Clement of Alexandria’s Paedagogus. Edited by Veronika Hrůšová, Annewies van den Hoek, and Miklós Gyurkovics.
A few years ago I participated in the Third International Conference on Clement of Alexandria in Nyíregyháza, Hungary. In April 2025, the papers from the conference was released in a book on Brill. I have a chapter on Clement’s view of ownership, sharing, and the universal koinonia established by the “common Logos” in Paedagogus II 12, 120, 3–6.
The Trinitarian Faith: The Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic Church (T&T Clark Cornerstones 2016)
T.F. Torrance (1913-2007) was a Scottish Reformed theologian, famous for his work on Patristic theology. Torrance’s The Trinitarian Faith is basically a Neo-Orthodox (or Barthian) reading of fourth century trinitarian theology held by orthodox Christianity at large (the ‘ancient catholic church’). The book has the character of a dogmatics as it deals with the Christian faith on the basis of each article of the Nicene creed from the perspective of those theologians who first formulated and defended it.
While Torrance’s take on especially Gregory of Nyssa may seem a bit lacking, he presents a strong reading of especially Athanasius, but also Gregory Nazianzen. In both cases Torrance shows how the gospel was at stake in their defense of Nicene trinitarian orthodoxy. Torrance clearly demonstrates the importance of the belief in the consubstantiality (the homoousia) of Christ with God the Father. It is God himself who comes to save us in Christ, as Athanasius affirmed in his book On the incarnation.
Moreover, Torrance stresses how the incarnation for 4th century theology meant that human nature as a whole comes to participate in Christ. As Gregory Nazianzen formulated it, only that which is assumed is saved. The unity of divine and human natures in Christ means that God participates in everything human, but also that humanity comes to participate in God. Jesus not only died for us in an extrinsic or forensic sense, but humanity as a whole died and rose with Christ.
To this degree, Torrance presents what he described as an ‘ontological’ model of the atonement, seeing that the cross of Christ affects us in our deepest and innermost being due to the unity of divine and human natures in Christ. That the atonement means an already realized reconciliation is a frequent theme in contemporary Neo-Orthodox theology (especially Barth’s Church Dogmatics), but Torrance shows how this theme was already present in Nicene theology making it truly ‘evangelical’.
“In the profound interaction between incarnation and atonement in Jesus, the blessed exchange it involved between the divine-human life of Jesus and mankind has the effect of finalising and sealing the ontological relations between every man and Jesus Christ. Thus ‘our resurrection’, as Athanasius once expressed it, ‘is stored up in the Cross.’ Through his penetration into the perverted structures of human existence he reversed the process of corruption and more than made good what had been destroyed, for he has now anchored human nature in his own crucified and risen being, freely giving it participation in the fullness of God’s grace and blessing embodied in him. Since he is the eternal Word of God by whom and through whom all things that are made are made, and in whom the whole universe of visible and invisible realities coheres and hangs together, and since in him divine and human natures are inseparably united, then the secret of every man, whether he believes it or not, is bound up with Jesus for it is in him that human contingent existence has been grounded and secured.” (p. 182-183)
Note: Unlike many other authors described on this site, Torrance was not a soteriological ‘universalist’, but his Neo-Orthodox reading of ancient sources is reminiscent of especially James Relly’s theology and as such at least compatible with the hope in a final salvation of all through Christ.
From the book description at Amazon:
“Cutting across the divide between East and West and between Catholic and Evangelical, Thomas F. Torrance illuminates our understanding of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Torrance combines here the Gospel and a theology shaped by Karl Barth and the Church Fathers, and offers his readers a unique synthesis of the Nicene Creed.”
Below is an excerpt from Athanasius’ On the Incarnation of the Word, §9. Here Athanasius once more explains how the Word of God became a human being in order that the law of death may be completed in Him, while the resurrection of all is subsequently effected due to the immortality of the Word. As such Athanasius affirms most of the major aspects of the atonement, i.e. the ransom motif, Christus Victor, and, to some degree, even a form of penal substitution – although for Athanasius it is arguably more true to say, with Paul, that all have died with Christ rather than simply saying that he died as a substitute for us, 2 Cor. 5:14 (see §10).
For the Word, perceiving that no otherwise could the corruption of men be undone save by death as a necessary condition, while it was impossible for the Word to suffer death, being immortal, and Son of the Father; to this end He takes to Himself a body capable of death, that it, by partaking of the Word Who is above all, might be worthy to die in the stead of all, and might, because of the Word which had come to dwell in it, remain incorruptible, and that thenceforth corruption might be stayed from all by the Grace of the Resurrection. Whence, by offering unto death the body He Himself had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from any stain, straightway He put away death from all His peers by the offering of an equivalent.
For being over all, the Word of God naturally by offering His own temple and corporeal instrument for the life of all satisfied the debt by His death. And thus He, the incorruptible Son of God, being conjoined with all by a like nature, naturally clothed all with incorruption, by the promise of the resurrection. For the actual corruption in death has no longer holding-ground against men, by reason of the Word, which by His one body has come to dwell among them.
And like as when a great king has entered into some large city and taken up his abode in one of the houses there, such city is at all events held worthy of high honour, nor does any enemy or bandit any longer descend upon it and subject it; but, on the contrary, it is thought entitled to all care, because of the king’s having taken up his residence in a single house there: so, too, has it been with the Monarch of all.
For now that He has come to our realm, and taken up his abode in one body among His peers, henceforth the whole conspiracy of the enemy against mankind is checked, and the corruption of death which before was prevailing against them is done away. For the race of men had gone to ruin, had not the Lord and Saviour of all, the Son of God, come among us to meet the end of death.
Charles John Ellicott (1819–1905) was an Anglican theologian and bishop of Gloucester. Below is Ellicott’s interpretation of Paul’s enigmatic words in 2 Cor 15:14 from his New Testament Commentary for English Readers. The mystical death of all with Christ is real and effective to the degree that sanctification is a matter of living in accordance with our true nature in Christ, while sin is a denial to be who we really are in Christ (note: I have not studied the rest of Ellicott’s oeuvre, so I possess no knowledge about his theory of the atonement and soteriology in general).
For the love of Christ constraineth us.—The Greek, like the English, admits of two interpretations—Christ’s love for us, or our love for Christ. St. Paul’s uniform use of this and like phrases, however, elsewhere (Romans 5:5; Romans 8:35; 1 Corinthians 16:24; 2 Corinthians 13:14), is decisive in favour of the former. It was the Apostle’s sense of the love that Christ had shown to him and to all men that was acting as a constraining power, directing every act of every spiritual state to the good of others, restraining him from every self-seeking purpose.
Because we thus judge, that if one died for all.—Better, as expressing the force of the Greek tense, Because we formed this judgment. The form of expression implies that the conviction dated from a given time, i.e., probably, from the hour when, in the new birth of his conversion, he first learnt to know the universality of the love of Christ manifested in His death. Many MSS. omit the “if,” but without any real change of meaning. It is obvious that St. Paul assumes the fact, even if it be stated hypothetically. The thought is the same as in the nearly contemporary passage of Romans 5:15-19, and takes its place among St. Paul’s most unqualified assertions of the universality of the atonement effected by Christ’s death. The Greek preposition does not in itself imply more than the fact that the death was on behalf of all; but this runs up—as we see by comparing Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45, with Mark 14:24, John 15:13—into the thought that the death was, in some very real sense, vicarious: in the place of the death of all men. The sequence of thought involves that meaning here.
Then were all dead.—These strange, mysterious words have received very different interpretations. They cannot be rightly understood without bearing in view what we may call the mystic aspect of one phase of St. Paul’s teaching. We may, perhaps, clear the way by setting aside untenable expositions. (1) They cannot mean, however true the fact may be in itself, that the death of Christ for all showed that all were previously under a sentence of condemnation and of death, for the verb is in the tense which indicates the momentary act of dying, not the state of death. (2) They cannot mean, for the same reason, that all were, before that sacrifice, “dead in trespasses and sins.” (3) They can hardly mean that all men, in and through that death, paid vicariously the penalty of death for their past sins, for the context implies that stress is laid not on the satisfaction of the claims of justice, but on personal union with Christ. The real solution of the problem is found in the line of thought of Romans 5:17-19, 1Corinthians 11:3; 1Corinthians 15:22, as to the relation of Christ to every member of the human family, in the teaching of Romans 6:10, as to the meaning of His death—(“He died unto sin once”). “Christ died for all”—this is the Apostle’s thought—“as the head and representative of the race.” But if so, the race, in its collective unity, died, as He died, to sin, and should live, as He lives, to God. Each member of the race is then only in a true and normal state when he ceases to live for himself and actually lives for Christ. That is the mystic ideal which St. Paul placed before himself and others, and every advance in holiness is, in its measure, an approximation to it.
Joakim Skovgaard (1856-1933), Design for a mosaic depicting Christ
The following is based on a morning devotion given by Christoph Blumhardt (1842-1919) on Easter Day April 2, 1899, published in Blumhardt: Eine Auswahl aus seinen Predigten, vol. 3, edited by R. Lejeune (Zürich & Leipzig: Rotapfel Verlag, 1928.). English translation abridged and adapted by Charles E. Moore. Published with kind permission from the Plough Publishing House.
He is Lord and Savior Over All
In his letter to the Colossians, Paul writes:
Christ is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. (Colossians 1:15-20)
Here we sense something of the greatness of Christ. He was before all things, all things were made through him, and all things were created for him. Through Jesus, this Lord, this man, this image of God, God himself looks upon heaven and earth and reconciles everything.
So this is Jesus—the man of heaven and earth! In this man, and ultimately in humanity itself, we will be allowed to see perfection. However corrupt, humanity still contains the spark of life that he will use to bring his new creation to light. And as Paul writes, God has qualified us to share as heirs in this kingdom of light, and has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and set us in the kingdom of the Son he loves. (Colossians 1:12-13).
If we stop to consider who this Jesus is and what is to happen through him, then we cannot help but be thankful. Everything is God’s and it must all become like Jesus. He is, he was, and all life must be as the life of our king.
Only when we experience the rulership of God’s Son—only when we hear God whisper, “You belong to me”—can life’s riddles be solved. Where this has not occurred everything remains in a fog. For darkness consists in not knowing what one is, in not knowing how to come to terms with oneself, with heaven and earth, with everything we see and feel, and with what our inner selves sense.
Goethe, on his deathbed, cried, “Light! Light!” He sensed the approach of night in which we see no more. It is just the same before one dies: one sees nothing. Millions of people see neither earth nor heaven. They live like animals and lack even a faint idea of the true meaning of life. They have no sense of the relationship of human life to the rest of creation; it simply baffles them. Even though we have a great deal of scientific knowledge, life remains a mystery. People study life’s questions ad nauseam: What is this world? What is life all about? Who are we? What are our origins? What is our final destiny? The search for answers seems futile. Everything is shrouded in riddles.
Just now, when we have perhaps reached the height of human achievement, when people seem to recklessly strive for more and more, we fail to reach life’s highest goals. Work gives people temporary release from the nagging questions of life. New inventions are discovered and people have a degree of happiness. But we must admit, if we are honest, that none of this has led us to enlightenment, to fulfillment. In all that we possess and do today, what does it really matter? What this last century has brought us has only been certain practical advantages for life. But how has this really helped us? We still complain; we’re still not satisfied. Inwardly we feel oppressed, empty. Even with all the riches and pleasures offered us, we are burdened and wretched, and hanker for something more.
The fact that we are not satisfied, however, is a sure indication that we sense something of Christ’s victory, albeit only vaguely. People want something different. They don’t know what, but they sense something is missing. This is because they can only be at peace when they experience Jesus as the Lord of creation; when they realize that they are actually God’s children. For Christ is the center of creation itself. He is one with everything that lives and moves. As long as we feel separate, divided from heaven, from earth, and from God’s life in the world—as long as we are conscious of this—we shall remain unhappy.
Why are we unable to show the world, which always clamors for more, the real causes of its discontent and the real reason for living. People think they need more money, but that’s not it. Or they think they need more self-worth.
That isn’t it either. Too many people let circumstances determine their lives, and so fail to find lasting happiness. What people lack is knowledge of the God who can liberate them from their fate—from those daily events that rule their lives.
But our destiny is to rule with Christ, the cosmic king. We are here on earth for God’s purpose. Fatalism or stoicism cannot make us happy, nor can we meditate ourselves into some kind of detached joy in suffering. Neither can we simply accustom ourselves to life’s afflictions. We are not created for sorrow but for joy. We can rise above life’s pain, knowing that all suffering has an end. For Christ holds all things together, and this enables us to bear any thing. Any struggle and temptation is bearable where Christ’s victory shines ahead.
All that happens, good or bad, contains traces of Christ. Instead of resignation, instead of worry, we can always hope that things will change. Even if I have to go through death and hell myself, it will change. For the purpose of life is Christ. “Behold, all things shall be changed. I make all things new!” (Revelation 21:5). God promises the re-creation of heaven and earth—the translation of the whole world into the light of the Savior. This is our heart’s deepest longing. The great thing is that Christ reconciles the cosmos. He is the ruler over all; and light from heaven will fill the entire universe.
There are thus not two worlds, one in God’s hands and the other one not. There are not two species of people either, one totally under God’s rule and the other completely outside of it. No devil can do what he wants, no wicked power or principality can act on its own. Even the Evil One is in darkness because of God’s will. There he lives his own kind of life, one that is contagious and deadly to those who are attracted by it, yet the entire realm of sin and death remains in God’s domain, firmly held in his hands. Let us carry this knowledge in our hearts as a witness. We can proclaim to every devil, to every demonic stronghold, “You are under God. No one can make a single move without God. We are all under God!” Unless we grasp this, we will never understand why Christ came into the world. Even if you should meet someone who is a devil, know that, ultimately, he is God’s. No other power, no ruler, no one, in heaven or on the earth or under the earth, can move a finger without God’s love. “Christ is head over every power and authority” (Colossians 2:10). He is Lord over all that lives. Even if a torrent of unbelief suddenly seized the world, in total rebellion against God, as powerful as that current might be it is in God’s hands. For the victory has been won. “It is finished.” We need never fear the devil, for there is no other master than Jesus. Not even in the deepest depths or blackest night can one escape from yielding to him. There is but one Lord, one God, one Father of all, “who is over all and through all and in all” (Ephesians 4:6). Nothing else has any right or any claim for itself. No hell, no death, no devil can make any claim. All things are God’s because Christ is all, and is in all (Colossians 3:11).
If we should suffer for him, we shall also rule with him. He has been given all authority. Even today Christ suffers, but we rejoice and are glad, for we, who stake our lives on the suffering Savior, shall rule. Not as the world does, in arrogance and fear, but in the way Jesus rules. We will rule in the love of the Father. We will say, “In the name of Jesus, I say to you, darkness, you must be destroyed. You serpent, you Prince of Death, you must perish. You are nothing to us.” We can live in this expectation because God holds everything in his hands.
Again, there are not two kingdoms, a kingdom of darkness and a kingdom of God. There is but one dominion, and it is God’s. And although there is in this kingdom some who are bound by sin, it is nevertheless one kingdom.
There may be two rooms in a house, but it is one house, not two. All things are under God’s command. And in the house of God, we may rule even in the darkness, in sin, in death. We need not grow weak, nor think that we cannot carry on. We can always go forward.
Let this live in your hearts. Let there be no room for grumbling about the world’s situation. Those who grumble are not living in the victory of God. We cannot condemn the godless, the unbelievers. That is not our business. Don’t even think of people as unbelieving—they are not unbelieving, but torment ed. They cannot open their eyes, they are drunk with their misery, saturated with distress, and can’t see the stars for the roof. Our task is to witness to the truth that God is God and none other, and that he offers hope to everyone.
This does not mean that God will not or cannot judge sin and evil, but this is determined in the final hour and is God’s concern alone. Until God has come to that decision, it is in our hands to make known the name of Jesus to any and everyone. If Jesus is to be truly victorious, then our task must be to live in compassion, and to bring all people the possibility of redemption.
Whoever comes to you, wherever you may be, you shall say to him: “You will be saved, for you belong to Jesus. He represents God’s will that no one be lost, but that everyone repent and live.” Of course, not everyone grasps this, nor is it necessary. I don’t even think everyone needs to be “converted” to our Christianity. The millions must, in the long run, simply be transferred to the rule of God, to the lordship of Christ. They must go in even though they yell and howl. Don’t we all at one time kick and scream? All must go in. Why? Because God has set us in the kingdom of his Son, and if this is our final domain, then we are in a fight, like Jesus, to our last breath, to our last drop of blood. And this fight is for the coming of the new heaven and new earth, where even the underworld will be brought into the hands of Christ.
If I should have to give up hope for any person, any country, any world, or any situation, then Jesus would not be the one who holds the universe together. There would still remain the burden of death, of travail, a load of night and darkness. Then Jesus would not be the light of the world, and his would not be a cosmic cross that brings everything back together. He would not be victorious. For what else could Jesus’ resurrection mean but eternal hope for all he holds together? One hears about all the millions who are eternally lost, as if this were the essence of pious talk. Why is this? Unless we believe that all that opposes God must end, that hell, death, and sin must end; unless we believe that every domain belongs to God, and unless we spread the love of God to the whole earth, then Jesus is not Lord. We will not be able to freely rejoice in our faith, nor invite others to believe themselves.
I know from personal experience of people who have been set free by my reminding them, “You belong with me, because you and I belong to God.” “Oh, no,” they reply. “I am a terrible person.” “No matter,” I say. “You belong with me.” “But you do not know the evil things I have done” they say.
“Nevertheless,” I reply, “you belong with me, and I belong with you. For we both belong to God.” This truth changes people. They receive so much encouragement just by having fellowship that there is simply no more talk of wickedness or sinfulness.
There was a kleptomaniac who came to me to be healed, who continued in this way for a long time, also after we got to know each other. In spite of this, I kept telling him, “You and I belong together. You can go on stealing as long as you like, but I will not let you go.” Lo and behold, after a time he gave up stealing and become a totally different person. How many others—proud, avaricious, jealous, quarrelsome people—have been given power to change simply because they felt, for the first time, genuine, human solidarity. How much more happens when they finally realize that they belong to Jesus. I mean truly realize, not with empty religious words. When we become truly conscious that we—and not just we but all things—belong to Christ, then sin will simply melt away.
Let us then think in cosmic terms. To Christ, heaven and earth are not big enough. We must cast off our chains, and throw off all pious hatred that denies Jesus the universe. Those who expend their energies judging and condemning have no part in Christ’s army. No, we must give our last drop of blood so that Jesus’ victorious reign comes into the world. The gospel of hell, the gospel of Satan, the gospel of lies must be trodden down, so that at last Jesus, the Living One, can redeem all creation. “The kingdom of this world will become the kingdom of our Christ” (Revelation 11:15).
How much longer do we have to wait until Christ freely reigns? And yet, what is time to God? It is nil, nothing. Jesus is today what he was yesterday.
Evil will capitulate before the name of Jesus. The powers of death and destruction will submit and be redeemed. Yes, demons too, whatever they may be—deceit, sickness, death, corruption, misery—are captives. They too are in misery. Therefore, Christ’s victory must be for them as well (Ephesians 4:8).
His redemption will dissolve the darkness because the light of God’s glory will fill creation—so much so that every tongue in heaven and on earth and under the earth will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Philippians 2:10-11). This power, which makes holy what is evil, which redeems what is lost, will finally overcome all inhuman forces, all spirits that mock God, right down into the depths of hell. The victory is ours. God will be all in all.
More Christoph Blumhardt books currently in print are available here:
The mercy seat, medieval painting in Keldby church, Denmark.
“And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; And patience, experience; and experience, hope.” (Rom. 5:3-4)
I am sometimes asked why there is still suffering if Christ has taken the punishment for our sin at the cross. This simple but powerful question is, of course, an ancient one with no easy answers. Early theologians (e.g. Clement of Alexandria) often argued that tribulation and suffering are simply the product of human sinfulness or that God chastises and disciplines people (Christians and non-Christians alike) in order to convert them so that they can be saved. This may sometimes make sense, especially retrospectively. It seems, however, that this response only raises a whole range of new problems about the pedagogy of God and the adequacy of Christ’s work. Perhaps more importantly, it may not feel very helpful to hear that the suffering you experience is your own fault or comes from God trying to improve you. Rather, what we need to hear is that we are already at peace with God in spite of everything that we experience to the contrary. Besides, it seems that we know from many examples that suffering and hardship does not necessarily improve a person but can just as easily make us bitter and resentful.
