Search This Blog

Thursday, June 09, 2011

There Is No Such Thing As Trinitarian-Universalism

The trend today among many who oppose a Trinitarian approach to theology is to link Trinitarianism to Universalism as if they are one and the same. Thus, when others fail to investigate the matter for themselves but simply take this flawed premise as truth, those who deplore the views of Universalism immediately indict Trinitarianism as guilty-by-association.

I myself have been called a Universalist many times because of my Trinitarian views. Some (but not all) who have brought this charge against me have done so with an inflammatory sense of urgency and with impassioned emotion that might sway those who haven’t studied the topics for themselves. When somebody in a theatre screams, “Fire!” people seldom pause to ascertain whether or not the building is indeed burning. If they rush out of the theatre only to discover afterwards that there was no fire, they wouldn’t appreciate the false alarm. However, the problem when somebody screams, “Heresy!” is that even after people have fled the building, few take the time afterwards to investigate whether or not the alarming cry was grounded in reality and truth.

Charges that try to combine Trinitarianism and Universalism come from those who are either are uninformed or misinformed about these two viewpoints. While most biblical perspectives share some similarity, as do these, they are also very different in other ways. There is no such thing as a Trinitarian-Universalist. There are Universalists who believe in the Trinity (Christian Universalism) and there are those who don't (Unitarian Universalism). The soteriological viewpoint called "Trinitarianism" is not a Universalist position. To use the phrase, "Trinitarian Universalist" reflects either a lack of academic investigation or scholastic integrity. It’s sloppy at best and dishonest at worst. Even a cursory study of the two fields of study would readily reveal stark differences.

Mention the name, Thomas F. Torrance, and the subject of Trinitarianism will immediately come to the minds of those familiar with both Torrance and Trinitarianism. Torrance is among a handful of contemporary theologians who have articulated Trinitarian thought in the clearest way and in a way most faithful to the ancient Church Fathers who espoused this view.

Back in the 1940’s, there was an interesting dialogue and debate between TF Torrance and renowned New Testament scholar J.A.T. Robinson. The following quote from Torrance was a response to Robinson’s compelling defense of the Universalist viewpoint.

“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 carry as a corollary the impossibility 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 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 Omnipotent Love? There is not a shred of Biblical witness that can be adduced to support the impossibility of ultimate damnation. All the weight of Biblical teaching is on the other side.”

Torrance continues later in the article:

“The doctrine of universalism gains its plausibility not from itself, for it is inherently and inevitably inconsistent, but from the inconsistency of the position it attacks. That is very apparent in Dr. Robinson's essay which attains its force in criticism of a position where God's righteousness and love, or His omnipotence and love, are thrown into false antithesis. That has long been the difficulty with the traditional doctrine of predestination and reprobation as a double decree. In actual fact, however, the Biblical doctrine of election is the very doctrine which expresses the universal action of God's grace in such a way that, far from dissolving the personal elements of choice and decision, it establishes them. It is the doctrine of election therefore which is the great truth that is partly apprehended and yet obscured in the error of universalism.

(Unversalism) commits the dogmatic fallacy of systematising the illogical. Sin has a fundamentally surd-like character. Somehow 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 discontinuity. No explanation involving only continuity or coherence 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 we think about it, here our reason reaches its limit. It 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 bottomless reality of sin is not denied. That act of God is ultimately eschatological so that just how the contradiction is dealt with in atonement is yet to be revealed at the Parousia. That is the relevance of apocalyptic, but apocalyptic is the antithesis of universalism. Universalism is the doctrine that rationalises sin, that refuses to admit in its dark fathomless mystery a limit to reason. Universalism means that the contradiction 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 sabachthani,” and considered the great weight of sin to discover that only by act of God can 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 disciple of suspending judgment in order to avoid foisting a false and abortive unity or a closed system of thought upon the actual facts of existence. The irrational mystery of evil is the other rock upon which universalism as a unitary interpretation of existence inevitably suffers shipwreck. True dogmatic procedure at this point is to suspend judgment, for here that is the most rational thing reason can do. Whether all men will as a matter of fact be saved or not, in the nature of the case, cannot be known. The doctrine of universalism gains its plausibility not from itself, for it is inherently and inevitably inconsistent, but from the inconsistency of the position it attacks. That is very apparent in Dr. Robinson's essay which attains its force in criticism of a position where God's righteousness and love, or His omnipotence and love, are thrown into false antithesis. That has long been the difficulty with the traditional doctrine of predestination and reprobation as a double decree.

