Scribd Logo
Carica

Benvenuto in Scribd!

  • Universalism or Election?

    Caricato da

    akimel
    326 visualizzazioni5 pagine
    by Thomas F. Torrance

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formati disponibili

    PDF o leggi online da Scribd

    Hai trovato utile questo documento?

    Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

    Segnala questo documento
    by Thomas F. Torrance

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    326 visualizzazioni5 pagine

    Universalism or Election?

    Caricato da

    akimel
    by Thomas F. Torrance

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    di 5
    Tesat E.aet UNIVERSALISM OR ELECTION? by Tue Rev. T. F. TORRANCE I the foregoing number of this Journal Dr. J. A. T. Robinson has done us the service of raising once again the question of universalism in a way that both merits admiration and chal- lenges discussion, Rarely has the case for universalism been stated so adroitly and so persuasively, but when even that state- ment rests upon deep inconsistencies one has less hesitation in turning away from the formidable authorities which he cites to the voice of the Catholic Church which throughout all ages has consistently judged universalism as a heresy for faith and a menace to the Gospel. Without doubt however there is a great truth here and that must be disentangled from the dangerous untruth. ‘The first difficulty we are presented with is that while Dr. Robinson sets himself to answer the question whether a doctrine of universal restoration is wholly incompatible with a truly Biblical theology his real answers are not given on Biblical lines. The first half of the argument is grounded upon the law of hon-contradiction; whereas the second half is made to repose upon‘a human analogy) In fact the whole argument presup- poses that what I can think és, and what I cannot think is not, To be sure Dr, Robinson insists that God is what He asserts Himself to be, and that the final proof of that assertion is eschatological, and to be sought in the last chapter of history. ‘And yet the extraordinary fact is that Dr. Robinson claims to be able to assert now by his own logic the truth of a doctrine which even he admits rests ultimately upon the final action of God. That takes us to the root of the matter. Is the love of God to be understood abstractly in terms of what we can think about it on a human analogy, such as human love raised to the nth degree, or are we to understand the love of God in terms of what God has actually manifested of His love, that is Biblically? Are we to understand the omnipotence of God in terms of a hypothetical ‘can’ or ‘must’, again raised to the nih degree, or are we to understand it in terms of what God has 310 1 VERSALISM OR ELECTION? ai actually done and does do, namely in terms of the actualisation of His power in history, in Jesus Christ? Can we ever get behind God's self-manifestation and His action and discuss the relation of omnipotence and love in terms of the necessity of His divine nature? Surely not, and yet this is just what Dr. Robinson has done. He has taken omnipotence and love as logical counters and set the problem in such a way as to find a logical answer—and of course in that setting the desired conclusion, universalism, follows easily. By means of the law of non- contradiction (i.e. by logical necessity) he sweeps aside every argument against universalism, and emerges triumphant with the prize that universalism is a single divine decree. But in all this Dr. Robinson has only side-stepped the real problem, namely that|gin is illogical) and by its very factual existence cannot be rationalised without being rationalised away. Even God could not answer the problem of sin except by the desperate action of Calvary, but the atonement does not come into this logical setting at all. Or to put it the other way round, what logical connection is there between the forgiveness of my sins in 1949 and the death of Jesus under Pontius Pilate? By applying the caregory of necessity Dr. Robinson has bridged _, the chasm of sin too easily and forced upon the situation a false“ unity that implies universalism from the outset, Dr. Robinson appears to realise this difficulty to a measured \ degree when he discusses ‘the problem of freedom:, When the problem is set forth it is raised as the freedom of choice, but when he comes to solve it the answer is given in terms of the freedom of complete self-expression or self-determination, and so he slips the argument deftly through a subtle ambiguity. If universalism must follow from a necessity of the divine nature, then all roads must lead to the same goal. It does not matter how often one insists that hell is an eternally live option, that universalism leaves the desperate urgency of the Gospel un- touched, it does not alter the fact that a universalist ‘must? of necessity is a constant denial that the question is open. Ulti- mately God’s will is unendurable: the sinner must yield. ‘Then Dr. Robinson produces his master-stroke. Up to this point every argument bas depended upon the law of non-contra~ diction, but now that he finds himself in difficulties with regard to freedom he decides to lay that law aside and take refuge in 312 SCOTTISH JOURNAL OF T# LOGY the I-Thow relationship where it does not apply. ‘This extra- ordinary somersault means that by 30 doing he has cut off as with a hatchet the whole of the foregoing argument! We begin over again with an analogy from human love and this is drawn with remarkable skill. From the irresistible character of human love we advance to the ultimately unendur- able love of God which inevitably brings the sinner to choose a foreclosed result, ‘The argument carries only aesthetic power and does not produce conviction, for this relation