In his death and resurrection Christ has put an end to humanity as we know it and created a new humanity in his image (2 Cor. 5:17). This was theme that ran through most of Karl Barth’s commentary to Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. The inadequacy, tribulation and corruption of all human beings are products of sin that constitute their curse and destiny, says Barth, but in Christ all are renewed and clothed with righteousness (Romans 1933, p. 181-2). The fact that we are already new beings in Christ does not, however, mean that we can avoid suffering and tribulation. Faith does not take us out of the world but gives us a new perspective on the world. Faith is about seeing the ‘yes’ in the ‘no’. Only through the negation of death and the cross can we perceive the new creation in Christ. This is why Paul can say that we “glory” or “rejoice” in tribulations (Rom. 5:3). Tribulation produces patience and hope, not so much, however, because it improves us or makes us more virtuous, etc., but because through faith it reveals a different reality on the other side of suffering (i.e. it’s not about being made stronger by what doesn’t kill you, but about seeing the new creation beyond death). Neither is the gospel a version of the claim that there must be something meaningful in the meaningless after all, but that meaninglessness in spite of all its cruelty does not get the last say.
In other words, the gospel does not remove suffering, but it does transform it in a way that makes hope possible in the midst of suffering. Not so much because God uses suffering to make us more virtuous or pious (although that can certainly happen sometimes!), but because suffering is only one side of the coin, the ‘no’ that indirectly reveals God’s ‘yes’ that has already been spoken once and for all in Jesus Christ. That we are, for this reason, not removed from the world and its problems, even if we have an entirely new perspective on the world, is also why it makes sense to take up our responsibility in doing something about the suffering that we experience. We can do that precisely because in faith we have a hope based on our new reality in Christ.
“We rejoice, not only in tribulation, but also at it. […] We see the righteousness of God in His wrath, the risen Christ in the crucified One, life in death, the ‘Yes’ in the ‘No’. […] And hereby a new premiss is provided for our tribulation also. What at first seems nothing but mere human suffering becomes the action of God, the Creator and Redeemer. The obstacle to our life becomes a stepping-stone to the victory of life. Demolition becomes edification. Disappointment and obstruction become energetic hastening and tarrying for the coming of the Lord. The prisoner becomes the watchman (i. 16), and darkness is converted into light (Psalm 139:12). […] Thus our tribulation, without ceasing to be tribulation or to be felt to be tribulation, is transformed. We must suffer, as we suffered before. But our suffering is no longer a passive, dangerous, poisonous, destructive tribulation and perplexity, such as invade the souls of those who hate the Judge (ii. 9), but is transformed into a tribulation and perplexity which are creative, fruitful, powerful, promising, by which men are dissolved, cast to the ground, pressed into a corner, and imprisoned, by God.” (Karl Barth, Romans 1933, p. 155-156)
NB: This is an updated version of an earlier post on Samuel Richardson.
Samuel Richardson was an English Baptist. Richardson was one of the formative leaders of the early Particular Baptists as he with eleven others signed the 1644 and the 1646 London Confessions of Faith. He seems to have been from Northamptonshire, northwest of London and “a substantial London tradesman and was certainly one of the shrewdest and most influential of the Baptist leaders in London.” He was an advocate for religious liberty and supporter of Oliver Cromwell.
Richardson defended Baptist practices and a radicalized version of the reformed monergistic belief that justification and salvation happen exclusively by the grace of God in Christ. From Tobias Crisp he derived the belief that we are justified by Christ alone – before we believe. Justification is fully achieved on the cross and never depends on human faith or works. These can only be considered as results of God’s work in Christ as the Holy Spirit works in those who are justified. We are justified by Christ alone and not by our believing. Faith is an evidence of “interest in Christ but not a joint-partner with Christ”, says Richardson. When we are said to be justified “by faith” this should be understood as saying that we are justified by the object of our faith, i.e. Christ, and not our own subjective faith. Faith is, says Richardson, “put for Christ”.
“[W]e grant God has decreed the end and the means, and whatsoever God has decreed shall unavoidably come to pass. But we deny that faith is any means of our Redemption, Justification, or Salvation. Nothing but the Lord Jesus Christ is the means of our salvation. There are means that are necessary to the revealing and enjoying the comfort of it, as the Holy Spirit and ministers to reveal it and faith to receive it; also, there be fruits and effects of the love of God, as faith, love, and obedience to Christ…yet these are no means of our salvation.”
Faith is not condition of justification, but a sign or manifestation of justification. In fact, Richardson comes close to defending the later idea of Justification from Eternity that is often associated with later (particular) baptists like John Gill.
Moreover, since the justification of the sinner is not a product of that person’s faith or obedience to the gospel, but of Christ alone, Richardson would also be critical of the obsession with the experiences of guilt that was to lead the sinner to conversion. Richardson, like Crisp, was accused of being Anti-Nomian, as both diminished the role of the law in the justification of the sinner. If people are justified by Christ alone, the conversion that comes from a sense or feeling of sinfulness cannot be a condition for justification. As Richardson puts it: “if you mean by sense, the feeling of horror and terrors for sin, if you desire such a sense of sin, we do not wish it you; we wish you not to fetch your comfort from your sense of sin, tears, or crying, but only and alone from God’s free grace in Christ.” Similar views are expressed in the baptists’ First London Confession from 1644, when it says that the “terrors of the law” are in no way required for the sinner to receive Christ, while faith is said to be the “manifestation” of justification (§25; §28).
The book Of the torments of hell defends the view, that ‘hell’ does not mean an endless state of torture after death. Though the author sometimes seems to defend the idea that the godless will be finally annihilated (especially in the first parts of the work), the author would eventually argue that all will finally be saved. Whether the identification of the author with the baptist Samuel Richardson is correct may perhaps be mostly of interest only to baptist historians, but it is interesting that an early baptist may have held universalist beliefs.
Of course, this was a common name, so the identification may not be entirely sure (also, there are some differences in method: the baptist Samuel Richardson argues mostly from Scripture, while the unknown author of the book on hell argues from a great number of authorities). If the author is indeed identical to the baptist Samuel Richardson, this would make him a good example of a forerunner of the Primitive Baptist Universalists.
17. Sin cannot overcome the love of God; where sin hath abounded, grace did much more abound (Rom. 5:20). This declares the mercy of God to be greater than sin; if so, the grace of God is to all, to the worst, for sin abounds in them most: and where sin abounds, grace abounds much more; if so, then all their sins shall be forgiven. If any are to suffer endless torment for their sins, how has grace abounded to them much more than their sins? Answer this if you can. With the Lord there is mercy (Psalm 130:7). The Lord is good to all; therefore to the worst of men; His tender mercies are over all his works; therefore over the worst of men, for they are the works of his hands (Isaiah 64:8). Therefore there is no punishment for any to endure, never to end. He that bids us not to be overcome by evil, but to overcome evil with good, will not himself be overcome by evil, but will overcome all evil with his infinite goodness. That which is finite cannot possibly overcome that which is infinite.
18. God is just; therefore he will not do anything which is not just and right. The greatest punishment of the breach of his law is death. He will not inflict another, much less, a worse punishment than he hath expressed in his law. Justice is in number, weight, and measure; God requires things equal. Ye may see the mind of God in his command, forbidding anything to be done, but that which is equal and suitable to the fact; as eye for eye, tooth for tooth, foot for foot, stripe for stripe (Exod. 21:24-26). How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her (Rev. 18:7). What measure you mete to others, shall be measured to you again. Murder, a horrible and grievous sin, is punished with an equal punishment in this life, – life for life; he that sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed (Gen. 9:6). Life for life is equal; but to lose life for life, and also to suffer and endless punishment in addition, is not equal.
19. It is no profit nor pleasure to God that any should suffer endless torment; he hath no pleasure in the death of any (Ezek. 28:31-32). Much less can it be any pleasure to him that any should suffer a torment never to end. He desires mercy, and not sacrifice (Mic. 6:6). If so, he desires not that any should be so sacrificed in a torment never to end. God abhors cruelty (Amos 1:3,6,13), and casting off pity.
20. It is not for the glory of God to impose endless torments on any. Glory consisteth not in imposing great and terrible punishments; that belongeth to cruelty, and is abhorred by the light of nature. Glory consisteth in great mercy and forgiveness (Ex. 34:6-7). The greater the mercy and forgiveness, the greater is the grace, and the more it redounds to the glory of God. Love covereth all sins (Prov. 10:12). He that covereth transgression seeketh love (Prov. 17:9). If man’s glory is to pass over transgression (Prov. 19:11), much more is it for the glory of God to do so. God made all things, and doeth all things for his glory; he seeketh his glory in the exceeding greatness and riches of his grace (Eph. 2:7). it is more for his glory to save all, than to save a few. By the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life (Rom. 5:18). Sin could not hinder Manasses, Mary Magdalen, persecutors, and wicked prodigals, from finding mercy. It cannot be that cruelty dwells in God, who is love, and whose goodness is unsearchable, past finding out, far above all we can ask or think. There is such a confused noise among men, of the grace and love of God, so many voices that we are in confusion, and know not what to make of it. Look above, and hearken to the sweet voice in the region of love. What are the voices in heaven? They agree in one: no voices comes from heaven, but love, peace, and good will to man. Let men say what they will, I rest satisfied in the voice above, which is a voice of love and good will. This is enough to satisfy any one who has doubted: and suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God, and saying, Glory be to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will towards men (Luke 2:13-14), not only to some men, but to all people (ver. 10). This is glad tidins indeed, good news from heaven, the best news that ever was, that God hath good will to men; there is no ill will, all is good will to men; this causeth peace and praise. Glory be to the Highest for his sweet peace and good will to men, to all people.
William Paul Young and Brad Jersak discuss some heavy questions in church and theology based on their novel The Pastor: A Crisis. Well worth a listening too!
Samuel Cox (1826–1893), English Baptist minister and theologian.
The Larger Hope from 1883 was Samuel Cox‘s brief follow-up to his much longer book Salvator Mundi from 1877. In the first book Cox had presented and discussed some of the traditional arguments in favor of soteriological universalism. In the follow-up he presents a new and more fundamental argument, roughly arguing for what may be called a ‘universalistic biblical hermeneutic’.
In the Old Testament, says Cox, there were two currents of thought about the coming Savior: “a surface current, that pointed to a great temporal kingdom into which all nations were to be drawn; and a deeper current, running right in the opposite direction, and pointing to a spiritual redemption in virtue of which the spirits of all flesh would be subdued and reconciled to God.” (p. 22).
Wherever we discern two currents of thought in Scripture, we ought to prefer “the deeper and more spiritual current”, Cox argues (p. 23). While the New Testament on the surface presents many passages that can be understood as talking about a final separation of the few righteous from the many unrighteous, there is a deeper and more spiritual meaning affirmed by the many verses that talk of universal redemption in Christ. This is, for example, true of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans that culminates in the conclusion that “God has shut up all men in unbelief, that He may have mercy upon all.” (Rom. 11:32).
The love of God is more than all our sins, an eternal unchangeable love, that does not alter where it alteration finds.
– Samuel Cox, The Larger Hope, p. 26
There is both, then, the narrow and the wider strains present in the New Testament. The question is with which strain we take our stand and use as a ruler for reading the other (p. 26). Since the New Testament shows that the sometimes very narrow hopes of the Jews in the Old Testament was to be fulfilled in a wider sense, something similar may be going on in the New Testament: “We shall have learned that the more profound and spiritual interpretation of the Word of God is likely to be the truer interpretation.” (p. 27). This also means, however, that the matter can not be decided simply by reading the text, but only by searching for the deeper truth of Scripture. In other words, for Cox theological truth is not dead, objective knowledge, but something that requires an engagement and decision on the part of the believer.
My favorite part of Cox’s short book is the first chapter where he programmatically declares the foundation and aim of his biblical hermeneutic:
“[L]et the Cross of Christ be the banner under which we fight. Let us maintain that the Atonement made by Him, as it was intended for all, so also must it extend to all, since even the sin of man cannot render the purpose of God of none effect. Let it be known that what we contend for is the efficacy and the scope of that Divine Sacrifice. Let us affirm the universal sinfulness of man as strongly as we can, and the horrible guilt of his sins, and the infallible certainty of the punishment of his sins. And then let us argue that the very extent of his sin, and its terrible guilt, and its certain punishment, do but magnify the Redemption which embraces the whole race, atones for every sin, and transforms the very punishments which wait on sin into a saving discipline by which the power of sin is for ever broken and overcome.”
This is the fith letter of Relly’s The Great Salvation Contemplated. Here Relly discusses the meaning of the words from The First Epistle to Timothy, where it is said that God’s will is that “all human beings are saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). This does not merely express a “wish” or “desire” on God’s side. Creatures do not have “the power to put negative” upon the choice of God. Creatures do not determine their own destiny. This is Relly at his most ‘Calvinistic’, insisting that the will of God is absolute and sovereign. All that God wills to be saved will in fact be saved. From this follows that if God wills all human beings to be saved, then all human beings will be saved. All are saved in Christ, with an everlasting salvation, says Relly. However, not all have yet come to the knowledge of the truth. This is the meaning of the second part of the passage from The First Epistle to Timothy. In conclusion Relly introduces some themes (restitution of all things, etc.) that will be discussed further in the following letters.
I concluded my last letter with some remarks on that sacred testimony of the apostle, “As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive.” I shall begin this with another quotation from the same great and glorious witness of Jesus, who, speaking of the infinite love of God our Savior, says, “He will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth,” (1 Tim. 2:4). These words are not only expressive of the love of God, with the pity and tenderness of Emanuel’s heart; but they declare his positive will: “He will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Who has resisted his will? It is the happiness of mankind to submit, but their non-submission and resistance prevents not the execution of his will.
Some are weak enough to imagine, that the Almighty must first get his creatures’ leave, before he can perform his will respecting them; hence they plume themselves on their submissions, and compliment their own great humility, in being content that the will of the Lord should be done. I am aware of some men’s affecting to say, that the text only intends the willingness and desire of God our Savior, that all men should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. But, say they, it does not follow that all shall be saved: because the greater part choose death rather than life, refuse to comply with the terms of salvation; and thereby frustrate God’s holy will and desire.
What a jumble of error and inconsistency! The Creator of the ends of the earth is not absolute; he may will, yes, he may desire the salvation of his creatures, yet both may be frustrate, if the creature chooses to stand out, and will neither comply with his will, nor gratify his desire! God has but one choice, which is, that all should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, but his creatures have power to put a negative upon the choice of the Almighty, whereby his will and desire are rendered of non-effect: whereas they are absolute and uncontrollable in their choice. If they choose death rather than life, die they must, for the Lord God of truth, who made them and redeemed them, cannot prevent it, howsoever desirous he may be of it.
I believe I have stated the matter fairly, according to the above: shall therefore leave it to you to determine of its propriety, and consonance to truth: lest you should accuse me of misspending time and words to expose, what (but to such who are intoxicated with enmity and pride) is in itself most notoriously false, absurd, and blasphemous.
In the sacred book, we read much of submission to the will of God; and his worshipers have been often heard to say: The will of the Lord be done. But is this written, that we should admire their humility, and condescension, in permitting God to do his will, though it should be trying and grievous to them according to the flesh? God forbid. Yes, the scriptures were written that man might be abased, and the Lord alone exalted.
The will of God our Savior is absolute, immutable, and irrefutable. The scriptures teach this. After many trials, possibly experience corroborates it. Is it then a mark of humility, self-denial, or lowliness of heart, to submit to his will, the fixed unalterable will of God, which neither men nor angels can refill? No, there is no virtue in submitting to what we cannot avoid.
The true worshiper knows, that the will of his God is determinate: hence he will no longer strive, as the potsherd of the earth, with his Maker. He is withal assured, that according to the mystery of the divine will, all things work together for his good; and therefore he not only submit, but rejoices in His will. Hence the expression, The will of the Lord be done: and the prayer which the Savior taught his disciples, “Thy will be done on earth as it is done in heaven.”
The plain honest heart neither knows nor admits of such distinctions in the will of God, as permissive and decretive; as though, for causes arising from the capriciousness of the creature, he permitted that to be, which he had not foreseen nor decreed; or that what He had decreed; he, for like reasons, thought proper to dispense With.
To distinguish between God’s prescience and his decree, favors too much of human invention and subtlety, for the simplicity of Christianity: known unto God are all his works. What he foreknew, that he had decreed; and what he had decreed, that he permits. Foreknowledge differs not from the decree, respecting events: for as God cannot be deceived, neither can he be controlled. The distinction, that God’s foreknowledge of all events does not lay us under a necessity of acting, but that his decree does; appears to me, to be destitute of reason and common sense: for God is infallible in his foreknowledge, as in his decree: what he foreknew must most assuredly come to pass: nor can there be more attributed to his decree.
Having thus considered the will of God, as sovereign, absolute, and uncontrollable, let us weigh the purport of it, i.e. that all men should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth: note, the distinction between being saved, and coming to the knowledge of the truth. From the remarks already made, it is evident, that all men are saved in Christ Jesus the Lord, with an everlasting salvation: but all men are not yet come to the knowledge of the truth; nevertheless, he who willed the former, and executed it, according to the purpose of his will, has also willed the latter, and according to the same purpose will execute it in his own times when all men shall come to the knowledge of the truth.
Again, “Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,” (1 Tim. 2:6). In that God our Savior gave himself, he has given us an infallible proof of divine love. He has given himself unto and for all: and has hereby made manifest the extent of divine grace. He “gave himself a ransom for all”. The term is very significant, expressive, and powerful.
All mankind, by reason of sin, were in a state of bondage and captivity: he ransomed them, by giving himself in exchange for them. All mankind, by means of transgression, had rendered themselves obnoxious to everlasting punishment; but Jesus gave himself a ransom for all, by taking on him their condition, and exposing himself to all their woes. Hence on the ransom’s being found, they were delivered from going down into the pit.
If Jesus gave himself a ransom for all, then are all ransomed: the prey is taken from the mighty, and the lawful captives are delivered – they are ransomed from the dominion of sin, from the curse of the law, and from everlasting death. Thus stands the case with all the children of Adam, as ransomed by Jesus Christ, who, in consequence thereof, are spotless before God.
But this is to be testified in due time, i.e., to be made appear or known — which intends, that there is a time with God called the due time, when this truth, that all mankind are ransomed from sin, and from all its consequences, by Jesus Christ, shall be published on the housetop, shall be made manifest to all, not in the report only; but in the blessed, full, and eternal enjoyment thereof.
“Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” O glorious words! and full of grace and truth! This is giving, not only like a King, but like a God: herein is love indeed. How this grace detects and exposes the paltry pride of human nature! The potsherds of the earth hesitate, yes, refuse to believe and live upon their Maker’s bounty. Their humility says it is too good, too free, too extensive: their goodness complains, that it leaves no guard against sin: their wisdom and justice cannot perceive the equity of it, because, to include all is to make no distinction between the evil and the good. But, if Christ died for all, then were all dead. The former is so palpable a truth, as to be taken for granted in the apostle’s argument, nor does the latter want, but has the same evidence, and is withal undeniably reducible from the former. Hence, no man can with truth object to the freeness and extent of the great salvation.
“Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” Here is the distinction kept up as before: all are ransomed, but all have not yet received the testimony: does it follow, that they never will receive the testimony? Quite the reverse. The apostle says, “To be testified in due time.” — Which time is an appointed time; it will come, it shall come, and will not tarry.
Again, “That he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man,” (Heb. 2:9). Here are three particulars to be considered — the taste of death — for whom — by what means. O death! who beside the Savior of mankind, can describe your taste? Who but him can remember, and explain the misery, the wormwood, and the gall? The word tasted here indicates the sense and consciousness which he had of every ingredient of misery in death. He became obedient unto death. He made no resistance, but submitted, body and soul, to their proper pain and distress. In his silent obedience, he tacitly acknowledged his guilt, as made sin for us. He tasted death, implying, that, though there was nothing in the first nor second death, but what he experienced from every sense of speculation and feeling; yet, in point of continuance, it was but a taste: for sometimes the word is taken in this sense. The dignity, eminence, and mystery of his person, qualified him respecting, power and equity, to sustain and finish, in a short period, what had tormented the finite creature, with the worm that dies not, and with the fire which is not quenched; had it fallen on such, it would have been more than a taste to them. To Jesus, mighty, glorious, and gracious as he is, it was but a taste; but to us it would have been endless woe.
