Article on Universalism.

[Guest]

Hi Homer,

As promised, I finally had a chance to spend a little time reading Bauckham's historical survey on Universalism. I quite like the idea of a historical survey. If done without prejudice, it can be quite informative. Unfortunately, I found Bauckham's piece not to be free from prejudice and, therefore, only giving part of the story. I also found it to be full of contradictions and unsubstantiated assertions.

The initial flaw is with the premise. Bauckham is not giving an historical survey of the various views about Hell and how they developed. He is only focusing on Christian Universalism while making it clear that he is an opponent of the teaching. This leaves the field wide open for inference and innuendo. We never learn, for example, about the philosophies that influenced Augustine or Aquinas or Calvin. This can lead to a subtle inference that non-universalist theologians offer a sort of pure baseline from which the universalists deviated due to Plato, Darwin, etc. More on this in a moment.

Early on in the piece, Bauckham admits that advocates of CU included some "major theologians of the early church".

He asserts that "Eternal punishment was firmly asserted in the official creeds and confessions of the churches.", without mentioning that it is absent from the oldest and most enduring creeds: The Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed.

Buackham attempts to position CU as always having been "outside the theological mainstream" (whatever that means), yet within a few sentences admits that, "Among the less conservative [theologians], universal salvation, either as hope or as dogma, is now so widely accepted that many theologians assume it virtually without argument." Strangely enough, after admitting it's popularity among "less conservative" theologians, he later states, "In this century, however, exegesis has turned decisively against the universalist case. Few would now doubt that many NT texts clearly teach a final division of mankind into save and lost...". Is he implying that the "many theologians" don't practice any form of exegesis?

Regarding Origen, Bauckham implies that Origen's universalism was a result of his allegorical hermeneutic, although he doesn't demonstrate how this could be. To the best of my knowledge, Origen's allegorical hermeneutic and his universalism were not dependant upon one-another. This is why the Catholic church was able to jettison universalism whilst retaining allegoricalism. Bauckham goes on to apparently try to establish a link between Origen and gnosticism via Platonic influence. In reality, Origen was a firm opponent of gnosticism. It is actually Augustine, with his Manichean background, who has closer links to Platonism and gnosticism. Origen's Contra Celsum, by the way, is considered one of the finest defenses of Christianity produced in the early church.

Bauckham's attempt to liken Platonism's influence on early universalists to Darwin's influence on later universalists is a red herring. Theologians of all types (such as the aforementioned Augustine) were influenced by Platonic and Neo-Platonic thought and theologians of all types were not. Likewise, theologians of all types in the nineteenth century were influenced by Darwin and theologians of all types were not. Universalism is not inherently susceptible to or resultant of gnosticism or Darwinism.

Perhaps the most glaring contradiction is when Bauckham states, "...Christian orthodoxy has always [my underline] regarded this life as decisive for a man's fate and hell as the final destiny of the wicked.", and then in the very next sentence states, "The doctrine of the final restoration of all souls seems to have been not uncommon in the East during the fourth and fifth centuries." One can only draw the conclusion that Bauckman is claiming that the founders of the Orthodox church were, in fact, not orthodox!

Of course, Bauckman couldn't resist entering into evidence the condemnation of Origenists and Origen (300 years after his death) at the Council at Constantinople in 543. But what he downplays is that the "Origenism" which served as the impetus of the councel was a gnostic perversion of Origen's teachings. Origen himself would have opposed the Origenists!

I found Bauckham's overview of the 16th through 18th centuries less objectionable, though he downplays the importance of largely universalist sects like the Anabaptists, Quakers and Pietists; some of the most vibrant movements of that time period. He also leaves out important CU proponents like Relly and Murray. And what about George MacDonald?

I actually thought his Schleiermacher section was quite good. Perhaps the closer one gets to modern times, the more necessary it is to stick to what the person actually wrote.

I credit Mr. Bauckham for mentioning other 19th century universalists like F.D. Maurice, H.B. Wilson and F.W. Farrar, although he downplays just how influential they were, particulary in Anglican circles at that time.

Whereas he downplays the importance of many universalist theologians, Bauckham over-emphasizes that there are universalist theologians who "...disagree with the NT writer's teaching about a final division of mankind.", concluding, "Thus the modern universalist is no longer bound to the letter of the NT; he can base his doctrine on the spirit of NT teaching about the love of God." Strangely, Bauckham doesn't name any specific theologians, other than the relatively obscure C.W. Emmet. In being so vague, Bauckham allows his blanket statements to be misconstrued as applying to all modern universalists.

The Barth and Brunner section was actually pretty good, again because he let them speak for themselves.

Bauckham then wraps things up with J.A.T. Robinson and John Hick. Again, he downplays how influential (and highly credentialed) Robinson and Hicks were.

In the second to the last paragraph, Bauckham describes the relationship between Hick's universalism and his approach to theodicy. I was surprised that Bauckham gave a very good and concise presentation of Hick's argument on the matter, and offered no rebuttal!

Bauckham ends the piece by muddying the waters one more time: He closes by stating, "It is typical of this variety of universalism, that our ultimate salvation becomes a prospect so distant as to be hardly capable of concerning us at all in this first of our many lives. This is a far cry from Jesus' message of present salvation to be apprehended or lost in immediate response to His preaching." Which variety of universalism is Bauckham referring to? Hick's variety. Yet by closing in this way, Bauckham gives the impression that he is referring to all forms of Christian Universalism.

This essay was written in 1978 and so makes no mention of Talbott, Gregory MacDonald, Punt, or many other contemporary voices of Christian Universalism.

All-in-all I think Bauckham's historical survey leaves something to be desired in terms of accuracy, fairness, thoroughness and usefulness.

[Guest]

An aside.

I just found and listened to a new and excellent lecture by Bauckham named:
"The Four Gospels and the Other Gospels: Is Our Canon Right?"

I'll get it up on a new thread soon.
Rick