP.
267 thru 280). Many recognized theologians from the New Testament
Era through the Middle Ages and from each of the 17th, 18th, 19th
and 20th centuries are listed. This bibliography could have included
Dr. Billy Graham (See Posting # 18). From the large number of "saints
and the doctors of antiquity" found in this bibliography, one
might well conclude that the assessment by Edward Pusey is correct:
"Edward Pusey maintained that the opinion that the majority
of souls will be damned was found only in the 'rigid Calvinistic
school' now gone from England (What is faith as to Everlasting
Punishment? [London: Rivington, 1880], pp. 6-26)"
(Sander's P. 273).
On page 278 Sanders presents
a very accurate description of my perspective (Biblical Universalism)
correctly refering to it as "a version of inclusivism."
There is a long, substantial, historical "ladder of truth"
under the teaching of Biblical Universalism. It reaches all the way
from the New Testament era to the 21st century. Biblical Universalism
adds a little, but rather significant, new twist to the history of
Inclusivism.
It can be said that the
work of Dr. John Sanders in presenting a review early church fathers
and other theologians throughout history who have espoused various
forms of Inclusivism has not only been supplemented, it has been undergirded
by the much more detailed historical review of such views presented
by Professor Terrance L. Tiessen. In his book, Who Can Be
Saved? (InterVarsity Press, 2004) Tiessen traces the history
of such views by answering the question "Is Accessibilism a New
Idea?" on pages 48 - 70.
Back
to Frequently Asked Questions
Contact the Author,
Neal Punt at: whenindoubt1@charter.net
©
2000 by Northland Books. Box 63, Allendale MI 49401. Unlimited permission
to copy and distribute this document without altering text is hereby
granted if this source is acknowledged.