Jesus tasted death for every man, for all the descendants from Adam: for them, on their behalf — in their Head — and to exempt them from all pains and penalties. Can words be more express? For every man, without distinction of nation, name, or character: and if he has tasted death for every man, as above, what shall frustrate his grace? what shall prevent their salvation? Indeed, if righteousness came by the law, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ may be frustrated; and his tasting death for every man, may have been in vain: but thanks be to God, righteousness comes not by the law, nor has he obeyed, nor died in vain. Therefore, as he has tasted death for every man, every man may expect to inherit the joy of his salvation.
It is by the grace of God, that Jesus has tasted death for every man: and his grace, in the scriptures, sits in direct opposition to all human works and righteousness whatever. Hence there can be no reason assigned, wherefore the most wretched and worthless of mortals should not inherit the kingdom of God and of Christ.
Another witness, speaking of Jesus, says, “He died not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world.” (Cf. 1 John 2:2) Here, the whole world is opposed to such who believe and obey the gospel: the apostles and Christians of that age were the latter; besides whom, all mankind were then lying in the wicked one, and in unbelief: but, lest the death of Jesus, respecting the intent and efficacy thereof, should be, by any Christian, limited to such only who believe and obey, the apostle says, “He died not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world, i.e. for the sins of all mankind; or of all who lay in the wicked one. Nor is it difficult to determine what the scriptures mean, by Christ’s dying for the sins of men: they certainly mean, that he endured the pains and penalties due to their sins: in consequence of which, they, the sons of men, are free; they are delivered from the curse of the law, by his being made a curse for them, and are entitled to all the benefits of his salvation: even the every man for whom Christ died.
“Until the times of the restitution of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all his prophets, since the world began,” (Acts 3:21). The times of the restitution of all things, seem to me to point out the grand and general jubilee, when the servant shall be eternally free from his master, and the inheritance shall return to go no more out: but a happy and joyful possession shall be the portion of all mankind, for whom Jesus tasted death, yes, for whose sins he died. Restitution signifies, to restore to a primitive state, or to bring back to original purity and glory.
“Restitution of all things”, i.e., of all things suffering or sustaining loss, by the entrance of sin into the world. Shall mankind be forgotten in those times, when all things shall be restored! Man, whose nature Jesus assumed, whose person he sustained, whose fashion he was found in, and for whose sins he died! A mother may forget her sucking child, so as not to have companion on the son of her womb: but God their Savior will not forget mankind, in the times of the restitution of all things. But I shall have occasion to speak of this more fully, by divine permission, in future letters; and shall now pass on to another scripture.
“That in the dispensation of the fullness of time, he might gather together in one, all things in Christ; both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him” (Eph. 1:10). I intend to make use of this text, as well as the former, in future letters; and shall here but just take notice, that the gathering of all things into Christ, must either imply the gathering of them into his person, that they might be included in his life, sufferings, and death, and be entitled to the benefits of his resurrection, according to the promise of gathering the people to the Shiloh: or, of gathering together into one, all the children of God who were scattered abroad. Or, it must intend a gathering in some future period, of all things into the knowledge and enjoyment of Christ; even those, who, until that period, are in ignorance, unbelief, and suspense.
But the former it cannot be, as that redemption is not yet to be waited for: that gathering has been made long since, and all the promises relating to it have been fulfilled, and rendered Yes and Amen in Christ.
It must necessarily, therefore, intend the latter: that in some future period, the times of which are appointed of God, and at present only known to him; he will gather all things in heaven and on earth, i.e., either angels and men, or such who in time have believed and obeyed; and such who have not in time known the salvation of God, and are therefore, in companion of the other, considered as things on earth.
But here let me conclude this letter, with assuring you that I am,
Sergius Bulgakov (1871–1944) was a Russian Orthodox theologian, philosopher, priest and economist. The Lamb of God is the first volume in his great dogmatic trilogy. Though this volume primarily deals with Christology as informed by Bulgakov’s sophiology, there are also hints of his commitment to the doctrine of the final restoration of all things.
Christ tasted not only His own death but also mortality itself. He died with all humankind; His death included every human death, and it was equivalent to all the deaths in humankind. Christ’s death was universal and universally human, just as His sufferings, psychic and corporeal, dynamically included all human suffering. Herein lies the salvific and resurrecting power of Christ’s death, as the victory over death, as the “death for every man” (Heb. 2:9)
— Sergius Bulgakov, The Lamb of God, p. 374-375
Get it here: https://www.eerdmans.com/Products/2779/the-lamb-of-god.aspx
I’m still waiting to get hold of my copy of Roberto De La Noval’s new translation of essays by Sergius Bulgakov (published by Wipf & Stock). I’ll probably be writing something on Bulgakov later on. It does look promising though:
The Sophiology of Death. Essays on Eschatology: Personal, Political, Universal By Sergius Bulgakov. Translated by Roberto J. De La Noval Foreword by David Bentley Hart
“What will be the final destiny of the human race at God’s eschatological judgment? Will all be saved, or only a few? How does Christian eschatology impact Christian political action in the here and now? And what is the destiny of each individual facing the prospect of earthly death? In these essays, Russian Orthodox theologian Sergius Bulgakov (1871-1944) brings the resources of Scripture and tradition to bear on these vital questions, arguing for the magnificent final restoration of all creatures to union with God in a universal salvation worthy of the infinite scope of Christ’s redemption. Bulgakov also provides insight into how Christians can strive to bring God’s kingdom to earth in anticipation of the peace and justice of the heavenly Jerusalem. The reader will also find in these pages profound theological reflections on the nature of human death and Christ’s accompaniment of all humans in their dying, based on Bulgakov’s own near-death experience. Together, these essays shed new light on eschatology in all its facets: personal, political, and universal.”
Hail, O light! For in us, buried in darkness, shut up in the shadow of death, light has shone forth from heaven, purer than the sun, sweeter than life here below. That light is eternal life; and whatever partakes of it lives. But night fears the light, and hiding itself in terror, gives place to the day of the Lord. Sleepless light is now over all, and the west has given credence to the east. For this was the end of the new creation. For the Sun of Righteousness, who drives His chariot over all, pervades equally all humanity, like His Father, who makes His sun to rise on all men, and distils on them the dew of the truth. He has changed sunset into sunrise, and through the cross brought death to life; and having wrenched man from destruction, He has raised him to the skies, transplanting mortality into immortality, and translating earth to heaven — He, the husbandman of God, “Pointing out the favourable signs and rousing the nations, to good works, putting them in mind of the true sustenance;” having bestowed on us the truly great, divine, and inalienable inheritance of the Father, deifying man by heavenly teaching, putting His laws into our minds, and writing them on our hearts. (A paschal hymn appearing in Clement of Alexandria’s Exhortation to the Greeks, Protrepticus, 11)
Tr. Frederick Crombie. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4. (1885)
1. Now, respecting the end of the world and the consummation of all things, we have stated in the preceding pages, to the best of our ability, so far as the authority of holy Scripture enabled us, what we deem sufficient for purposes of instruction; and we shall here only add a few admonitory remarks, since the order of investigation has brought us back to the subject. The highest good, then, after the attainment of which the whole of rational nature is seeking, which is also called the end of all blessings, is defined by many philosophers as follows: The highest good, they say, is to become as like to God as possible. But this definition I regard not so much as a discovery of theirs, as a view derived from holy Scripture. For this is pointed out by Moses, before all other philosophers, when he describes the first creation of man in these words: And God said, Let Us make man in Our own image, and after Our likeness; and then he adds the words: So God created man in His own image: in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them, and He blessed them. Now the expression, In the image of God created He him, without any mention of the word likeness, conveys no other meaning than this, that man received the dignity of God’s image at his first creation; but that the perfection of his likeness has been reserved for the consummation — namely, that he might acquire it for himself by the exercise of his own diligence in the imitation of God, the possibility of attaining to perfection being granted him at the beginning through the dignity of the divine image, and the perfect realization of the divine likeness being reached in the end by the fulfilment of the (necessary) works. Now, that such is the case, the Apostle John points out more clearly and unmistakeably, when he makes this declaration: Little children, we do not yet know what we shall be; but if a revelation be made to us from the Saviour, you will say, without any doubt, we shall be like Him. By which expression he points out with the utmost certainty, that not only was the end of all things to be hoped for, which he says was still unknown to him, but also the likeness to God, which will be conferred in proportion to the completeness of our deserts. The Lord Himself, in the Gospel, not only declares that these same results are future, but that they are to be brought about by His own intercession, He Himself deigning to obtain them from the Father for His disciples, saying, Father, I will that where I am, these also may be with Me; and as You and I are one, they also may be one in Us. In which the divine likeness itself already appears to advance, if we may so express ourselves, and from being merely similar, to become the same, because undoubtedly in the consummation or end God is all and in all. And with reference to this, it is made a question by some whether the nature of bodily matter, although cleansed and purified, and rendered altogether spiritual, does not seem either to offer an obstruction towards attaining the dignity of the (divine) likeness, or to the property of unity, because neither can a corporeal nature appear capable of any resemblance to a divine nature which is certainly incorporeal; nor can it be truly and deservedly designated one with it, especially since we are taught by the truths of our religion that that which alone is one, viz., the Son with the Father, must be referred to a peculiarity of the (divine) nature.
2. Since, then, it is promised that in the end God will be all and in all, we are not, as is fitting, to suppose that animals, either sheep or other cattle, come to that end, lest it should be implied that God dwelt even in animals, whether sheep or other cattle; and so, too, with pieces of wood or stones, lest it should be said that God is in these also. So, again, nothing that is wicked must be supposed to attain to that end, lest, while God is said to be in all things, He may also be said to be in a vessel of wickedness. For if we now assert that God is everywhere and in all things, on the ground that nothing can be empty of God, we nevertheless do not say that He is now all things in those in whom He is. And hence we must look more carefully as to what that is which denotes the perfection of blessedness and the end of things, which is not only said to be God in all things, but also all in all. Let us then inquire what all those things are which God is to become in all.
3. I am of opinion that the expression, by which God is said to be all in all, means that He is all in each individual person. Now He will be all in each individual in this way: when all which any rational understanding, cleansed from the dregs of every sort of vice, and with every cloud of wickedness completely swept away, can either feel, or understand, or think, will be wholly God; and when it will no longer behold or retain anything else than God, but when God will be the measure and standard of all its movements; and thus God will be all, for there will no longer be any distinction of good and evil, seeing evil nowhere exists; for God is all things, and to Him no evil is near: nor will there be any longer a desire to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, on the part of him who is always in the possession of good, and to whom God is all. So then, when the end has been restored to the beginning, and the termination of things compared with their commencement, that condition of things will be re-established in which rational nature was placed, when it had no need to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; so that when all feeling of wickedness has been removed, and the individual has been purified and cleansed, He who alone is the one good God becomes to him all, and that not in the case of a few individuals, or of a considerable number, but He Himself is all in all. And when death shall no longer anywhere exist, nor the sting of death, nor any evil at all, then verily God will be all in all. But some are of opinion that that perfection and blessedness of rational creatures, or natures, can only remain in that same condition of which we have spoken above, i.e., that all things should possess God, and God should be to them all things, if they are in no degree prevented by their union with a bodily nature. Otherwise they think that the glory of the highest blessedness is impeded by the intermixture of any material substance. But this subject we have discussed at greater length, as may be seen in the preceding pages.
4. And now, as we find the apostle making mention of a spiritual body, let us inquire, to the best of our ability, what idea we are to form of such a thing. So far, then, as our understanding can grasp it, we consider a spiritual body to be of such a nature as ought to be inhabited not only by all holy and perfect souls, but also by all those creatures which will be liberated from the slavery of corruption. Respecting the body also, the apostle has said, We have a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens, i.e., in the mansions of the blessed. And from this statement we may form a conjecture, how pure, how refined, and how glorious are the qualities of that body, if we compare it with those which, although they are celestial bodies, and of most brilliant splendour, were nevertheless made with hands, and are visible to our sight. But of that body it is said, that it is a house not made with hands, but eternal in the heavens. Since, then, those things which are seen are temporal, but those things which are not seen are eternal, all those bodies which we see either on earth or in heaven, and which are capable of being seen, and have been made with hands, but are not eternal, are far excelled in glory by that which is not visible, nor made with hands, but is eternal. From which comparison it may be conceived how great are the comeliness, and splendour, and brilliancy of a spiritual body; and how true it is, that eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man to conceive, what God has prepared for them that love Him. We ought not, however, to doubt that the nature of this present body of ours may, by the will of God, who made it what it is, be raised to those qualities of refinement, and purity, and splendour (which characterize the body referred to), according as the condition of things requires, and the deserts of our rational nature shall demand. Finally, when the world required variety and diversity, matter yielded itself with all docility throughout the diverse appearances and species of things to the Creator, as to its Lord and Maker, that He might educe from it the various forms of celestial and terrestrial beings. But when things have begun to hasten to that consummation that all may be one, as the Father is one with the Son, it may be understood as a rational inference, that where all are one, there will no longer be any diversity.
5. The last enemy, moreover, who is called death, is said on this account to be destroyed, that there may not be anything left of a mournful kind when death does not exist, nor anything that is adverse when there is no enemy. The destruction of the last enemy, indeed, is to be understood, not as if its substance, which was formed by God, is to perish, but because its mind and hostile will, which came not from God, but from itself, are to be destroyed. Its destruction, therefore, will not be its non-existence, but its ceasing to be an enemy, and (to be) death. For nothing is impossible to the Omnipotent, nor is anything incapable of restoration to its Creator: for He made all things that they might exist, and those things which were made for existence cannot cease to be. For this reason also will they admit of change and variety, so as to be placed, according to their merits, either in a better or worse position; but no destruction of substance can befall those things which were created by God for the purpose of permanent existence. For those things which agreeably to the common opinion are believed to perish, the nature either of our faith or of the truth will not permit us to suppose to be destroyed. Finally, our flesh is supposed by ignorant men and unbelievers to be destroyed after death, in such a degree that it retains no relic at all of its former substance. We, however, who believe in its resurrection, understand that a change only has been produced by death, but that its substance certainly remains; and that by the will of its Creator, and at the time appointed, it will be restored to life; and that a second time a change will take place in it, so that what at first was flesh (formed) out of earthly soil, and was afterwards dissolved by death, and again reduced to dust and ashes (For dust you are, it is said, and to dust shall you return), will be again raised from the earth, and shall after this, according to the merits of the indwelling soul, advance to the glory of a spiritual body.
6. Into this condition, then, we are to suppose that all this bodily substance of ours will be brought, when all things shall be re-established in a state of unity, and when God shall be all in all. And this result must be understood as being brought about, not suddenly, but slowly and gradually, seeing that the process of amendment and correction will take place imperceptibly in the individual instances during the lapse of countless and unmeasured ages, some outstripping others, and tending by a swifter course towards perfection, while others again follow close at hand, and some again a long way behind; and thus, through the numerous and uncounted orders of progressive beings who are being reconciled to God from a state of enmity, the last enemy is finally reached, who is called death, so that he also may be destroyed, and no longer be an enemy. When, therefore, all rational souls shall have been restored to a condition of this kind, then the nature of this body of ours will undergo a change into the glory of a spiritual body. For as we see it not to be the case with rational natures, that some of them have lived in a condition of degradation owing to their sins, while others have been called to a state of happiness on account of their merits; but as we see those same souls who had formerly been sinful, assisted, after their conversion and reconciliation to God, to a state of happiness; so also are we to consider, with respect to the nature of the body, that the one which we now make use of in a state of meanness, and corruption, and weakness, is not a different body from that which we shall possess in incorruption, and in power, and in glory; but that the same body, when it has cast away the infirmities in which it is now entangled, shall be transmuted into a condition of glory, being rendered spiritual, so that what was a vessel of dishonour may, when cleansed, become a vessel unto honour, and an abode of blessedness. And in this condition, also, we are to believe, that by the will of the Creator, it will abide for ever without any change, as is confirmed by the declaration of the apostle, when he says, We have a house, not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For the faith of the Church does not admit the view of certain Grecian philosophers, that there is besides the body, composed of four elements, another fifth body, which is different in all its parts, and diverse from this our present body; since neither out of sacred Scripture can any produce the slightest suspicion of evidence for such an opinion, nor can any rational inference from things allow the reception of it, especially when the holy apostle manifestly declares, that it is not new bodies which are given to those who rise from the dead, but that they receive those identical ones which they had possessed when living, transformed from an inferior into a better condition. For his words are: It is sown an animal body, it will rise a spiritual body; it is sown in corruption, it will arise in incorruption: it is sown in weakness, it will arise in power: it is sown in dishonour, it will arise in glory. As, therefore, there is a kind of advance in man, so that from being first an animal being, and not understanding what belongs to the Spirit of God, he reaches by means of instruction the stage of being made a spiritual being, and of judging all things, while he himself is judged by no one; so also, with respect to the state of the body, we are to hold that this very body which now, on account of its service to the soul, is styled an animal body, will, by means of a certain progress, when the soul, united to God, shall have been made one spirit with Him (the body even then ministering, as it were, to the spirit), attain to a spiritual condition and quality, especially since, as we have often pointed out, bodily nature was so formed by the Creator, as to pass easily into whatever condition he should wish, or the nature of the case demand.
7. The whole of this reasoning, then, amounts to this: that God created two general natures — a visible, i.e., a corporeal nature; and an invisible nature, which is incorporeal. Now these two natures admit of two different permutations. That invisible and rational nature changes in mind and purpose, because it is endowed with freedom of will, and is on this account found sometimes to be engaged in the practice of good, and sometimes in that of the opposite. But this corporeal nature admits of a change in substance; whence also God, the arranger of all things, has the service of this matter at His command in the moulding, or fabrication, or re-touching of whatever He wishes, so that corporeal nature may be transmuted, and transformed into any forms or species whatever, according as the deserts of things may demand; which the prophet evidently has in view when he says, It is God who makes and transforms all things.
8. And now the point for investigation is, whether, when God shall be all in all, the whole of bodily nature will, in the consummation of all things, consist of one species, and the sole quality of body be that which shall shine in the indescribable glory which is to be regarded as the future possession of the spiritual body. For if we rightly understand the matter, this is the statement of Moses in the beginning of his book, when he says, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. For this is the beginning of all creation: to this beginning the end and consummation of all things must be recalled, i.e., in order that that heaven and that earth may be the habitation and resting-place of the pious; so that all the holy ones, and the meek, may first obtain an inheritance in that land, since this is the teaching of the law, and of the prophets, and of the Gospel. In which land I believe there exist the true and living forms of that worship which Moses handed down under the shadow of the law; of which it is said, that they serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things — those, viz., who were in subjection in the law. To Moses himself also was the injunction given, Look that you make them after the form and pattern which were showed you on the mount. From which it appears to me, that as on this earth the law was a sort of schoolmaster to those who by it were to be conducted to Christ, in order that, being instructed and trained by it, they might more easily, after the training of the law, receive the more perfect principles of Christ; so also another earth, which receives into it all the saints, may first imbue and mould them by the institutions of the true and everlasting law, that they may more easily gain possession of those perfect institutions of heaven, to which nothing can be added; in which there will be, of a truth, that Gospel which is called everlasting, and that Testament, ever new, which shall never grow old.
9. In this way, accordingly, we are to suppose that at the consummation and restoration of all things, those who make a gradual advance, and who ascend (in the scale of improvement), will arrive in due measure and order at that land, and at that training which is contained in it, where they may be prepared for those better institutions to which no addition can be made. For, after His agents and servants, the Lord Christ, who is King of all, will Himself assume the kingdom; i.e., after instruction in the holy virtues, He will Himself instruct those who are capable of receiving Him in respect of His being wisdom, reigning in them until He has subjected them to the Father, who has subdued all things to Himself, i.e., that when they shall have been made capable of receiving God, God may be to them all in all. Then accordingly, as a necessary consequence, bodily nature will obtain that highest condition to which nothing more can be added. Having discussed, up to this point, the quality of bodily nature, or of spiritual body, we leave it to the choice of the reader to determine what he shall consider best. And here we may bring the third book to a conclusion.