In actual fact, however, the Biblical doctrine of election is the very doctrine which expresses the universal action of God's grace in such a way that, far from dissolving the personal elements of choice and decision, it establishes them. It is the doctrine of election therefore which is the great truth that is partly apprehended and yet obscured in the error of universalism.”

Torrance continues:

“Election is the love of God enacted and inserted into history in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, so that in the strictest sense Jesus Christ is the election of God. He is the one and indivisible act of divine love. There is therefore no decree of predestination which precedes this act of grace or goes behind the back of Jesus Christ, for that would be to split the act of God into two, and to divide Christ from God. Jesus Christ is wholly identical with God's action, that which was, and that which is, and that which shall be, the same yesterday, today, and forever.”

And to conclude Torrance’s response to Robinson:

“The Incarnation of the Son of God means therefore that the eternal Word of God has become event in time, and that through the Cross the eternal decision of God has invaded the sphere of our temporal relations. Just because the love of God is not only act in time but a Person, Jesus Christ, the eternal election of God has become encounter, acutely personalised in the midst of our choices and decisions, demanding response and decision. Election is not therefore some dead predestination in the past or some still point in a timeless eternity, but a living act that enters time and confronts us face to face in Jesus Christ the living Word of God. Precisely because this Word is also eternal it is always contemporary with us, travelling, as it were, through time. The great fact of the Gospel then is this: that God has actually chosen us in Jesus Christ in spite of our sin, and that in the death of Christ that election has become a fait accompli. It means too that God has chosen all men, in as much as Christ died for all men, and because that is once and for all no one can ever elude the election of His love, as no one exists except by the Word of God by who In as much all things were made and in whom all things consist, and in as much as this is the Word that has once and for all enacted the eternal election of grace to embrace all men, the existence of every man whether he will or no is bound up inextricably with that election—with the Cross of Jesus Christ. Every man's being is bound up for ever with the one and indivisible act of God's love in Jesus Christ. How could it be otherwise? The life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are the final reality of our world upon which everything else depends. All things are summed up in Him, things visible, and invisible, whether they be things in earth or things in heaven. The whole universe revolves round the Love of God in Jesus Christ and all its motion depends entirely upon Him.”

If you’ve come this far in your reading of this blog, that tells me that you have the aptitude for understanding Torrance’s point, whether you agree with it or not. Trinitarianism is not Universalism. So, in the interest of scholastic integrity and in the name of Christian harmony, please don’t postulate publicly that it is.

What do I believe? I believe that, in Christ, our Triune God has adopted all of humanity into Himself. I believe that this objective reality is factual whether or not it ever becomes an actual, subjective experience to a person. I believe that the proclamation of the gospel is to announce the good news of what has been done by our sovereign God, not what could be done if a frail human will only let Him. I believe that apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ, a person will not inherit the kingdom of God, neither now nor in eternity. I believe there are aspects of the afterlife that cannot be known and defended as dogma because of the apparent ambiguity we experience when we try to filter infinite reality through our finite ability to understand. I believe there are paradoxical statements in Scripture that we can embrace without the necessity of reconciling every detail of biblical truth in our own understanding. I believe that there is no place for loving brothers and sisters to vilify those whose understanding is different from our own. I believe that we can discuss and debate with passion yet maintain an attitude of loving respect for each other that is obvious to any onlooker. I acknowledge that I do not have perfect understanding of anything but teach through “a glass darkly” and believe this is the attitude we all need to possess.

Finally, where I am wrong, I am sincerely wrong. I am wrong after years of study, prolonged periods of prayer, intense interaction with respected colleagues and friends, moments of agonizing doubts and exhilarating certainty. As best as I know my heart, I am teachable, but I am where I am and sense an internal mandate to be true to myself, to what I believe to be my calling and to the message I believe has been entrusted to me by Him. I ask foes and friends alike to pray for me. None of us have cornered the market on the truth. May we each be open to learn and to change so that our souls and actions may increasingly be conformed to the image of the One who unites us all together.

………………………………………
The information in this blog from TF Torrance came directly from the article cited at the bottom of this page. Copyrights forbid me from publishing the article in its entirety but it is available for sale at:
https://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3282104&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0036930600004713
T. F. Torrance (1949). Universalism or Election?. Scottish Journal of Theology, 2, pp 310-318 doi:10.1017/S0036930600004713

11 comments:

  1. "I believe that the proclamation of the gospel is to announce the good news of what has been done by our sovereign God, not what could be done if a frail human will only let Him."