between two human beings, given an analogical extension to the relation between God and man, is predicated univocally. It would have been better to have learned from St. Thomas Aquinas; better still to have learned from Biblical analogies, such as that of the relation between Jesus and Judas. Ifall that Dr. Robin- son has said were true one would be utterly at a loss to under stand why Judas who for several years had the priceless on lege of enjoying to the fall the love of the Son of God should not have found that love irresistible. If ever omnipotent divine love was manifested it was in Jesus Christ, and yet in the ver hour when the supreme token of that love was given to him at the last supper Judas went out to betray that love with a dastardly kiss. The only valid analogy we have is in the life and death of Jesus Christ and there we learn where divine love was poured out to the utmost that men in unbelievable harden- ing of heart rejected it to the very last. Dare we go behind Calvary to argue our way to a conclusion which if we could reach by logic would make the Gross meaningless? 1? univer alism is true, is a necessity, then every road whether it had the icc Fania Gnlioracr roan: eee ore _All that Dr. Robinson’s argument succeeds in doing is to point to the possibility that all might be saved in as much as God loves all to the utmost, but it does not and cannot carr as a corollary the imposibilty of being eternally lost. ‘The fallacy of every universalist argument lies not in proving the love of God to be universal and omnipotent but in laying down the impossibility of ultimate damnation. Dr. Robinson has cited passages from the New Testament which would seem to him to point in the direction of universalism, but what of those many other passages which declare in no uncertain terms that at the last judgment there will be a final division between the IVERSALISM OR ELECTION? 313 children of light and the children of darkness? What of the shuddering horror of the words: “It were better for that man had he never been born”, which came from the lips of Omni- potent Love? There is not a shred of Biblical witness that ean be adduced to support the impossibility of ultimate damnation. All the weight of Biblical teaching is on the other side. Universalism is always and inevitably inconsistent for two reasons. (a) It commits the! logical fallacy of transmuting movement into necessity. At the very best universalism could only be concerned with 2 hope, with a possibility, and could only be expressed apocalyptically. But to turn it into a dog- matic statement, which is what the doctrine of universalism docs, is to destroy the possibility in the necessity. This is pre- cisely what Dr. Robinson has done, He started offin the second part of his essay, with a personal analogy and a personal truth, but immediately he proceeded to universalise it. In such a procedure the actual historical particularity of every choice hs a fece movement disappears, and necessity takes its place— no matter how hard one may try to avoid it, and Dr. Robinson has tried very hard. Apparently he has not realised that thinking in terms of universals in point of fact destroys the free decision of faith; that when personal Christian truths are turned into general truths they become necessary truths. Every free personal choice is rooted in historical existence. To think it sub specie aeterni is to abrogate it. Universalism in- evitably becomes shipwreck upon the stubborn particularity of the personal event. . (8) It commits the! dogmatic fallacy/of systematising the illogical. Sin has a fundamentally surd-like character. Some- how evil posits itself and cannot be rationalised. The New ‘Testament teaches that when it speaks of the mystery of iniquity, and of the bottomless pit (abyssos). Evil is fundamentally dis continuity. No explanation involving only continuity or coher- fence can ever approach the problem, for that would be to draw the line of continuity dialectically over discontinuity. The doctrine of the atonement teaches us that no matter how much Wwe think about it, here our reason reaches its limit. Tt cannot bridge the contradiction between God and man in guilt. The contradiction is resolved only by an act of God in which man in contradiction to God is reconciled and yet the terrible at SCOTTISH JOURNAL OF THT ~Locy bottomless reality of sin is not denied. That act of God is ultimately eschatological so that just how the contradiction i dealt with in atonement is yet t6 be revealed at the Parousia That is the relevance of apocalyptic, but apocalyptic is the antithesis of universalism. Universalism is the pu a rationalises sin, that refuses to admit in its dark fathomless mystery a limit to reason. Universalism means that the contra- diction can be bridged by reason after all, and constitutes therefore the denial of atonement and the anguished action of Calvary. The Christian faith which has looked into the limitless depth of the Eli, Eli lama sabackthani, and considered the great weight of sin to discover that only by act of God ean man get across the gulf, will accept the way of humility where the Cross makes foolish the wisdom of this world. It will learn the discipline of suspending judgment in order to avoid foistin, a false and abortive unity or a closed system of thought upon the actual facts of existence. The irrational mystery of e: the other tock upon which universalism a a unitary Inter tation of existence inevitably suffers shipwreck. ‘True dogmatic procedure at this point is to mumpend jucigment (my), fon here that is the most rational thing reason can do. Whether all men will as a matier of fact be saved or not, in the nature of “\ the case, cannot be known, “The doctrine of universalism gains its plausibility not fr

    Potrebbero piacerti anche