What will keep us from falling away from God over and over again? This question is often raised in response to Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253), who, while teaching the doctrine of the final restoration of all things (apokatastasis pantôn), also believed that God does not save people against their will. This freedom of choice may seem to compromise the hope that eventually all things will be restored. If we are free to choose between good and evil, what guarantees that all will eventually choose the good?
Though this question, often raised by modern defenders of free will, is legitimate, Origen insists that the love of God will eventually succeed in converting all persons. Greater than free will is love, because love is greater than all things. Love, says Origen, will keep every creature from falling away from God. In other words, not even the freedom of choice will be able to sever the bonds of love in the end. We are not saved against our will, but through the power of love.
True freedom does not mean, then, the power of created beings to make an arbitrary choice between good or evil, but true freedom means union with God to such a degree that only the good remains. The love that unites us to God is grounded in God’s love for us. God’s love, then, is the guarantee that human freedom will eventually be subsumed to love.
This argument is made by Origen in his commentary to Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Here Origen writes:
Now precisely what it is that would restrain the freedom of will in the future ages to keep it from falling again into sin, the Apostle teaches us with a brief statement, saying, “Love never falls away,” [1 Cor. 13:8]. For this is why love is said to be greater than faith and hope [1 Cor 13.13], because it will be the only thing through which it will no longer be possible to sin. For if the soul shall have ascended to this state of perfection, so that it loves God with all its heart and with all its mind and with all its strength, and loves its neighbor as itself [Cf. Mt 22.37–39], what room will there be for sin? After all, it is on this account as well that in the law [love] is said to be the first commandment, and in the Gospels love is commanded above everything else [Mt 22.38]. And when the supreme authority for feeding the sheep was given to Peter and the Church was founded upon him as upon the rock [Mt 16.18], the confession of no other virtue is demanded of him except of love [Cf. Jn 21.15–17.]. And John, when he says many things concerning love, even says this: “He who abides in love abides in God,” [1 Jn 4.16]. Rightly then love, which alone is greater than all, will keep every creature from falling away at that time when God will be all in all [Cf. 1 Cor 15.28.]. For the Apostle Paul had ascended to this degree of perfection, and standing in it he was confidently saying, “For who will separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus? Will affliction, or distress, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?” and again, “But I am certain that neither life, nor death, nor things present, nor things to come, nor angels, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord,” [Rom 8.35, 38, 39.]. From all of this it is plainly shown that if none of these things enumerated by the Apostle can separate us from the love of God, when someone shall have ascended to the peak of perfection, how much more impossible shall it be for the freedom of will to separate us from his love! For even though this is also a virtue and abides in nature, nevertheless the power of love is so great that it draws all things to itself [Cf. Jn 12.32.] and joins all persons to itself and conquers the virtues, especially since God has first given to us the grounds of love, “He who did not spare his only Son but handed him over for us all and with him has freely given all things to us,” [Rom 8.32.]. (Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, V.10, p. 376)
Origen of Alexandria. Dutch illustration by Jan Luyken (1700).
Origen of Alexandria was one of the first theologians to compose a thorough defense of Christian theology against the attacks of Pagan philosophy. The Platonic philosopher Celsus had argued against the supposed cruelty of the Christian idea of God as a “consuming fire” that tortures sinners. Origen, eager to defend the goodness of God, argued against Celsus that God only punishes in order to correct and save.
The divine word says that our God is a consuming fire, and that He draws rivers of fire before Him; nay, that He even enters in as a refiner’s fire, and as a fuller’s herb, to purify His own people. But when He is said to be a consuming fire, we inquire what are the things which are appropriate to be consumed by God. And we assert that they are wickedness, and the works which result from it, and which, being figuratively called wood, hay, stubble, God consumes as a fire. The wicked man, accordingly, is said to build up on the previously-laid foundation of reason, wood, and hay, and stubble. If, then, any one can show that these words were differently understood by the writer, and can prove that the wicked man literally builds up wood, or hay, or stubble, it is evident that the fire must be understood to be material, and an object of sense. But if, on the contrary, the works of the wicked man are spoken of figuratively under the names of wood, or hay, or stubble, why does it not at once occur (to inquire) in what sense the word fire is to be taken, so that wood of such a kind should be consumed? For (the Scripture) says: The fire will try each man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he has built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work be burned, he shall suffer loss. But what work can be spoken of in these words as being burned, save all that results from wickedness? Therefore our God is a consuming fire in the sense in which we have taken the word; and thus He enters in as a refiner’s fire, to refine the rational nature, which has been filled with the lead of wickedness, and to free it from the other impure materials, which adulterate the natural gold or silver, so to speak, of the soul. And, in like manner, rivers of fire are said to be before God, who will thoroughly cleanse away the evil which is intermingled throughout the whole soul. But these remarks are sufficient in answer to the assertion, that thus they were made to give expression to the erroneous opinion that God will come down bearing fire like a torturer. (Origen, Against Celsus IV, 13)
“I submit that the entire history of exegesis contains no stranger fact than [the] persistent ignoring of [a large] part of the New Testament. To bring this out clearly, I append the following chain of passages from a long series. They, clearly and closely linked, claim for Christ a saving empire coextensive with the race, or (perhaps) rather with the whole universe. This connection is clearly marked, for each passage suggests or contains the same central idea, and thus forms a link in a continuous chain.
This chain begins at creation, when all things were created by Christ, who therefore, as St. Paul implies, reconciles (re-creates) all things unto God (Col 1: 16–20). Hence, his work is the restitution of all things (Acts 3: 21). He is Heir of all things (Heb 1: 2). The Father has given him authority over all flesh, to give to whosoever was given to him eternal life (John 17: 2, see original). So all flesh shall see the salvation of God (Luke 3: 6). For God—whose counsel is immutable (Heb 6: 17,18), whose attitude towards his enemies is love unchanging (Luke 6: 27–35)—will have all men to be saved (1 Tim 2: 4) and all to come to repentance (2 Pet 3: 9). He has shut all up unto unbelief, so that he may show mercy upon all (Rom 11: 32). For (out) of him, as Source, and unto (or into) him, as End, are all things whatsoever (Rom 11: 36). He has, therefore, put all things in subjection under Christ’s feet (Eph 1: 22). So we are assured that God wills to gather into one all things in Christ (Eph 1: 10). His grace comes upon all men unto justification of life (Rom 5: 18). So Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands (John 13: 3), promises by his cross to draw all men unto himself (John 12: 32). For having, as stated, received all things from the Father (John 3: 35), all that was given comes to him, and he loses none (John 6: 37–39), but if any stray, goes after that which is lost till he finds it (Luke 15: 4), and so makes all things new (Rev 21: 5). Thus, he comes in order that all men may believe (John 1: 7); that the world through him may be saved (John 3: 17). His grace brings salvation to all men (Titus 2: 11). He takes away the sin of the world (John 1: 29). He gives his flesh for its life (John 6: 51). Because the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable (Rom 11: 29), he gives life to the world (John 6: 33). He is the light of the world (John 8: 12). He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2: 2). He is the Saviour of all men (1 Tim 4: 10). He destroys the works of the devil, not some of them only (1 John 3:8), and the devil himself (Heb 2: 14). He abolishes death (2 Tim 1: 10). He is manifested to put away sin (Heb 9: 26), and thus subdues all things unto himself (Phil 3: 21—the context clearly shows this subjugation to be conformity to himself). He does not forget the dead, but takes the gospel to Hades (1 Pet 3: 19), of which he holds the keys (Rev 1: 18). He is the same (Saviour) for ever (Heb 13:8). Thus, even the dead are evangelized (1 Pet 4: 6), and death and Hades destroyed (Rev 20: 14). All are therefore made alive in him (1 Cor 15: 22). Christ finishes, completes his work (John 17: 4), restores all things (Acts 3: 21), and there is no more curse (Rev 22: 2, 3). Every knee of things in heaven and earth, and under the earth, bends to him (Phil 2: 10). The creation is delivered from the bondage of corruption (Rom 8: 21), and every creature joins in the song of praise (Rev 5: 13). So comes the end, when he delivers up the kingdom to God, who is then all in all (1 Cor 15: 24–28).
These passages are, I repeat, not taken at random and piled up any way. They are the expression of that Purpose that runs though the Bible. It is a Purpose first stated in man’s creation in God’s image; a Purpose to be traced in the Law, the Psalms and Prophets; and most clearly in the New Testament. From it we learn that (I.) Christ came, claiming as His own the entire human race, to the end that He might save and restore the WHOLE, and not any fraction of it, however large. (II.) He came with full power “over all flesh”, having received power in heaven and on earth – over all hearts, all evil, all wills. (III.) He lived and died, and rose again, victorious in the fullest sense, “having finished His work,” as He expressly claims. ”
It is sometimes noticed that while the belief in a final restoration of all things was widespread in the first four or five centuries of the church, there is only little conclusive evidence of explicitly universalistic soteriologies in the second century. The reason for this could arguably be that eschatology in general was not very developed then. Ilaria Ramelli, in her A Larger Hope?, does find some hints, though, in second century authors such as Ignatius of Antioch (dead c. 108 AD). The quote below is from the so-called middle recension version of Ignatius’ Epistles to the Smyrneans. It has long been debated what is the authentic version of Igantius’ epistles, but the authenticity of the middle recension seems to be affirmed by current scholarship(?).
In the passage, Ignatius counters the docetist claim that the sufferings of Christ (the Word) was only apparent, the incarnation being “in appearance only”. No, says Ignatius, the Word really did suffer “for our sakes” and when his flesh was being lifted up to the cross he drew “all men to Himself for their eternal salvation” (cf. John 12:32). Of course, when Ignatius threatens that the docetists will be “divested of their bodies, and be mere evil spirits”, this suggests a miserable state for unbelievers after death. It is not precluded here, however, that they too will be resurrected and restored at a later point, as theologians such as Origen would eventually argue.
Ignatius writes:
Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved. And He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be [Christians]. And as they believe, so shall it happen unto them, when they shall be divested of their bodies, and be mere evil spirits.
Now, He suffered all these things for us; and He suffered them really, and not in appearance only, even as also He truly rose again. But not, as some of the unbelievers, who are ashamed of the formation of man, and the cross, and death itself, affirm, that in appearance only, and not in truth, He took a body of the Virgin, and suffered only in appearance, forgetting, as they do, Him who said, “The Word was made flesh; ” and again, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up; ” and once more, “If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men unto Me.” The Word therefore did dwell in flesh, for “Wisdom built herself an house.” The Word raised up again His own temple on the third day, when it had been destroyed by the Jews fighting against Christ. The Word, when His flesh was lifted up, after the manner of the brazen serpent in the wilderness, drew all men to Himself for their eternal salvation. (Ignatius, Ep. Smyr. 2)
Hannah Whitall Smith was a lay speaker and author in the Holiness movement in the United States and the Higher Life movement in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. She was also active in the Women’s suffrage movement and the Temperance movement. Her books are still being reprinted today.
In her book The Unselfishness of God and How I Discovered It she explains how she came to embrace the belief in the final restitution of all things. However, the last three chapters (containing the whole point of the book!) have been censored by many Christian publishers.
The Unselfishness of God And How I Discovered It, Chapters 21-23
Hannah Whitall Smith
Three chapters from “My Spiritual Auto-Biography” from 1903.
The following three chapters have been placed into electronic format by Gary Amirault from Tentmaker Publications.
Chapter 21 . Questionings
During all the years of which I speak the Plymouth Brethren were, as I have said, among my principal teachers. But I began gradually to find some things in their teachings that I could not accept; and this was especially the case with their extreme Calvinism.
There have always been, I believe, differences of opinion among them in regard to this view; but those with whom I was thrown held very rigidly the belief that some people were “elected” to salvation, and some were elected to “reprobation,” and that nothing the individual could do could change these eternal decrees. We of course were among those elected to salvation, and for this we were taught to be profoundly thankful. I tried hard to fall in with this. It seemed difficult to believe that those who had taught me so much could possibly be mistaken on such a vital point. But my soul revolted from it more and more. How could I be content in knowing that I myself was sure of Heaven, when other poor souls equally deserving, but who had not had my chances, were “elected,” for no fault of their own, but in the eternal decrees of God, to “Reprobation?” Such a doctrine seemed to me utterly inconsistent with the proclamation that had so entranced me. I could not find any limitations in this proclamation, and I could not believe there were any secret limitations in the mind of the God who had made it. Neither could I see how a Creator could be just, even if He were not loving, in consigning some of the creatures He Himself, and no other, had created, to the eternal torment of hell, let them be as great sinners as they might be. I felt that if this doctrine were true, I should be woefully disappointed in the God -whom I had, with so much rapture, discovered.
I could not fail to see, moreover, that, after all, each one of us was largely a creature of circumstance-that what we were, and what we did, was more or less the result of our temperaments, of our inherited characteristics, of our social surroundings and of our education; and that, as these were all providentially arranged for us, with often no power on our part to alter them, it would not be just in the God who had placed us in their midst, to let them determine our eternal destiny.
As an escape from the doctrine of eternal torment, I at first embraced the doctrine of annihilation for the wicked, and for a little while tried to comfort myself with the belief that this life ended all for them. But the more I thought of it, the more it seemed to me that it would be a confession of serious failure on the part of the Creator, if He could find no way out of the problem of His creation, but to annihilate the creatures whom He had created.
Unconsciously, one of my children gave me an illustration of this. She waked me up one morning to tell me that she had been lying in bed having great fun in pretending that she had made a man. She described the color of his hair and his eyes, his figure, his height, his power, his wisdom and all the grand things he was going to do, and was very enthusiastic in her evident delight in the joy of creation. When she had finished enumerating all the magnificent qualities of her man, I said to her, “But, darling, suppose he should turn out badly; suppose he should do mischief and hurt people, and make things go wrong, what would thee do then?” “Oh,” she said, “I would not have any trouble; I’d just make him lie down and chop his head off.”
I saw at once what a splendid illustration this was of the responsibility of a Creator, and it brought to my mind Mrs. Shelley’s weird story of the artist Frankenstein, who made the monstrous image of a man; which, when it was finished, suddenly to his horror, became alive and went out into the world working havoc wherever it went. The horrified maker felt obliged to follow his handiwork everywhere, in order to try to undo a little of the mischief that had been done, and to remedy as far as possible the evils it had caused. The awful sense of the responsibility that rested upon him, because of the things done by the creature he had created, opened my eyes to see the responsibility God must necessarily feel, if the creatures He had created were to turn out badly. I could not believe He would torment them forever; and neither could I rest in the thought of annihilation as His best remedy for sin. I felt hopeless of reconciling the love and the justice of the Creator with the fate of His creatures, and I knew not which way to turn. But deliverance was at hand, and the third epoch in my Christian experience was about to dawn.
Chapter 22 . The Third Epoch In My Religious Life
As I stated in the last chapter, after a few years of exuberant enjoyment in the good news of salvation through Christ for myself and for those who thought as I did, my heart began to reach out after those who thought differently, and especially after those who, by reason of the providential circumstances of their birth and their surroundings, had had no fair chance in life. I could not but see that ignorance of God and as a result, lives of sin, seemed the almost inevitable fate of a vast number of my fellow human beings, and I could not reconcile it with the justice of God that these unfortunate mortals should be doomed to eternal torment because of those providential circumstances, for which they were not responsible, and from which, in a charge majority of cases, they could not escape. The fact that I, who no more deserved it than they, should have been brought to the knowledge of the truth, while they were left out in the cold, became so burdensome to me, that I often felt as if I would gladly give up my own salvation, if by this means I could bestow it upon those who had been placed in less fortunate circumstances than myself.
I began to feel that the salvation in which I had been rejoicing was, after all a very limited and a very selfish salvation, and, as such, unworthy of the Creator who had declared so emphatically that His “tender mercies are over all His works,” and above all unworthy of the Lord Jesus Christ, who came into the world for the sole and single purpose of saving the world. I could not believe that His life and death for us could be meant to fall so far short of remedying the evil that He came on purpose to remedy, and I felt that it must be impossible that there could be any short-coming in the salvation He had provided. I began to be convinced that my difficulties had simply arisen from a misunderstanding of the plans of God, and I set myself to discover the mistakes.
As I have said, my first refuge had been in the annihilation of the wicked. But this had soon seemed unworthy of a wise and good Creator, and a very sad confession of failure on His part; and I could not reconcile it with either His omnipotence or His omniscience. I began to be afraid I was going to be disappointed in God. But one day a revelation came to me that vindicated Him, and that settled the whole question forever.
We very often had revivalist preachers staying with us, as we sought every opportunity of helping forward whit we called “gospel work.” Among the rest there came one who was very full of the idea that it was the privilege and duty of the Christian to share, in a very especial manner, the sufferings of Christ, as well as in His joys. He seemed to think our doing so would in some way help those who knew nothing of the salvation of Christ; and he had adopted the plan of making strong appeals on the subject in his meetings, and of asking Christians who were willing for the sake of others, to take a share of these sufferings upon themselves, to “come forward” to a front bench in the meeting to pray that it might be granted them. Somehow it all sounded very grand and heroic, and it fitted in so exactly with my longings to help my less fortunate fellow human beings, that although I did not go “forward” for prayer at any of his meetings, I did begin to pray privately in a blind sort of way that I might come into the experience, whatever it was. The result was very different from what I had expected, but it was far from tremendous.
I had expected to enter into a feeling of Christ’s own personal sufferings in the life and death He bore for our sakes, but instead I seemed to have a revelation, not of His sufferings because of sin, but of ours. I seemed to get a sight of the misery and anguish caused to humanity by the entrance of sin into the world, and of Christ’s sorrow, not for His own sufferings because of it, but for the sufferings of the poor human beings who had been cursed by it. I seemed to understand something of what must necessarily be His anguish at the sight of the awful fate which had been permitted to befall the human race, and of His joy that He could do something to alleviate it. I saw that ours was the suffering, and that His was the joy of sacrificing Himself to save us. I felt that if I had been a Divine Creator, and had allowed such an awful fate to befall the creatures I had made, I would have been filled with anguish, and would have realized that simple justice, even if not love, required that I should find some remedy for it. And I knew I could not be more just than God. I echoed in my heart over and over again the lines found by one of George Macdonald’s characters engraved on a tombstone.
“Oh Thou, who didst the serpent make,
Our pardon give and pardon take.”
I had been used to hearing a great deal about the awfulness of our sins against God, but now I asked myself, what about the awfulness of our fate in having been made sinners? Would I not infinitely rather that a sin should be committed against myself, than that I should commit a sin against any one else? Was it not a far more dreadful thing to be made a sinner than to be merely sinned against? And I began to see that, since God had permitted sin to enter into the world, it must necessarily be that He would be compelled, in common fairness, to provide a remedy that would be equal to the disease. I remembered some mothers I had known with children suffering from inherited diseases, who were only too thankful to lay down their lives in self-sacrifice for their children, if so be they might, in any way, be able to undo the harm they had done in bringing them into the world under such disastrous conditions; and I asked myself, Could God do less? I saw that, when weighed in a balance of wrong done, we, who had been created sinners, had infinitely more to forgive than any one against whom we might have sinned.
The vividness with which all this came to me can never be expressed. I did not think it, or imagine it, or suppose it. I saw it. It was a revelation of the real nature of things–not according to the surface conventional ideas, but according to the actual bottom facts–and it could not be gainsaid.
In every human face I saw, there seemed to be unveiled before me the story of the misery and anguish caused by the entrance of sin into the world. I knew that God must see this with far clearer eyes than mine, and therefore I felt sure that the sufferings of this sight to Him must be infinitely beyond what it was to me, almost unbearable as that seemed. And I began to understand how it was that the least He could do would be to embrace with untold gladness anything that would help to deliver the being He had created for such awful misery.
It was a never-to-be-forgotten insight into the world’s anguish because of sin. How long it lasted I cannot remember, but, while it lasted, it almost crushed me. And as it always came afresh at the sight of a strange face, I found myself obliged to wear a thick veil whenever I went into the streets, in order that I might spare myself the awful realization.