    Yes! Another great post!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree....Another great post. Thanks Steve.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for your transparency and openness, it truly shows your heart of love for all people. I concur with what is written here and rejoice in the finished wideness of grace of Father,Son and Holy Spirit for all humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  4. With all due respect, who in the hell would refuse Christ after their own death if in doing so, they would be eternally condemned? If you can explain how this hypothetical could ever occur, I would consider the distinctions of Trinitarianism versus Unitarianism.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve-I have very much appreciated stumbling across your blog. I have read a few of your books and am an avid fan of Gillham, Stone, George, etc...

    My wife and I are family friends and counselees of Steve Pettit whom we love much and have sat under and been receiving the "Rest of the Gospel" from for the last 5 or so years.

    I have just recently found Torrance's work and can't help but find my own convictions and beliefs aligning closely to what he posits as Universal Atonement.
    If through the one man, condemnation spread to all men, then how could righteousness not spread to all men through the one man, Jesus (Rom 5:18)

    My immediate burning question though is, have you been able to find comfort and understanding yet in how one comes to the acknowledgment of Salvation and Grace made available to us In Christ.

    I certainly believe that God owns Salvation and only the Spirit of Christ turns the lights on for us but I also acknowledge that there must be some compelling wrought on by either our own want to or a want to ignited by Christ to move in His direction. I can hear reformed thoughts in my ramblings, which i want to steer clear of but this is a hurdle that I continue to wrestle through before the Love of the Father.

    In my study it would seem that Torrance believes that we have no faith of our own to activate but the only saving faith available is the saving faith that Christ possessed and was made available in His death and resurrection...

    I guess my ultimate question is how do we exercise or come to the knowledge of that Faith/Grace/Love in the first place.

    Apologies if my thoughts are disconnected and scattered. I certainly am learning to live in the mystery of our Union in Christ but acknowledge that i will always be a student of His, doing my best to understand the fullness that we have In Him.

    Blessings and thank you for continuing to point people to the only hope we have of glorifying the Father-Christ in us.

    Cameron Sandel

    ReplyDelete
  6. Love this and love you Bro! You are much appreciated!! :-)

    In the Love of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
    Chris Singer

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi Steve,

    If you don't mind, would you take a moment to clarify an apparent contradiction in the below two statements:

    1. "I believe that the proclamation of the gospel is to announce the good news of what has been done by our sovereign God, not what could be done if a frail human will only let Him."

    2. "I believe that apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ, a person will not inherit the kingdom of God, neither now nor in eternity."

    Thanks much!
    Bino.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sure, Bino. Here's a parallel example:

    1. The good news announced to Steve is that Bino has deposited a million dollars into Steve's bank account and it had nothing to do with what Steve did or didn't let Bino do.

    2. Apart from Steve believing and personally appropriating Bino's gift, he will never enjoy the benefits of what Bino has done.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks Steve! I appreciate it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks Steve for being so transparent here as you grapple with these complex issues both a Learner and a Teacher of Truth.

    Fortunately for all of us, as this quote by Torrance suggests, while we struggle with what you so well described as.."there are aspects of the afterlife that cannot be known and defended as dogma because of the apparent ambiguity we experience when we try to filter infinite reality through our finite ability to understand. I believe there are paradoxical statements in Scripture that we can embrace without the necessity of reconciling every detail of biblical truth in our own understanding."
    ....Jesus has picked up that tab for us as well!

    “He who boasts of his orthodoxy sins against justification by Christ alone, for he justifies himself by appeal to the truth of his own beliefs.”
    -T. F. Torrance, Reality & Evangelical Theology, 149.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks Steve for being so transparent here as you grapple with these complex issues both a Learner and a Teacher of Truth.

    Fortunately for all of us, as this quote by Torrance suggests, while we struggle with what you so well described as.."there are aspects of the afterlife that cannot be known and defended as dogma because of the apparent ambiguity we experience when we try to filter infinite reality through our finite ability to understand. I believe there are paradoxical statements in Scripture that we can embrace without the necessity of reconciling every detail of biblical truth in our own understanding."
    ....Jesus has picked up that tab for us as well!

    “He who boasts of his orthodoxy sins against justification by Christ alone, for he justifies himself by appeal to the truth of his own beliefs.”
    -T. F. Torrance, Reality & Evangelical Theology, 149.

    ReplyDelete