One day I was riding on a tram-car along Market Street, Philadelphia, when I saw two men come in and seat themselves opposite to me. I saw them dimly through in veil, but congratulated myself that it was only dimly, as I was thus spared the wave of anguish that had so often swept over me at the full sight of a strange face. The conductor came for his fare, and I was obliged to raise my veil in order to count it out. As I raised it I got a sight of the faces of those two men, and with an overwhelming flood of anguish, I seemed to catch a fresh and clearer revelation of the depth of the misery that had been caused to human beings by sin. It was more than I could bear. I clenched my hands and cried out in my soul, “O, God, how canst thou bear it? Thou mightest have prevented it, but didst not. Thou mightest even now change it, but Thou dost not. I do not see how Thou canst go on living, and endure it.” I upbraided God. And I felt I was justified in doing so. Then suddenly God seemed to answer me. An inward voice said, in tones of infinite love and tenderness, “He shall see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied.” “Satisfied!” I cried in my heart, “Christ is to be satisfied! He will be able to look at the world’s misery, and then at the travail through which He has passed because of it, and will be satisfied with the result; If I were Christ, nothing could satisfy me but that every human being should in the end be saved, and therefore I am sure that nothing less will satisfy Him.” And with this a veil seemed to be withdrawn from before the plans of the universe, and I saw that it was true, as the Bible says, that “as in Adam all die-even so in Christ should all be made alive.” As was the first, even so was the second. The “all” in one case could not in fairness mean less than the “all” in the other. I saw therefore that the remedy must necessarily be equal to the disease, the salvation must be as universal as the fall.
I saw all this that day on the tram-car on Market street, Philadelphia –not only thought it, or hoped it, or even believed it–but knew it. It was a Divine fact. And from that moment I have never had one questioning thought as to the final destiny of the human race. God is the Creator of every human being, therefore He is the Father of each one, and they are all His children; and Christ died for every one, and is declared to be “the propitiation not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). However great the ignorance therefore, or however grievous the sin, the promise of salvation is positive and without limitations. If it is true that “by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation,” it is equally true that “by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” To limit the last “all men” is also to limit the first. The salvation is absolutely equal to the fall. There is to be a final “restitution of all things,” when “at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” Every knee, every tongue-words could not be more embracing. The how and the when I could not see; but the one essential fact was all I needed-somewhere and somehow God was going to make every thing right for all the creatures He had created. My heart was at rest about it forever.
I hurried home to get hold of my Bible, to see if the magnificent fact I had discovered could possibly have been all this time in the Bible, and I had not have seen it; and the moment I entered the house, I did not wait to take off my bonnet, but rushed at once to the table where I always kept my Bible and Concordance ready for use, and began my search. Immediately the whole Book seemed to be illuminated. On every page the truth concerning the “times of restitution of all things” of which the Apostle Peter says “God Hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began,” shone forth, and no room was left for questioning. I turned greedily from page to page of my Bible, fairly laughing aloud for joy at the blaze of light that illuminated it all. It became a new book. Another skin seemed to have been peeled off every text, and my Bible fairly shone with a new meaning. I do not say with a different meaning, for in no sense did the new meaning contradict the old, but a deeper meaning, the true meaning, hidden behind the outward form of words. The words did not need to be changed, they only needed to be understood; and now at last I began to understand them.
I remember just about this time, in the course of my daily reading in the Bible, coming to the Psalms, and I was amazed at the new light thrown upon their apparently most severe and blood-thirsty denunciations. I saw that, when rightly interpreted, not by the letter, but by the spirit, they were full of the assured and final triumph of good over evil, and were a magnificent vindication of the goodness and justice of God, who will not, and ought not, and cannot, rest until all His enemies and ours are put under His feet. I saw that the kingdom must be interior before it can be exterior, that it is a kingdom of ideas, and not one of brute force; that His rule is over hearts, not over places; that His victories must be inward before they can be outward; that He seeks to control spirits rather than bodies; that no triumph could satisfy Him but a triumph that gains the heart; that in short, where God really reigns, the surrender must be the interior surrender of the convicted free men, and not merely the outward surrender of the conquered slave. Milton says, “Who overcomes by force hath overcome but half his foe,” and I saw that this was true.
Read in the light of these views, my whole soul thrilled with praise over the very words that had before caused me to thrill with horror. “Let God arise, let His enemies be scattered; let them also that hate Him flee before Him. As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: as wax melted before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God.” God’s wrath is against the sin–not against the sinner, and when His enemies are scattered, ours are also. His sword is the righteousness that puts to death sin in order to save the sinner. The fire of His anger is the “refiner’s fire”, and He sits, not as the destroyer of the human soul, but as its purifier, to purge it as gold and silver are purged.
“Implacable is love
Foes may be bought or teased
From their malign intent;
But He goes unappeased
Who is on kindness bent.”
The Psalmist says, “Thou wast a God that forgavest them, though thou takest vengeance of their inventions;” and with this key to interpret it, all the denunciations of God’s wrath, which had once seemed so cruel and so unjust, were transformed into declarations of His loving determination to make us good enough to live in Heaven with Himself forever.
I might multiply endlessly similar instances of the new illumination that shone in entrancing beauty on every page of the Bible, but these will suffice. I began at last to understand what the Apostle Paul meant when he said that he had been made the minister of the new testament, not of the letter but of the spirit , for “the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life.” Things I had read in the letter, and had shuddered at, now read in the spirit and filled me with joy.
Chapter 23. The Unselfishness of God
I have always felt that this time my real discovery of the unselfishness of God began. Up to then, while I had rejoiced in the salvation for myself that I had discovered, I had been secretly beset from time to time with a torturing feeling that, after all, it was rather a selfish salvation, both for Him and for me. How could a good God enjoy Himself in Heaven, knowing all the while that a large proportion of the beings He had Himself created were doomed to eternal misery, unless He were a selfish God? I had known that the Bible said that He was a God of love, and I had supposed that it must be true, but always there had been at the bottom of my mind this secret feeling that His love could not stand the test of comparison with the ideal of love in my own heart. I knew that, poor and imperfect as my love must be, I could never have enjoyed myself in Heaven while one of my children, no matter how naughty, was shut out; and that He could and did enjoy Himself, while countless thousands of His children were shut out, seemed to me a failure in the most essential element of love. So that, grateful as I had felt for the blessings of forgiveness and of a sure and certain hope of Heaven for myself, I still had often felt as if after all the God I worshiped was a selfish God, who cared more for His own comfort and His own glory than He did for the poor suffering beings He had made. But now I began to see that the wideness of God’s love was far beyond any wideness that I could even conceive of; and that if I took all the unselfish love of every mother’s heart the whole world over, and piled it all together, and multiplied it by millions, I would still only get a faint idea of the unselfishness of God.
I had always thought of Him as loving, but now I found out that He was far more than loving: He was love, love embodied and ingrained. I saw that He was, as it were, made out of love, so that in the very nature of things He could not do anything contrary to love. Not that He would not do it, but actually could not, because love was the very essence of His being. I saw that the law of love, like he law of gravitation, is inevitable in its working, and that God is, if I may say so, under this law, and cannot help obeying it. I saw that, because He is love, He simply, in the very nature of things, must be loving. It is not a matter of choice with Him, but a matter of necessity. And I saw that, once this fact was known, to trust in this God of love would be as natural as to breathe. Every doubting question was answered, and I was filled with an illimitable delight in the thought of having been created by such an unselfish God. I saw that as a matter of course the fact of His being our creator was an absolute guarantee that He would care for us, and would make all things work together for our good. The duties of ownership blazed with tremendous illumination. Not its rights, of which I had hitherto chiefly thought, but its duties, the things ownership necessarily demands of its owner. I saw that just as in a civilized community people are compelled by public opinion, or if necessary by the law, to take proper care of things that belong to them, so our Creator, by the laws of common morality, is compelled to take proper care of the creatures He has created, and must be held responsible for their well being.
It was all so glorious that it often seemed too good to be true, that we actually did belong to such an unselfish God; that many a time, when a fresh insight into His goodness would come over me, I would be obliged to get my Bible and open it at the texts that declared we really were His property, and put my fingers on them, and read them aloud, just to reassure myself that they did actually say, without any limitations, that He was my owner.
The expression “Remember thy Creator” assumed a totally different aspect to me. I had always thought of it as a kind of threat held over us into good behaviour; but now it seemed full of the most delightful warrant and assurance that all was well for the creatures this unselfish Creator had created. I saw that God was good, not religiously good only, but really and actually good in the truest sense of the word, and that a good Creator was of course bound to make every thing go right with the creatures He had created. And the fact that nothing was hid from His eyes, which had once been so alarming, now began to seem the most delightful fact in the whole universe, because it made it certain that He knew all about us, and would therefore be able to do His best for us.
My own feelings as a mother, which had heretofore seemed to war with what I had believed of God, now came into perfect harmony.
My children have been the joy of my life. I cannot imagine more exquisite bliss than comes to one sometimes in the possession and companionship of a child. To me there have been moments, when my arms have been around my children, that have seemed more like what the bliss of Heaven must be than any other thing I can conceive of; and I think this feeling has taught me more of what are God’s feelings towards His children than anything else in the universe. If I, a human being with limited capacity, can find such joy in my children, what must God, with His infinite heart of love, feel towards His; In fact most of my ideas of the love and goodness of God have come from my own experience as a mother, because I could not conceive that God would create me with a greater capacity for unselfishness and self-sacrifice than He possessed Himself; and since this discovery of the mother heart of God I have always been able to answer every doubt that may have arisen in my mind, as to the extent and quality of the love of God, by simply looking at my own feelings as a mother. I cannot understand the possibility of any selfishness on the mother’s part coming into her relation to her children. It seems to me a mother, who can be selfish and think of her own comfort and her own welfare before that of her children, is an abnormal mother, who fails in the very highest duty of motherhood.
If one looks at what we call the lower creation, one will see that every animal teaches us this supreme duty of self-sacrifice on the part of the mother.
The tiger mother will suffer herself to be killed rather than that that harm should come to her offspring. She will starve that they may have food. Could our God do less? I speak of self-sacrifice, but I cannot truthfully call it sacrifice. Any true mother, who knows the reality of motherhood, would scorn the idea that the care of her children involved a sacrifice, in the ordinary sense of sacrifice, on her part. It may involve trouble or weariness but not what I could call sacrifice. The sacrifice would be if she were not allowed to care for them, not if she were. I know no more fallacious line of argument than that which is founded upon the idea that children ought to be grateful for the self-sacrifice on the mother’s part. Her claim to love and consideration on the part of her children depends altogether to my mind upon how true a mother she has been in the sense I describe; and I believe that thousands of disappointed mothers, who have not received the gratitude and consideration they would like, have only themselves to thank, because they have demanded it, instead of having won it. All this has taught me to understand God’s feelings towards us that what we call self-sacrifice on the part of Christ was simply the absolutely necessary expression of His love for us; and that the amazing thing would have been, not that He did it, but if He had not done it.
Since I had this insight of the mother-heart of God, I have never been able to feel the slightest anxiety for any of His children; and by His children I do not mean only the good ones, but I mean the bad ones just as much. Are we not, distinctly told that the Good Shepherd leaves the ninety and nine good sheep in order to find the one naughty sheep that is lost, and that He looks for it until He finds it? And, viewed in the light of motherhood, has not that word “lost” a most comforting meaning, since nothing can be a lost thing that is not owned by somebody, and to be lost means only, not yet found. The lost gold piece is still gold, with the image of the King upon it; the lost sheep is a sheep still, not a wolf; the lost son has still the blood of his father in his veins. And if a person is a lost sinner, it only means that he is owned by the Good Shepherd, and that the Good Shepherd is bound, by the very duties of His ownership, to go after that which is lost, and to go until He finds it. The word “lost” therefore, to my mind, contains in itself the strongest proof of ownership that one could desire. Who can imagine a mother with a lost child ever having a ray of comfort until the child is found, and who can imagine a God being more indifferent than a mother? In fact I believe that all the problems of the spiritual life, which are often so distressing to conscientious souls, would vanish like mist before the rising sun, if the full blaze of the mother-heart of God should be turned upon them.
Moreover I saw that, since it was declared we were created in the image of God, we were bound to believe that the best in us, and not the worst was the reflection of that image, and .that therefore things which to us in our best moments looked selfish, or unkind, or unjust, or self-seeking, must never, no matter what the “seeming”, be attributed to God. If He is unselfish, He must be at least as unselfish as the highest human ideal; and of course we know He must be infinitely more.
All the texts in the Bible revealing God’s goodness shone with a new meaning, and I saw that His goodness was not merely a patronizing benevolence, but was a genuine bona fide goodness that included unselfishness and consideration, and above all justice, which last has always seemed to me one of the very first elements of goodness. No unjust person could ever, in my opinion, lay the slightest claim to being good, let their outward seemings of goodness be as deceiving as they may. I had in short such an overwhelming revelation of the intrinsic and inherent goodness and unselfishness of God that nothing since has been able to shake it. A great many things in His dealings have been and still are mysteries to me; but I am sure they could all be explained on the basis of love and justice, if only I could look deep enough; and that some day I shall see, what now I firmly believe, that His loving kindness is really and truly over all His works.
I do not mean to say that all this acquaintance with God came to me at once; but I do mean to say that when I had that revelation on the tram-car in Philadelphia that day, a light on the character of God began to shine, that has never since waned in the slightest, and has only grown brighter and brighter with every year of my life. It is enough for me to say “God is” and I have the answer to every possible difficulty.
The amazing thing is that I, in company with so many other Christians, had failed, with the open Bible before me, to see this; and that all sorts of travesties on the character of God, and of libels upon His goodness, can find apparently a welcome entrance into Christian hearts. To me such things became at this time well-nigh intolerable. I could listen patiently, and even with interest, to any sort of strange or heretical ideas that did not touch the character of God, but the one thing I could not endure, and could not sit still to listen to, was anything that contained, even under a show of great piety, the least hint of a libel on His love or His selfishness.
I shall never forget a memorable occasion in our own house, when a celebrated Preacher from Boston , was visiting us. The conversation at the breakfast table turned on the subject of God’s love, and this Preacher declared that you must not count on it too much, as there were limits as to what His love could endure, just as there were limits to a mother’s love; and he went on to declare that there were certain sins a daughter could commit which the mother never could forgive, and which would forever close her heart and her home against her child, and he asserted that it was just so with God, and that he considered it was a grandmotherly religion that taught anything different.
I have no doubt his object was to combat my views on Restitution, although we were not talking on that subject; but he evidently wanted to convince me that God was not quite so foolishly loving as I thought. It was more than I could endure to hear both mothers, and the God who made mothers so maligned, and although the speaker was my guest, I broke forth into a perfect passion of indignation, and declaring that I would not sit at the table with any one who held such libelous ideas of God, I burst into tears and left the room, and entirely declined to see my guest again. I do not say this was right or courteous, or at all Christlike, but it only illustrates how overwhelmingly I felt on the subject. The honor of God seemed to me of more importance than any ordinary rules of politeness. But I see now that I might have vindicated that honor in an equally effectual but more Christlike way.
Still to this day, the one thing which I find it very hard to tolerate, is any thing which libels the character of God. Nothing else matters like this, for all our salvation depends wholly and entirely upon what God is; and unless He can be proved to be absolutely good, and absolutely unselfish, and absolutely just, our case is absolutely hopeless. God is our salvation, and, if He fails us, in even the slightest degree, we have nowhere else to turn.
John Cassian (360-435 AD) was a theologian and munk, perhaps of Gallic origin. After spending years in Palestine and Egypt, Cassian founded a monastery in southern Gaul (France) near Marseilles. In his Conferences, Cassian recorded spiritual and theological conversations with elders from the monastery in Scetis. Much of these conversations deal with the relationship between free will and grace.
In the 13th conference, Cassian records a Chæremon arguing against gnostic/augustinian predestination of the elect, explaining that God rather intends all to be saved, but that he will sometimes have to save us against our own will by putting us on the right track even when we are not aware of it.
Of the main purpose of God and His daily Providence.
FOR the purpose of God whereby He made man not to perish but to live for ever, stands immovable. And when His goodness sees in us even the very smallest spark of good will shining forth, which He Himself has struck as it were out of the hard flints of our hearts, He fans and fosters it and nurses it with His breath, as He “willeth all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,” for as He says, “it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish,” and again it says: “Neither will God have a soul to perish, but recalleth,” meaning that he that is cast off should not altogether perish (1 Tim. 2:4; Matt. 18:14; 2 Sam. 14:14). For He is true, and lieth not when He lays down with an oath: “As I live, saith the Lord God, for I will not the death of a sinner, but that he should turn from his way and live.” (Ezek. 33:11). For if He willeth not that one of His little ones should perish, how can we imagine without grievous blasphemy that He does not generally will all men, but only some instead of all to be saved? Those then who perish, perish against His will, as He testifies against each one of them day by day: “Turn from your evil ways, and why will ye die, O house of Israel?” And again: “How often would I have gathered thy children together as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not;” and: “Wherefore is this people in Jerusalem turned away with a stubborn revolting? They have hardened their faces and refused to return.” (Matt. 23:37; Jer. 8:5.) The grace of Christ then is at hand every day, which, while it “willeth all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,” calleth all without any exception, saying: “Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you.” (Matt. 11:28). But if He calls not all generally but only some, it follows that not all are heavy laden either with original or actual sin, and that this saying is not a true one: “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God;” nor can we believe that “death passed on all men.” (Rom. 3:23; Rom. 5:12). And so far do all who perish, perish against the will of God, that God cannot be said to have made death, as Scripture itself testifies: “For God made not death, neither rejoiceth in the destruction of the living.” (Wisdom 1:13). And hence it comes that for the most part when instead of good things we ask for the opposite, our prayer is either heard but tardily or not at all; and again the Lord vouchsafes to bring upon us even against our will, like some most beneficent physician, for our good what we think is opposed to it, and sometimes He delays and hinders our injurious purposes and deadly attempts from having their horrible effects, and, while we are rushing headlong towards death, draws us back to salvation, and rescues us without our knowing it from the jaws of hell. (John Cassian, Conferences 13,7)
Walter Rauschenbusch (1861–1918). Image from WikiPedia.
The American theologian and Baptist pastor Walter Rauschenbusch (1861–1918) is most famous for his notion of the “social gospel”. But while emphasizing the partial presence of the Kingdom of God in this life, Rauschenbusch did not ignore matters of soteriology and eschatology. Rather, for Rauschenbusch, the hope in the restorative justice and mercy of the coming Kingdom of God, made it possible to entertain that the love of God could also have the power to change current state of affairs for the better. While rejecting a traditional protestant notion of “hell” as well as the more simplistic forms of universalism, Rauschenbusch instead affirmed an idea of a progressive purgation much like that of fellow Baptist Elhanan Winchester and others before him.
The following are excerpts from the chapter on eschatology in Rauschenbusch’s A Theology for the Social Gospel(1917).
The Christian religion needs a Christian eschatology. To be satisfying to the Christian consciousness any teaching concerning the future life of the individual must express that high valuation of the eternal worth of the soul which we have learned from Christ, and must not contradict or sully the revelation of the justice, love, and forgiving mercy of our heavenly Father contained in his words, his life, and his personality.
[…] we can not rejoice in hell. It can’t be done. At least by Christians. The more Christian Christ has made a soul, the more it would mourn for the lost brothers. The conception of a permanent hell was tolerable only while God was conceived as an autocratic sovereign dealing with his subjects; it becomes intolerable when the Father deals with his children.
To-day many Protestants are allowing the physical fires of hell to go out, and make the pain of hell to consist in the separation from God. They base the continuance of hell, not on the sovereign decree of God but on the progressive power of sin which gradually extinguishes all love of good and therewith all capacity for salvation. But this remains to be proven. Who has ever met a man that had no soft spot of tenderness, no homesick yearning after uprightness left in him? If God has not locked the door of hell from the outside, but men remain in it because they prefer the darkness, then there is bound to be a Christian invasion of hell. All the most Christian souls in heaven would get down there and share the life of the wicked, in the high hope that after all some scintilla of heavenly fire was still smouldering and could be fanned into life. And they would be headed by Him who could not stand it to think of ninety-nine saved and one caught among the thorns.
The idea of two fixed groups does not satisfy any real requirement. Men justly feared the earlier Universalist doctrine that all men enter salvation at death. That took sin lightly and offended the sense of justice. The idea of a scale of life in which each would be as far from God and in as much darkness and narrowness as he deserved, would constitute a grave admonition to every soul. Indeed it would contain more summons to self-discipline than the present idea that as long as a man is saved at all, he is saved completely and escapes all consequences. To-day the belief in hell has weakened in great numbers of people, and in that case there is no element of fear at all to aid men in self-control. The Christian idea would have to combine the just effects of sin for all and the operation of saving mercy on all.
[…]
There are only a few things which we can claim with any assurance, and these are not based on a single prediction, or on some passage, the origin or meaning of which may be disputed, but on the substance of the gospel of Christ. These are : that the love of God will go out forever to his children, and especially to the neediest, drawing them to him and, where necessary, saving them; that personality energized by God is ever growing; that the law of love and solidarity will be even more effective in heaven than on earth; and that salvation, growth, and solidarity are conditioned on interchange of service.
The worth of personality, freedom, growth, love, solidarity, service, — these are marks of the Kingdom of God. In Christ’s thought the Kingdom of God was to come from heaven to earth, so that God’s will would be done on earth as it is in heaven. So then it exists in heaven; it is to be created on earth. All true joys on earth come from partial realizations of the Kingdom of God ; the joy that awaits us will consist in living within the full realization of the Kingdom. Our labour for the Kingdom here will be our preparation for our participation hereafter. The degree in which we have absorbed the laws of the Kingdom into our character will determine our qualification for the life of heaven. If in any respect we have not been saved from the Kingdom of Evil, we shall be aliens and beginners in the Kingdom of God. Thus heaven and earth are to be parts of the same realm. Spiritual influences come to us; spiritual personalities go out from us. When our life is in God it has continuity.
It is debated whether or not Basil of Caesarea (Gregory of Nyssa’s older brother) believed in a final restoration of all things in the Origenian sense. Ilaria Ramelli has argued that he probably did, though he does not seem to have defended the doctrine overtly. Basil, in the commentary on Isaiah usually attributed to him, comes close though, as he seems to propound the idea that the final submission of all to God in 1 Cor. 15:28 will be a peaceful, harmonious submission, rather than a forced one. This was, at least for Origen and Gregory of Nyssa, a key reason for believing in the final apokatastasis of all things. Notice that Basil is not saying, that when “those making un uproar” are silenced, the rest shall praise God with hymns, but that all shall praise God with hymns:
“We have heard before how many names of the Lord we have already been taught by the prophet. ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive in her womb and shall beat a Son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel.’ Here His name is called ‘Messenger of great counsel’. He is the one Who made known the great counsel kept secret for the ages (Col. 1:26) and not manifested to other generations (Eph. 3:5). He is the one Who announced and manifested among the Gentiles His inscrutable wealth (Eph. 5:8), in order that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs and the same body (Eph. 3:6) of Him whose sovereignty is upon His shoulder, that is Whose kingdom and power are on the cross; as having been lifted up on the cross He drew all to Himself (John 12:32). […] There is no end of His peace, for the reason that it is a supramundane gift. For had it been from the world, it would have lasted only as long as the world exists. But now, he who has accepted His peace and preserved it shall live with the good things of His peace for ever. The peace of Solomon was limited to the recorded years, whereas the peace from the Lord is co-extensive with the whole of eternity, being unlimited and boundless. For all shall be subjected to Him and all shall recognise His mastery, and when God shall be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28), and those making an uproar by their apostasies are silenced, all in peaceful harmony shall praise God with hymns.” (quoted from St. Basil the Great, Commentary on the Prophet Isaiah, translated by Nikolai A. Lipatov, p. 275-276)
Excerpt from Gregory of Nyssa’s Great Catechism (II,25-26):
That Deity should be born in our nature, ought not reasonably to present any strangeness to the minds of those who do not take too narrow a view of things. For who, when he takes a survey of the universe, is so simple as not to believe that there is Deity in everything, penetrating it, embracing it, and seated in it? For all things depend on Him Who is (Exodus 3:14), nor can there be anything which has not its being in Him Who is. If, therefore, all things are in Him, and He in all things, why are they scandalized at the plan of Revelation when it teaches that God was born among men, that same God Whom we are convinced is even now not outside mankind? For although this last form of God’s presence among us is not the same as that former presence, still His existence among us equally both then and now is evidenced; only now He Who holds together Nature in existence is transfused in us; while at that other time He was transfused throughout our nature, in order that our nature might by this transfusion of the Divine become itself divine, rescued as it was from death, and put beyond the reach of the caprice of the antagonist. For His return from death becomes to our mortal race the commencement of our return to the immortal life.
Still, in his examination of the amount of justice and wisdom discoverable in this Dispensation a person is, perhaps, induced to entertain the thought that it was by means of a certain amount of deceit that God carried out this scheme on our behalf. For that not by pure Deity alone, but by Deity veiled in human nature, God, without the knowledge of His enemy, got within the lines of him who had man in his power, is in some measure a fraud and a surprise; seeing that it is the peculiar way with those who want to deceive to divert in another direction the expectations of their intended victims, and then to effect something quite different from what these latter expected. But he who has regard for truth will agree that the essential qualities of justice and wisdom are before all things these; viz. of justice, to give to every one according to his due; of wisdom, not to pervert justice, and yet at the same time not to dissociate the benevolent aim of the love of mankind from the verdict of justice, but skilfully to combine both these requisites together, in regard to justice returning the due recompense, in regard to kindness not swerving from the aim of that love of man. Let us see, then, whether these two qualities are not to be observed in that which took place. That repayment, adequate to the debt, by which the deceiver was in his turn deceived, exhibits the justice of the dealing, while the object aimed at is a testimony to the goodness of Him who effected it. It is, indeed, the property of justice to assign to every one those particular results of which he has sunk already the foundations and the causes, just as the earth returns its harvests according to the kinds of seeds thrown into it; while it is the property of wisdom, in its very manner of giving equivalent returns, not to depart from the kinder course. Two persons may both mix poison with food, one with the design of taking life, the other with the design of saving that life; the one using it as a poison, the other only as an antidote to poison; and in no way does the manner of the cure adopted spoil the aim and purpose of the benefit intended; for although a mixture of poison with the food may be effected by both of these persons alike, yet looking at their intention we are indignant with the one and approve the other; so in this instance, by the reasonable rule of justice, he who practised deception receives in return that very treatment, the seeds of which he had himself sown of his own free will. He who first deceived man by the bait of sensual pleasure is himself deceived by the presentment of the human form. But as regards the aim and purpose of what took place, a change in the direction of the nobler is involved; for whereas he, the enemy, effected his deception for the ruin of our nature, He Who is at once the just, and good, and wise one, used His device, in which there was deception, for the salvation of him who had perished, and thus not only conferred benefit on the lost one, but on him, too, who had wrought our ruin. For from this approximation of death to life, of darkness to light, of corruption to incorruption, there is effected an obliteration of what is worse, and a passing away of it into nothing, while benefit is conferred on him who is freed from those evils. For it is as when some worthless material has been mixed with gold, and the gold-refiners burn up the foreign and refuse part in the consuming fire, and so restore the more precious substance to its natural lustre: (not that the separation is effected without difficulty, for it takes time for the fire by its melting force to cause the baser matter to disappear; but for all that, this melting away of the actual thing that was embedded in it to the injury of its beauty is a kind of healing of the gold.) In the same way when death, and corruption, and darkness, and every other offshoot of evil had grown into the nature of the author of evil, the approach of the Divine power, acting like fire (Malachi 3:2-3), and making that unnatural accretion to disappear, thus by purgation of the evil becomes a blessing to that nature, though the separation is agonizing. Therefore even the adversary himself will not be likely to dispute that what took place was both just and salutary, that is, if he shall have attained to a perception of the boon. For it is now as with those who for their cure are subjected to the knife and the cautery; they are angry with the doctors, and wince with the pain of the incision; but if recovery of health be the result of this treatment, and the pain of the cautery passes away, they will feel grateful to those who have wrought this cure upon them. In like manner, when, after long periods of time, the evil of our nature, which now is mixed up with it and has grown with its growth, has been expelled, and when there has been a restoration of those who are now lying in Sin to their primal state, a harmony of thanksgiving will arise from all creation , as well from those who in the process of the purgation have suffered chastisement, as from those who needed not any purgation at all. These and the like benefits the great mystery of the Divine incarnation bestows. For in those points in which He was mingled with humanity, passing as He did through all the accidents proper to human nature, such as birth, rearing, growing up, and advancing even to the taste of death, He accomplished all the results before mentioned, freeing both man from evil, and healing even the introducer of evil himself. For the chastisement, however painful, of moral disease is a healing of its weakness.
The Harrowing of Hell, Chora Church, Istanbul (Constantinople).
The Paschal homily of John Chrysostomos (349-407), Archbishop of Constantinople.
If any be a devout lover of God,
let him partake with gladness from this fair and radiant feast.
If any be a faithful servant,
let him enter rejoicing into the joy of his Lord.
If any have wearied himself with fasting,
let him now enjoy his reward.
If any have laboured from the first hour,
let him receive today his rightful due.
If any have come after the third,
let him celebrate the feast with thankfulness.
If any have come after the sixth,
let him not be in doubt, for he will suffer no loss.
If any have delayed until the ninth,
let him not hesitate but draw near.
If any have arrived only at the eleventh,
let him not be afraid because he comes so late.
For the Master is generous and accepts the last even as the first.
He gives rest to him who comes at the eleventh hour
in the same was as him who has laboured from the first.
He accepts the deed, and commends the intention.
Enter then, all of you, into the joy of our Lord.
First and last, receive alike your reward.
Rich and poor, dance together.
You who fasted and you who have not fasted, rejoice together.
The table is fully laden: let all enjoy it.
The calf is fatted: let none go away hungry.
Let none lament his poverty;
for the universal Kingdom is revealed.
Let none bewail his transgressions;
for the light of forgiveness has risen from the tomb.
Let none fear death;
for death of the Saviour has set us free.
He has destroyed death by undergoing death.
He has despoiled hell by descending into hell.
He vexed it even as it tasted of His flesh.
Isaiah foretold this when he cried:
Hell was filled with bitterness when it met Thee face to face below;
filled with bitterness, for it was brought to nothing;
filled with bitterness, for it was mocked;
filled with bitterness, for it was overthrown;
filled with bitterness, for it was put in chains.
Hell received a body, and encountered God. It received earth, and confronted heaven.
O death, where is your sting?
O hell, where is your victory?
Christ is risen! And you, o death, are annihilated!
Christ is risen! And the evil ones are cast down!
Christ is risen! And the angels rejoice!
Christ is risen! And life is liberated!
Christ is risen! And the tomb is emptied of its dead;
for Christ having risen from the dead,
is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.
To Him be Glory and Power, now and forever, and from all ages to all ages.
Amen!
Peter Hiett interviews Orthodox theologian and philosopher, David Bentley Hart, on his new book That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation.
That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation (Yale University Press 2019). 232 pages.
Orthodox theologian and philosopher David Bentley Hart’s book on universal salvation is arguably the most talked-about book on the subject for years. It is also one of the most head-on defenses of soteriological universalism to hit the mainstream theological audience worldwide.
For those acquainted with the topic, many of Hart’s arguments are classics, based on biblical and theological reasoning, but Hart goes furthest in developing a moral argument for universal salvation based on the fundamental goodness of God. Personally, I did not give much weight to such arguments before, but Hart convincingly argues, that if God is truly good and loving (even requiring us to love our enemies as he himself does!), this must mean the final salvation of all.
Much have been said already on the book (see e.g. the many positive reviews of the book on Eclectic Orthodoxy). I wont add more here, but simply recommend the book. For anyone interested in the topic, this is a must read.
James Relly: The Great Salvation Contemplated (Mercy Upon All booklet series). 154 pages.
I’m happy to announce a new edition of James Relly’s theological classic The Great Salvation Contemplated. The book has been available online for a while, but I missed a printed edition, so here it is. I’ve written a short introduction (thanks to Alex Smith for proof-reading!) and added an index of biblical references.
James Relly (1722–1778) was a Welshman, Methodist minister and Universalist theologian. Relly’s theology is among the most radical examples of Christian universalism.
The central idea in Relly’s theology was that the atonement and justification must be understood in terms of humanity’s union with Christ. Humankind is united to Christ in such a way that all human beings are considered as one person with Him. This is a well-known idea in traditional theology but Relly took the consequences a bit further than the standard evangelical account. He insisted that the justification of all human beings has already taken place on the cross once and for all.
Relly’s theology was radically Christocentric. Jesus Christ is himself the new covenant in whom the divine and human natures meet. As such, Christ is also the one in whom humanity becomes elect, as Christ takes upon himself the reprobation of humanity. All have died and been made righteous in Christ’s death and resurrection.
The book’s epistles are apparently written in response to quarrels in a congregation connected to Relly. Relly’s response portrays a mind that prioritizes peace and harmony over doctrinal purity. Like his younger contemporary, Elhanan Winchester, Relly seeks to mediate between Calvinism and Arminianism by posing a soteriological universalism. Relly does not state this belief dogmatically. Jesus Christ is the center of faith. But we can hope that Christ will eventually save all for whom he died, as all human beings come to realize that in him they have been reconciled to God once and for all.
Gregory of Nazianzen represents a viable alternative to the allegedly heterodox notion of the atonement represented by reformed theologians such as Keller. The Father did not forsake Christ, but Christ cried out on part of humanity on the cross.
What did it mean when Christ on the cross cried: “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?“, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” (Matt. 27:46). Was Christ really forsaken by God?, did he just quote Psalm 22 in order to imply its optimistic ending?, or did he perhaps in his human nature experience godforsakenness while still being one with his Father in his divine nature?
A popular notion in Protestantism is the idea that Christ dies as a substitute for sinners, receiving the just punishment of sin as the Father turns his back on him, forsaking him at the cross. Critics of the traditional Protestant notions of the atonement, however, often accuse this idea for implying a breach in the trinity. If the Father can turn away from Christ, then Christ cannot be substantially one with the Father.
An example that the traditional Protestant notion of the atonement can at least be interpreted as verging on non-trinitarian heterodoxy, could be observed as the popular Presbyterian pastor Timothy Keller recently made a post on Twitter. In his post Keller seemed to be saying that Jesus actually lost the love of his Father on the cross:
There were plenty of reactions accusing Keller of heresy. If Christ could loose the love of the Father, this would in effect imply that the trinity ceased to exist, making God nothing on the cross. Keller has explained elsewhere, that his view is more precisely that of Calvin’s, where Christ is only said to experience the loss of the Father’s love, even if there is not an ontological breach in the trinity.
But what are the alternatives? Shortly after reading Keller’s tweet, I ran across a passage in the 4th century Cappadocian theologian Gregory of Nazianzen. Gregory presents the idea that Christ in himself subjects all humanity to the Father, thereby becoming the representative of humanity before God. When Christ cries “Why hast thou forsaken me?” it is sinful humanity that speaks through Christ, but the Father did not, for this reason, forsake Christ:
“[T]he Son subjects all to the Father […] And thus He Who subjects presents to God that which he has subjected, making our condition His own. Of the same kind, it appears to me, is the expression, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” It was not He who was forsaken either by the Father, or by His own Godhead, as some have thought, as if It were afraid of the Passion, and therefore withdrew Itself from Him in His Sufferings (for who compelled Him either to be born on earth at all, or to be lifted up on the Cross?) But as I said, He was in His own Person representing us. For we were the forsaken and despised before, but now by the Sufferings of Him Who could not suffer, we were taken up and saved. Similarly, He makes His own our folly and our transgressions; and says what follows in the Psalm, for it is very evident that the Twenty-first Psalm refers to Christ.” (Gregory of Nazianzen, Fourth Theological Oration (Oration 30), V)
I find Gregory’s solution brilliant in its simplicity and its clear affirmation of the Patristic understanding of Christ’s incarnation as a union with humanity as such. Humanity has turned away from God and thus experiences godforsakenness. It is this experience that is expressed at the cross, even while Christ is still fully one with the Father. Notice also, that Gregory is quite explicit in saying that, paradoxically, God did actually suffer, even if he cannot suffer. But for this exact reason, as Christ makes our godforsakenness his own on the cross, we also get to share in his affinity with God in the resurrection. In this way, there is no breach of the trinity on the cross, but only a participation of Christ in human suffering (rather than Christ being a “substitute”) and a subsequent human participation in Christ in the resurrection. I’m not sure that this is actually very far from Keller’s view, but I’m quite sure that I prefer Gregory’s formulation over Keller’s.
Title page of the original French version of Pierre Cuppe’s ‘Le ciel ouvert a tous les hommes’.
I recently came across a peculiar book by Pierre Cuppe, a French 18th century pastor. The English title is “Heaven Open to All Men” (“Le ciel ouvert a tous les hommes” in French). I have not been able to find much information on its author, but the English translation of his book is available online. The title may initially seem to suggest a somewhat Arminian argument or a similar notion of general redemption, but the subtitle makes it clear that not only is heaven open to all, but in fact all will eventually be saved.
The full title of the 1743 edition was “Heaven open to all men or, a theological treatise, in which, without unsettling the practice of religion, is solidly prov’d, by scripture and reason, that all men shall be saved, or, made finally happy.”
The full title of the 1766 edition (which I refer to below) was: “Heaven Open to All or, Universal Redemption Asserted and vindicated from Scripture, the Attributes of the Deity, and the Reason and Nature of Things: Designed to Explode those narrow Principles which some have inculcated, And to excite a general Piety and Charity amongst Mankind”.
Cuppe’s arguments
Central to Cuppe’s argument is the distinction between the “earthly man”, Adam, and “the heavenly man”, Christ. Both represent humanity in its entirety. Antichrist is nothing but humanity considered in its sinful state without God. Every human person, considered as the offspring of Adam can be called the “Antichrist”, Cuppe explains. But considered in the light of the redeemer every human person is the new man, reconciled to God (p. 18). In other words, God represents humanity in “two very different lights”, as odious, considered under the power of the old man”, and as reconciled, considered as justified by the grace of redemption.
In this way Cuppe can indeed envision the perdition of the sinner, i.e. humanity in its entirety as it is without God, while simultaneously maintaining that all human beings will be saved eventually. Antichrist is forever excluded from the “divine favour”, but being reconciled to God through Christ all human beings will be saved.
Cuppe strongly affirms that human beings are justified by Christ alone. Though not using the concept explicitly, Cuppe in a passage even seems to advocate the idea of justification from eternity, prominent among some radical reformed theologians of his time. It is not our subjective faith or “acceptation” of Christ that restores us, but Christ’s eternal acceptence of us. Christ is from eternity the “mystical Lamb” that restores humanity “by anticipation” (of the cross, I assume). In this way Cuppe seems close to Jeremiah White‘s idea, that all of humanity is, in fact, saved from eternity.
“Adam’s acceptation of the coming of the Redeemer was not that which restored him. It was the acceptation by the mystical Lamb, immolated from the beginning of the world, the eternal word, who freely taking upon himself the sin of Adam, and, by anticipation, all the sins of men, offered himself to restore them, as a victim worthy to satisfy the Divine Justice for all.” (Pierre Cuppe, Heaven Open to All Men, p. 26)
A second perhaps more idiosyncratic feature of Cuppe’s argument is his distinction between “the grace of redemption” and “the grace of superabundance”. According to Cuppe, the difference between those who have faith here and now, and those who do not have faith, is that, while all are saved, only those who trust in Christ now will have life in “superabundance” after the resurrection. This distinction allows Cuppe to insist that while salvation is of grace alone, nevertheless our faith as well as works does make a difference. There are two kinds of grace, says Cuppe, “the grace of redemption, common to all men”, and “the grace of superabundance, to be obtained in pursuit of means”. The former is common to all, by virtue of the divine promise, while the latter is “proportioned to the right use made of spiritual blessings” (p. 22). Temporal punishments are incurred to the degree that the grace of superabundance is neglected.
I find it hard to square Cuppe’s distinction between two classes of saved (those who are saved through the grace of redemption, and those who are also saved through the grace of superabundance) with the Pauline notion of God finally being “all in all” (1 Cor 15:28) (how can there be distinctions then?). But considering the temporal distinction between “sinners” and “righteous”, I find Cuppe’s approach helpful in making sense of the many passages in the New Testament that seems to suggest that some are saved through faith as well as works, while some are saved as “through fire” (e.g. 1 Cor 3:15).
For those who does not have the time or cannot afford Dr. Ilaria Ramelli’s massive work The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, there is now a good alternative. In A Larger Hope?, Ramelli presents the classical doctrine of the restoration of all things in an accessible manner.
“In the minds of some, universal salvation is a heretical idea that was imported into Christianity from pagan philosophies by Origen (c.185–253/4). Ilaria Ramelli argues that this picture is completely mistaken. She maintains that Christian theologians were the first people to proclaim that all will be saved and that their reasons for doing so were rooted in their faith in Christ. She demonstrates that, in fact, the idea of the final restoration of all creation (apokatastasis) was grounded upon the teachings of the Bible and the church’s beliefs about Jesus’ total triumph over sin, death, and evil through his incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension.
Ramelli traces the Christian roots of Origen’s teaching on apokatastasis. She argues that he was drawing on texts from Scripture and from various Christians who preceded him, theologians such as Bardaisan, Irenaeus, and Clement. She outlines Origen’s often-misunderstood theology in some detail and then follows the legacy of his Christian universalism through the centuries that followed. We are treated to explorations of Origenian universal salvation in a host of Christian disciples, including Athanasius, Didymus the Blind, the Cappadocian fathers, Evagrius, Maximus the Confessor, John Scotus Eriugena, and Julian of Norwich.
For this purpose, then, the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God entered our world. In one sense, indeed, He was not far from it before, for no part of creation had ever been without Him Who, while ever abiding in union with the Father, yet fills all things that are. But now He entered the world in a new way, stooping to our level in His love and Self-revealing to us.
He saw the reasonable race, the race of men that, like Himself, expressed the Father’s Mind, wasting out of existence, and death reigning over all in corruption. He saw that corruption held us all the closer, because it was the penalty for the Transgression; He saw, too, how unthinkable it would be for the law to be repealed before it was fulfilled. He saw how unseemly it was that the very things of which He Himself was the Artificer should be disappearing. He saw how the surpassing wickedness of men was mounting up against them; He saw also their universal liability to death.
All this He saw and, pitying our race, moved with compassion for our limitation, unable to endure that death should have the mastery, rather than that His creatures should perish and the work of His Father for us men come to nought, He took to Himself a body, a human body even as our own. Nor did He will merely to become embodied or merely to appear; had that been so, He could have revealed His divine majesty in some other and better way.
No, He took our body, and not only so, but He took it directly from a spotless, stainless virgin, without the agency of human father—a pure body, untainted by intercourse with man. He, the Mighty One, the Artificer of all, Himself prepared this body in the virgin as a temple for Himself, and took it for His very own, as the instrument through which He was known and in which He dwelt. Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father.
This He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, having fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its power for men. This He did that He might turn again to incorruption men who had turned back to corruption, and make them alive through death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of His resurrection. Thus He would make death to disappear from them as utterly as straw from fire.
Elhanan Winchester: The Gospel Preached by the Apostles. 72 pages. Apophasis 2019. isbn 978-8797011195.
Mercyuponall.org is happy to announce the first book in the Mercy Upon All booklet series: A new edition of Elhanan Winchester’s discourse on particular and general redemption and salvation.
The text has been available online here for some time, but is now also available as a handy pamphlet-style book ready for dealing out, or just for reading in the passing by.
The Gospel Preached by The Apostles is a discourse originally presented at the Chapel in Glass-House Yard in London in 1788. Winchester’s main point in the discourse was to prove that Paul taught a doctrine of particular as well as general atonement and redemption: Christ died for the elect in particular, but for all in general. The elect are not chosen at the expense of others, but for the sake of others. The language in this edition of Winchester’s text has been slightly modernized. An index of biblical references has been added.
Jeremiah White (1629–1707), was a 17th-century Nonconformist minister and Puritan chaplain to Oliver Cromwell. During his years as a student at the University of Cambridge he came to the conviction that Arminianism was false. White defended the doctrines of predestination, election and rebrobation, but these were understood in such a way, that the sanctification and salvation of the elect will be to the benefit of the reprobate, leading to the final happiness of all human beings.
Jeremiah White’s The restoration of all things: or, A vindication of the goodness and grace of God to be manifested at last, in the recovery of His whole creation out of their fall was published posthumously in 1712. The book also shows influences of Cambridge Platonism.
Central to White’s thesis is that salvation is in principle already accomplished for all in and through God’s eternal plan to save all. While this idea bears clear resemblances to the doctrine of justification from eternity, as known from 17th-18th century baptists like Samuel Richardson, John Brine and John Gill, this concept is not mentioned by White.
Jeremiah White, commenting on The First epistle to Timothy, connects the dots and reads 1 Tim. 2:4 (about the “living God, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”) together with 1 Tim. 4:10 (on God being “the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe”). God desires that all be saved, which is why he is in fact the savior of all, but especially of those who believe now.
“Therefore this very command to Pray for all Men, especially back’d with this reason (for God wills that all Men be Saved) is a strong argument that there is a Salvation in God to be issued out sooner or later, even for all Men which is also more than strongly implied in the ascribing that Title to, God of being our Saviour, which I have shewed before, as it is to be understood generally, so also actually. For it is not said, he purposes, or inclines, or resolves to be a Saviour, but is a Saviour in act. For indeed all his works are finished to him from the Foundation of the World [from Eternity], and we are Saved in him before the notice of it comes to us, as the Apostle saith, tho’ it was a mystery and was hid in God till it was manifested by the Gospel. So the Salvation of all Men is a done thing with God, though it hath its proper seasons to be exhibited to the view and notice of Men.”
Nicolaus Zinzendorf (1700-1760), bishop of the Moravian Church and founder of the Herrnhuter Brüdergemeine
I’ve recently posted on Peter Böhler — the Moravian bishop whose missional zeal was an important inspiration for John Wesley, though they eventually splitted over Böhler’s allegedly universalistic tendencies. Reading the chapter on Continental Pietism in Robin Parry’s A Larger Hope?, I was surprised to learn that the more famous Nicolaus Zinzendorf (1700-1760), bishop of the Moravian Church, seems to have shared Böhler’s high eschatological hopes. Even if the evidence seems a bit thin, in the third discourse of Zinzendorf’s Sixteen Discourses on the Redemption of Man by the Death of Christ, Zinzendorf explicitly says that by the name of Jesus all “can and shall obtain life and salvation”:
“He must first manifest himself as Jesus every where, then the soul will also experience him as Christ. After the communication of grace in his blood, souls are also made partakers of his oil and anointing. The name of Jesus is his own proper name, which he bears as our flesh and blood for the benefit of all men, be they ever so dead sick, or ever so miserable and sinful, by this his name all can and shall obtain life and salvation.” (Zinzendorf, Sixteen Discourses on the Redemption of Man by the Death of Christ, III)
Notice that Zinzendorf is not just saying here, that all the faithful can and shall be saved, but that all men “can and shall”. This could at least be taken to mean, that he believed that all would eventually be saved. While Zinzendorf adds that “the name of Christ” only belongs to those that are his “redeemed one’s already”, the “already” may be read as keeping the possibility open, that all will eventually belong to Christ, i.e., that all for whom Jesus died will eventually be Christians. (Note: I haven’t been able to find the original German of Zinzendorf’s discourses, so the details of the language are somewhat uncertain).
Now, as a good pietist Zinzendorf was more concerned with true Christian discipleship and living than with dogma, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the rest of the discourse is mostly about what it means to call oneself a Christian. Nevertheless, the universalistic tone of Moravian theology and doctrine seems to have sparked some controversy. Parry mentions that Zinzendorf’s discourses were criticized by John Wesley, and that some controversy followed when Zinzendorf at a convocation in Pensylvania allegedly proposed an article saying that Jesus is “not only the Saviour of the faithful and the atonement for their sins, but also the atonement for the whole world and the Saviour of all men.” This statement is, of course, fully biblical (merging 1 Tim. 4:10 with 1 John 2:2).
The story of Moravians like Böhler and Zinzendorf should, as I’ve noticed before, remind us that holding high soteriological hopes for all humankind does not contradict the firm emphasis on mission and evangelism, for which the Moravians were known.
The theme of spiritual “rebirth” or “regeneration” is often at the heart of the traditional evangelical idea of what it means to be Christian (think of the term “born again Christian”). Building on spiritualist idea from medieval mysticism and radical reformers, this notion sees regeneration as some inner experience, that the individual believer must go through. But there are other possible ways of understanding regeneration.
When asked when he was “born again”, T.F. Torrance, Scottish theologian in the “neo-orthodox” school, famously responded, that he was born again 2,000 years ago, when Jesus was born, died and raised for us. Torrance explained:
“During my first week of office as Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland when I presided at the Assembly’s Gaelic Service, a Highlander asked me when I had been born again. I still recall his face when I told him I had been born again when Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary and rose again from the virgin tomb, the first-born of the dead. When he asked me to explain I said: ‘This Tom Torrance is hid with Christ in God and will be revealed only when Jesus Christ comes again. He took my corrupt humanity in his Incarnation, sanctified, cleansed and redeemed it, giving it new birth, in his death and resurrection.’ In other words, our new birth, our regeneration, our conversion, are what has taken place in Jesus Christ himself, so that when we speak of our conversion or our regeneration we are referring to our sharing in the conversion or regeneration of our humanity brought about by Jesus in and through himself for our sake. In a profound and proper sense, therefore, we must speak of Jesus Christ as constituting in himself the very substance of our conversion, so that we must think of him as taking our place even in our acts of repentance and personal decision, for without him all so-called repentance and conversion are empty. Since a conversion in that truly evangelical sense is a turning away from ourselves to Christ, it calls for a conversion from our in-turned notions of conversion to one which is grounded and sustained in Christ Jesus himself.” (Thomas Forsyth Torrance, The Mediation of Christ, (Helmers & Howard 1992), pp. 85-86)
For the mainstream evangelical mind, with its idea of regeneration as something that happens when a person repents and becomes a “believer”, Torrance’s claim may seem preposterous. Nevertheless, the idea that we are in principle born again first of all through the resurrection of Christ, is not unbiblical – on the contrary, in the first epistle of Peter, we find the claim that God “beget us again to a living hope, through the rising again of Jesus Christ out of the dead” (1 Pet 1,3).
But how can we be born again before even have been born in the first place? That we are born again in and through the resurrection of Christ has to do with the unity of humanity with Christ. With early Christian theologians, such as Irenaeus, Athanasius and Gregor of Nyssa, it was a common idea that Christ by his incarnation united himself to humanity, and that humanity in principle rises with Christ in his resurrection. The personal conversion of the sinner comes about, as Torrance explained it, as a result of turning away from our mistaken ideas that we are to convert ourselves. Becoming a believer in Christ is to become aware, that our regeneration happens in and through Christ.
Torrance also points out that the term typically translated as “regeneration” (παλιγγενεσία) is not used in the New Testament for what goes on in the human heart, but only for “the great regeneration that took place in and through the Incarnation and of the final transformation of the world when Jesus Christ will come again to judge the quick and the dead and make all things new”. See Titus 3:5 and especially Matthew 19:28, where “regeneration” is sometimes translated “renewal”. Most notably the word in Matt. 19:28 is used in the singular, referring to the future “regeneration of all things”, rather than the spiritual rebirth of the individual believer.
See also: https://postbarthian.com/2019/02/13/it-is-significant-that-the-new-testament-does-not-use-the-term-regeneration-being-born-again-as-so-often-modern-evangelical-theology-does-for-what-goes-on-in-the-human-heart-t-f-torrance/
It has come to my attention recently that quite a few proponents and sympathizers of so-called ‘Radical Orthodoxy’ has been more than ready to embrace a belief in the restitution of all things or ‘apokatastasis pantôn’ as dogmatically orthodox (see the two tweets from John Milbank below). This is good news as the belief is too often associated with rather obscure trends in Protestantism, making it easy to discard it as spurious. Not least the work of Orthodox scholar David Bentley Hart and Catholic professor Ilaria Ramelli has helped to recover a dogmatically feasible version of the classical Patristic idea of the final restitution of all things.
John Milbank is, together with Catherine Pickstock, one of the main proponents of Radical Orthodoxy. The main idea of Radical Orthodoxy is, as I understand it, that we need to discard the individualism, nominalism and voluntarism that haunts modernity and post-modernity, if we are to overcome the widespread nihilism of our age. Instead we need to recover an orthodox, patristic idea of creation as gift and communion with God as the metaphysical ground of the universe in general and the church in particular.
I’m not sure what Milbank’s point is in the second tweet below, but it obviously has to do with the metaphysical relationship between God and creatures. I guess the point could be that God is not just one object among others, that we can freely pick and choose autonomously, but rather the reality that undergirds our whole existence, making freedom possible in the first place. The restitution of all things is the restitution of the original freedom for which we were created (this is, at least, my own understanding of the classical ideas of freedom in Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, etc.).
I guess I’ll have to look further into the status of the doctrine of apokatastasis in Radical Orthodoxy (though, unfortunately Milbank seems mostly to write on it on Twitter). I might start with Pickstock’s Repetition and Identity, mentioned by Milbank.
Revd Dr Robin Parry is a clergyman in the Church of England and the author and editor of several books on Christian Universalism. Robin has kindly permitted me to bring an excerpt from his recently published book on universalism from the reformation to the 19th century, ‘A Larger Hope?‘ (slightly edited):
The Perennial “Heresy”
One striking aspect that stands out from our explorations in this volume is the way in which universalism seems to be spontaneously rediscovered over and over again. Of course there are universalist genealogies, and it is not hard to find people who were converted to universalism directly through the preaching or the writing of another. Think, for instance, of the key role of Paul Siegvolk’s book in Elhanan Winchester’s conversion, or of James Relly’s writing and preaching in John Murray’s. Nevertheless, it is fascinating how many people seem to move into a belief in universal salvation seemingly without the influence of other Christians encouraging them to. One thinks, for instance, of Hans Denck (if he was a universalist), Gerrard Winstanley, Jeremiah White, Jane Lead, George de Benneville, George Stonehouse, James Relly, Charles Chauncy, Caleb Rich, Friedrich Schleiermacher, Johann Christoph Blumhardt, Thomas Erskine, George MacDonald, Andrew Jukes, and Hannah Whitall Smith. I am not suggesting that their diverse journeys into a belief in the final redemption of all were not influenced, indeed deeply influenced, by other Christians or by inherited Christian theological ideas. Of course they were—every one of them. My point, rather, is that each of these characters found their own way toward belief in universal salvation without the direct influence of other universalists. Their journeys were indeed pushed in such radical directions by other people and existing ideas, but those influential people and ideas were not themselves universalist. Rather, it was our lone travelers who took the baton and then ran with it into new and unanticipated territory. Subsequently, as we saw with Hannah Whitall Smith, the theology of other universalists can serve to refine and confirm that initial “insight,” but the insight itself was not taught them by another.
What is fascinating is that this deviancy, running off course with the baton, keeps on happening. Perhaps we might even dare to speak of universal salvation as the perennial “heresy,” echoing the way that some have spoken of Platonism as the perennial philosophy. (Of course, I use the term “heresy” with my tongue in my cheek, for I do not believe that universalism is a formal heresy; rather, it occupies a space between heresy and dogma.) It is a theological idea that refuses to go away and keeps on raising its ugly/beautiful (delete as appropriate) head over and over again, throughout the centuries. One may wonder why this is so. It is almost as if the baton itself had some “pull” of its own, drawing runners off the prescribed course. Might it be that the chief impulses behind the deviancy, in its many Christian versions, are integrally related to deep Christian convictions—about God’s love and goodness and justice, about the dignity of humans in God’s image, about the victory of Christ over sin and death, and so on. It seems to be those very convictions that raise doubts about hell as eternal torment and push in the direction of a larger hope. In other words, perhaps the seeds of this hope lie in the gospel itself. If that is the case, then as long as Christians continue to believe in such things, there will remain an inherent temptation to follow them toward conclusions that push beyond the mainstream tradition, off the prescribed course, in the pursuit of a wider hope.
Marten van Valckenborch - Parable of the sower (1580-1590)
Marten van Valckenborch – Parable of the sower (1580-1590)
“He taught them many things by parables, and in his teaching said: “Listen! A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants, so that they did not bear grain. Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up, grew and produced a crop, some multiplying thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times.” Then Jesus said, “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.” When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that,‘seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand, lest they may turn, and the sins may be forgiven them.’” (Mark 4:2-12)
We have a natural tendency to make things revolve around ourselves. Often we read the parables of the bible as ‘law’ rather than reading them as ‘gospel’. The theme of the ‘law’ is, to put it in short, everything that human beings allegedly need to do in order to deserve God’s love. If we fulfill the law, we shall live, but if we break it we shall die (Rom. 10:5). But as it turns out, it’s not possible for human beings to deserve God’s grace and love – the purpose of the law is, in fact, to make us aware and convince us of our lack of abilities to save ourselves.
The gospel is, conversely, as Paul puts it, that God has sent his Son in Jesus in order that he may ransom us from the law by his death, so that he could adopt us as his children (Gal. 4:5). That’s the “secret of the kingdom of God”, which has been given to those who are called to be Jesus’ elect.
Or, perhaps, in other words, the secret of the kingdom of God is Jesus himself, who effects all this. He is the one that the disciples has learned to know as the son of God – the one who would put an end to the consequences of our lack of faith, our sin and death, by going into death himself. What we can’t and won’t do, God does for us, without conditions.
Now, the problem is, that we’d rather hear about what we can and should do. Perhaps because it gives us a feeling of being in control of things – perhaps we even sometimes experience a kind of freedom in thinking that we are responsible for our own salvation?
At any rate, when we hear a parable like that about the sower and the seed that falls into different kinds of soil, we are quick to ask, what our job then is. How can we be the good soil, where faith takes root and grows fruit, we might ask ourselves? How can we develop a clean soul, mind and heart, so that there will be room for God? This is the theme of much ascetic thinking and practice throughout history.
By thinking so we quickly become worried about how to develop a faith strong and good enough to make us right with God. It didn’t take long before Christians historically started thinking so. When Jesus explained that “wealth” and “desires for things” are the weed that choke the word (Mark 4:19), this could easily be understood as a teaching about how to develop the conditions for a strong faith by avoiding everything that had to do with material wealth and luxury. Rules for fasting and ascetic practices quickly became a part of Christianity – despite the gospel’s clear message that we’re set free from all those kinds of things.
But is this the right way to read the parable about the sower and the different kinds of soil? In the parable itself it sounds as if the seed, that is sown, is the word of God, and that we are the soil in which the seed lands. But in the explanation to the parable it sounds more as if we are the seed, and that our growth depends on the soil in which we land. At any rate, this is not essential. What’s essential is, that in both cases, nothing is said about our own will, practices and choice having a say in the matter.
Do we really choose what kind of ‘soil’ we want to be? Hardly if we follow the parable in all details. The soil does not choose what nutrients it wants to contain. The seed does not choose whether to be thrown on rock or in good soil, and neither does the seed choose its conditions for taking root. Where the seed is thrown depends alone on the one who throws it. From this perspective the parable is hardly an appeal for developing strong faith, fasting or engaging in spiritual practices. On the contrary, from this perspective the parable tells us that our faith and hearing is completely beyond our control.
Of course this is just one more interpretation alongside others. But then listen to what Jesus says immediately after the parable: “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, ’they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding’; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!” (Mark 4:11-12).
There’s an important point here. When Jesus speaks in parables the purpose is not to ease understanding as a means of reaching those outside the kingdom. No, the purpose of speaking in parables is, on the contrary, that those who are not inside the kingdom, shall not understand at all. The purpose of speaking in parables is not – as we are apt to think – that the gospel needs fine wrapping in order to be easily digestible so that all may understand it as an appeal to free choice. No, rather the purpose of speaking in parables is that the gospel may be concealed in the hard shell of the law, as Clement of Alexandria did put it.
The word of God is revealed through its opposite (Luther). Grace is revealed as judgment, Christ reveals himself incarnated as a human being, the gospel hides behind the law. It takes faith to go beyond the hard shell of revelation. But – and this is the point – it’s not up to us whether we understand it or not. If it was, it would be up to us whether God would have his will or not. But it’s not up to us. If we ask: “How, then, can we have faith in God?”, the answer is, that we can’t. The sin from which we are saved is our lack of faith (John 16:9), our basic resentment against God and his word, which makes us incapable of understanding the gospel. Faith comes by hearing, says Paul, but we can’t by ourselves choose if we want to hear and believe the gospel or not.
When Jesus speaks in parables, it’s not in order to formulate his message in a way that everyone can understand it and choose whether to believe it or not. On the contrary, his purpose is that only those who God has chosen and given faith, may believe it. God’s word is not a theory that we can safely observe from a distance, but it creates itself the faith and understanding that God has planned (Isaiah 55:11). When someone hears the word of God, understanding may follow as well as misunderstanding, but in any case it’s not up to the one who hears, but to God’s purposes.
Now, the strange purpose of Jesus, when speaking in parables here, is to prevent certain people from converting and being forgiven. What a strange purpose! Often we seem to think that the gospel should be preached for all, so that all can have the opportunity to convert themselves and thereby enter the kingdom of God. But here the point is, that the secret of the kingdom of God is only given to those who are already “inside”.
Jesus quotes Isaiah when he says that “seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand”. A similar quote from Isaiah appears in Paul’s epistle to the Romans, when he says about the religious elite of Israel, that “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear” (Rom. 11:8). The explanation that follows is really the key for understanding Jesus’ strange reasons for speaking in parables.
Now, Paul argues that the religious people who seek to be saved by works and by their own will and choice, will in fact not find what they seek. God rather reveals himself to those who do not seek him, says Paul. The purpose of saving people – “the gentiles” – by faith is to make it clear, that salvation is a free gift of God. Faith is not a condition for grace, which would then not be grace, but the instrument used by God for saving us, the hook, so to speak, by which he pulls us out of the mud. It is not us, but Christ, who is the author and pioneer of our faith, as it says in Hebrews (Heb. 12:2).
The final purpose of saving the gentiles rather than the religious is not, however, that the religious people, who don’t hear the gospel, may finally be damned because of their unbelief – while others are saved because of their god-given faith. No, the point is that God has hardened his elect people, Israel, in order that all the others may take part in the election that was theirs: “The salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and they will hear it!”, Paul exclaims in the synagogue, when the Pharisees turned against him, after he had quoted Isaiah’s words, that they would hear and understand nothing (Acts 28:28).
But Paul also makes it clear, that the purpose is not that Israel will be lost forever or be damned for eternity. On the contrary, the purpose is that the election of the gentiles will eventually be a way to reach Israel, so that finally all will enter the kingdom of God “in full”. Paul concludes with his famous words, that God has shut up all under disobedience in order that he may have mercy upon all (Rom. 11:32).
This explanation should shed some light on Jesus’ strange explanation to the parable of the sower. When Jesus speaks in parables, so that no one outside understands, it’s not in order that the outsiders may finally be lost because of their lack of repentance, but in order that God may eventually show mercy against them, so that they will thereby repent and be forgiven – not as a result of their own understanding and choice, but because of God’s kindness and mercy: “Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?” (Rom. 2:4).
Notice, by the way, that the original Greek in the explanation to the parable of the sower does not say about the Pharisees that they may be “ever hearing but never understanding“, as it says in some modern translations (NIV), but rather that “hearing they may hear and not understand” (YLT), which at least opens for the possibility, that at some point – when God wills – they will hear and understand.
Mercy, when Paul talks about it, arguably means unmerrited grace – grace that does not depend on the conversion that follows upon human choice after having understood the word of God, but grace that is given exactly to those who do not understand, and can for this reason not choose and convert themselves.
This is what it means, when Paul says that “all” has been shut up under disobedience. No one hears, no one understands. Really? No one? Are all really disobedient? Even Jesus’ own disciples? Are they not the insiders, who has been granted at least some insights into “the secret of the kingdom of God”? Well, not if we follow Paul, when he quotes Psalm 14: “there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God” (Rom. 3:11).
In the end it turns out, that not even the disciples understood anything of what Jesus told them: “The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about.” (Luke 18:34). If they had faith just the size of a mustard seed, they could move mountains, said Jesus, thereby proving that they didn’t have any faith at all. Finally they all ended up renouncing him. Jesus died alone. But the people who renounced him were the exact same people, for whom he died.
We must admit that we are hardly any better than his disciples. If we did understand anything, we would be capable of converting ourselves, and earn forgiveness. But this is exactly what we are not capable of. The good news is, that God has mercy on us anyway – or perhaps rather, that this is exactly what makes it possible for God to have mercy on us.
We cannot make ourselves a good soil, but God can. We can’t save ourselves, but God can save us. By God’s help we can hear his word as gospel rather than law. Let’s pray that God will have mercy on us despite our lack of faith and understanding.
Robin A. Parry and Ilaria Ramelli, A Larger Hope?, Volume 2: Universal Salvation from the Reformation to the Nineteenth Century (Cascade Books 2019). 326 pages.
In this new volume Robin A. Parry (with Dr. Ilaria Ramelli) explores soteriological universalism in its great theological diversity from the reformation until the 19th century. The book presents a great number of theologians and church men/women. As such it is a good place to start for gaining an overview of the roots of modern Christian Universalism.
Reviewers said:
“Parry (and Ramelli) are to be commended–or, really, praised–for having brought this project to completion with such scrupulous care and comprehensiveness. Taken in its totality, it is a work that reminds us how large and venerable the Christian universalist tradition is, how intellectually and spiritually rich, and how deeply biblically informed. This is an indispensable text.”
–David Bentley Hart, Affiliate of the Notre Dame Institute for Advanced Study
“Robin Parry’s work on universalism is well known and widely admired. In this volume, he tracks the doctrine in the work of a number of key thinkers from the Reformation to the nineteenth century. For those concerned to think carefully and thoroughly about this vital issue, his series of theological explorations will provide guidance on how the doctrine has developed and changed in modern thought, as well as theological grist for the conceptual mill. Along the way he corrects various misrepresentations that have grown up in the recent debates about universalism, and provides fascinating insight into some important but largely forgotten thinkers. Written in Parry’s engaging style, this is a work that scholars and students of Christian eschatology will want to consult.”
–Oliver Crisp, Professor of Analytic Theology, University of St. Andrews
“This theological history of universalism from the early modern to the modern period is scholarly, nuanced, careful, and encyclopedic in scope. Uncovering the quiet stream of universalism throughout the period, A Larger Hope? reminds the theological community of the varieties and forms of universalism that have always been present in theological reasoning.”
–Tom Greggs, Marischal (1616) Chair and Head of Divinity, University of Aberdeen
Joos van Cleve, detail from “The Last Supper” (c. 1530)
An important part of the Christian Passover narrative is the Last Supper, where Jesus breaks bread and shares wine with his disciples. The meal is understood to be in continuation with the Jewish Passover meal, celebrating God’s faithfulness to his people, when freeing the Jews from slavery in Egypt. In a Christian context the Passover meal represents the same liberating faithfulness of God as it culminates in the cross, where Christ dies as the “Lamb, who takes away the sin of the world”.
Every time we celebrate the Lord’s Supper, this narrative is repeated and and its consequences celebrated. This can be done in many ways, depending on church tradition. But the differences are more than just a matter of tradition and, e.g. ‘aesthetic tastes’. The way we celebrate the Lord’s Supper reflects how we understand the implications of the Passover narrative. Some churches practice a ‘closed communion’, while others are more ‘open’.
Reflecting on this, Jürgen Moltmann in The Church in the Power of the Spiritargued that the Lord’s Supper should be as open as possible, thereby reflecting that Jesus died for the reconciliation of the whole world.
The church owes its life to the Lord and its fellowship to his supper, not the other way around. Its invitation goes out to all whom he is sent to invite. If a church were to limit the openness of his invitation of its own accord, it would be turning the Lord’s supper into the church’s supper and putting its own fellowship at the centre, not fellowship with him. […] The Lord’s supper takes place on the basis of an invitation which is as open as the outstretched arms of Christ on the cross. Because he died for the reconciliation of ‘the world’, the world is invited to reconciliation in the supper. It is not the openness of this invitation, it is the restrictive measures of the churches which have to be justified before the face of the crucified Jesus. But which of us can justify them in his sight? The openness of the crucified Lord’s invitation to his supper and his fellowship reaches beyond the frontiers of Christianity; for it is addressed to ‘all nations’ and to ‘tax-collectors and sinners’ first of all. Consequently we understand Christ’s invitation as being open, not merely to the churches but to the whole world. (Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, pp. pp. 244-246)
Quite a few Baptists before the 19th century defended a peculiar understanding of justification often known as ‘justification from eternity’. This doctrine played a central role for English Particular Baptists such as Samuel Richardson and John Gill, who held a radical monergism, where the elect are efficiently justified by the work of God even before coming to faith. As this minimizes the role of the law and repentance in justification, the doctrine is often criticized for leading to anti-nomianism and for reducing history to a mere mirror of eternal truths. If justification is from eternity, there is no motivation for evangelizing, critics argue. The article considers these objections, and argues for a reconstruction of the doctrine using an understanding of eternity and time, that does not assume the metaphysics of classical theism. The doctrine might further be developed in a non-particularistic framework, allowing a greater emphasis on evangelization ‘here in time’.
Introduction
Modern evangelicalism can to a large degree be said to subscribe to the idea that human beings are only justified before God in the moment they repent and exercise what is sometimes called ‘saving faith’. A well-known kliché is the one about ‘inviting Jesus into your heart’ or saying the sinners prayer. According to a study by LifeWay, a surprising majority of self-identifying American evangelicals believe that individuals must contribute to their own salvation by taking the first step in salvation.1 This is not only relevant in an American context, but also in a European and Global evangelicalism still fashioned by the heritage of the ‘Great Awakenings’.
It is not hard to see why classical reformation slogans like sola fide has so often be misunderstood as statements about the ability of faith to create its object. But if the gospel has simply become the ‘good news’ about the inherent creative potential of human beings’ own faith, it hardly offers any real alternative to the rampant subjectivism and relativism of our age. The claim that God’s unconditional love is nevertheless conditional on how we receive it, is not just baffling for many non-churched, but also comes uncannily close to being a downright denial of the efficiency of the cross. Hence, there may be good reasons for seeking an alternative understanding of the relationship between faith and justification.
This is where the doctrine of justification from eternity becomes useful. According to this doctrine, as developed by 17th-18th century Baptists against the over-emphasis on repentance in Puritan and missional conceptions of faith, the subjective exercise of faith can never be a contributing cause of justification. Justification is a fact prior to repentance and faith. As such the doctrine of justification from eternity offers an alternative to the widespread modern and post-modern superstitions of human autonomy, as well as the sentimentalism and eroticism of popular neo-calvinism, that only inadequately remedies the former.2 The radical monergism implicit in the doctrine means that the human will is in no way instrumental in justification.
The debate about the time of justification is far from just being a matter of speculation. It is relevant for practical theology, as it raises questions for mission and evangelism: Is preaching imperative for saving people or is it rather the joyful revelation of something which is already true about our existence? The doctrine of justification from eternity suggests the latter. The gospel is not an obligation we are invited or urged to fulfill, a chance or an offer made to us, but an announcement and a promise (Barth).3 Thus the efforts of the church are released to be a celebration of the gospel rather than a busy and desperate attempt at saving as many souls as possible before Christ returns.
The doctrine of justification from eternity has, however, for good reasons, been criticized for leading to passivity in regards to evangelization and mission: Why preach if people are justified before even hearing the gospel? But rather than modifying the radical monergism behind the doctrine, as was done historically, when missional theology took the lead in Baptist thinking, there are other possible approaches. If the notion of justification from eternity is to be recovered, without once more ending up in the pitfalls of a too anti-missionary skepticism about the church’s efforts of preaching the gospel to the world, the doctrine must be freed from the particularistic soteriological framework in which it was often developed by earlier Baptists. Moreover, before doing this, I will suggest a revised understanding of the relationship between eternity and time, as a way to avoid the charges of making history a mere mirror of eternal truths.
The roots of the doctrine in English so-called anti-nomianism4
The roots of the doctrine of justification from eternity, as it took shape in Baptist theology, can be discerned in the so-called anti-nomianism that had become widespread throughout England in the 1640s.5 The theology of reputed anti-nomians like John Saltmarsh, John Eaton and Tobias Crisp was developed partly in response to a perceived over-emphasis on the ordo salutis in Puritan theology. Here justification was seen as following consequently upon prior steps of calling, regeneration, faith and repentance. For critics the Puritan emphasis on repentance made a new law out of faith. Thus against this tradition, the so-called anti-nomians emphasized the freeness of grace independently of, and prior to, repentance and faith.6
Most important for later Baptists seems to have been the Anglican incumbent theologian and preacher Tobias Crisp (1600-1643) who developed what David Parnham has called a “covenantal quietism” against the legitimacy of “a pietistic tradition that was overly elaborated and destructive of souls”.7 Following Hebrews 8, Crisp saw the promise of a new covenant in Jeremiah 31 as fulfilled with the ministry of Christ, rendering the function of the divine ‘law’ as a necessary means to conviction of sins obsolete. The conviction of sins, conversion and faith, are not conditions of justification, but at most the result thereof, making the role of the ‘law’ (the Mosaic law as well as the natural law) in the traditional protestant scheme of law and gospel of less importance.
Crisp held to a strict monergism, where justification and salvation is the work of God alone. It is not human obedience and holiness that justifies and saves: “I must tell you, all this sanctification of life is not a jot the way of that justified person to heaven”, Crisp famously asserted. The justification of the sinner takes place in the new covenant before the sinner is even aware of it. Faith is not a cause of justification, but the manifestation of it. Crisp is reported to have said that “The elect are justified from eternity, at Christ’s death; and the latest time is before we are born.”8 It may seem that Crisp was not fully decided on when justification actually took place, though for him the main concern must have been, that it happened “before we are born”, and as such prior to repentance and faith.
Crisp’s radical monergism became influential in independent church life. The idea that the elect are justified before having faith, and perhaps even “from eternity”, seems to have gained an early influence over English Baptists. Among these were Samuel Richardson (c. 1602-1658), who with eleven others signed the 1644 and the 1646 London Confessions of Faith.9 In his treatise Justification by Christ Alone, Richardson denied that faith is any means of “Redemption, Justification, or Salvation.”10 Christ alone is the means of salvation. Justification is fully achieved on the cross and never depends on human faith or works. We are justified by Christ alone and not by our believing. The preaching of ministers is a means to reveal justification, says Richardson, but not instrumental in the justification of the elect. Faith and repentance can only be considered results of the Holy Spirit’s work in those who are already justified. Faith is an evidence of “interest in Christ”, but not a “joint-partner with Christ”.
Against the objection that justification in the New Testament often depends on the exercise of faith, Richardson explains that faith is diversely understood in Scripture. While sometimes it means knowledge or belief, it can also mean doctrine or the object of faith. In many cases faith is “put for Christ”, says Richardson. When Scripture says that we are “justified by faith”, that we are “saved by faith” and so on, this means that we are justified and saved by Christ, as what is really proper to Christ is in Scripture often attributed to faith as well. The purpose is to show our union with him in his faith, which becomes our saving faith, says Richardson. It is, in other words, the faith of Christ, not our own faith, which justifies and saves.11 This union with Christ is not a product of human faith, but faith is a product of a prior union between Christ and the elect.
Richardson’s notion of election rests on the assertion that God is love, rather than a theory of predestination. The love of God is infinite, and therefore God has always loved the elect, even before they believed: “[T]he elect were ever in the love of God, and did ever so appear to Him as just and righteous in and by Christ”, says Richardson. God has never been at enmity with his people, even when he hides and seems angry. In defense, Richardson frequently quotes the words of 2 Timothy 1:9 on the grace that “was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time”. Richardson does not use the term “justification from eternity”, but he comes close, arguing that justification is first to be considered “in the will of God”, which had no cause or beginning before it, being eternal and infinite. From the fact that God’s will is eternal, the elect are said to be saved “before the world”. This is a justification “in purpose”, which precedes the “act or execution” of it in Christ, where justification is “actually done”.12 But the mere purpose of justification seems to be identical with the justification it anticipates, which is why the justified can be said to always have appeared so in the sight of God. Though nothing is said about the philosophical presuppositions for these claims, this idea clearly resembles Platonizing theologies, where the eternal forms are said to be always present in the mind of God.
As with Crisp it is clear that for Richardson the eternal justification of the elect was not abstract speculation without spiritual relevance, but a matter of pastoral care. Richardson opposes every tendency to place the event of justification in a feeling of assurance, as he argues that justification in the conscience is not justification itself. In other words, we need not fear, that we are not justified, even though we do not feel the full comfort of our justification yet. Assurance of justification is necessary to our comfort, but justification does not depend upon our knowledge of it. To make God’s forgiveness depend on the intensity of human repentance is to substitute human works for Christ. But “[w]e have made a Christ of our works, tears and crying long enough”, says Richardson in his Divine Consolations from 1649.13 This resonates with Crisp’s so-called anti-nomian view, that the “terrors of the law” are not required before the gospel can be preached.
The impact of the doctrine on Baptist thinking
That Richardson was far from being the only Baptist to hold such views is evident from William Kiffin’s foreword to Richardson’s treatise on justification. The first London Confession contains traces of similar conceptions of the role of the law and faith as the manifestation of a prior justification. The so-called anti-nomian perspective is apparent from its claim that the gospel is said to in “no way” require the “terrors of the law” for the sinner to receive Christ, while faith is said to be the “manifestation” of justification.14 Edward Drapes, another early Particular Baptist, also defended ideas integral to the doctrine of justification from eternity in his Gospel Glory from 1649.
Drapes developed his arguments in opposition to certain forms of spiritualism, that saw the cross as an inner experience, rather than a done historical reality.15 But “Christ’s death at Jerusalem is the offering for sin”, says Drape, “not Christ’s death in any one’s heart”. The “virtue” of Christ’s death can even be said to be from before the foundation of the world, as Christ in accordance with the King James translation of Revelations 13:8, was “slain before the foundation of the world”. There was a covenant made between God and Christ wherein it was decreed that Christ should die in time, but the virtue of that death was from eternity in the eyes of the Father. Christ’s death had an influence into times past as well as those to come. Thus Christ’s death was an eternal sacrifice. It was offered in time, but the influences of it reached eternity, as the sacrifice was fully accepted by the Father, who viewed it since it was offered. What is only actually done with us in time, was truly present with Him before all time, who is not included in any time.
The notion that justification is prior to faith even reappears in John Bunyan’s The Pharisee and the Publican from 1685. Though Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress may be the unrivalled illustration of the ordo salutis, its author seems to have held to a conception of the ordo diverging from the orthodox. If we are justified only after coming to faith, then this means that the Holy Ghost, which works faith in us, must dwell in us before we are justified, argued Bunyan, who distinguished between justification before God on the one hand, and justification to the understanding and conscience on the other. A man may be justified before God, even when he himself “knoweth nothing thereof” and while “he hath not faith about it, but is ungodly”16, said Bunyan, while bemoaning the readiness of the spirit of the world to cry out against those who preach the “freeness and fulness of the Gospel”.17 The basic pastoral concerns of his precursors seems to have been shared by Bunyan here.
An eternal and immanent act of God
The next generation to espouse these views was the English Baptist preachers John Brine (1703-1765) and John Gill (1697-1771). While justification from eternity had only played an ad hoc role in Crisp’s and Richardson’s thinking, with Brine we see it developed as a core doctrine under the heading ‘eternal justification’.18 The pivotal idea here, being crucial for Gill also, was that justification is an immanent act of God. Brine, who succeeded John Skepp as the pastor at Currier’s Hall, Cripplegate, explained this in his treatise A Defence of the Doctrine of Eternal Justification from 1732.19 Justification is alone a matter of how God sees a person. From this follows that God’s decree to punish sin in His Son rather than in His elect, is in itself the justification of the elect in the sight of God. Justification is consequently also an eternal act, meaning that the elect qua elect are eternally beheld as justified in the mind of God.
As no act of man can be an instrument in those acts of God which are immanent, faith understood as an exercise of the human will, is in no way instrumental in justification. When Paul said that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness, Brine, with reference to Maresius, argues that the “faith” in the context of Romans should be taken “metonymically” for “Christ being apprehended by faith” as in Galatians 3:25.20 As an act or work of ours, faith cannot be “the matter” of justification, says Brine. While faith may be reckoned our own, as we are the subjects of it, the righteousness by which we are justified is not our own. Faith receives the righteousness that justifies, but it cannot be righteousness itself or the “impulsive”, “moving cause” of justification, which is an act of pure and free grace, without any motive in the creature. Faith “beholds and views” justification, but does not “give being” to it by imputing the righteousness of Christ. Justification by faith is the “comfortable knowledge” or “perception” of that “gracious privilege”. Faith is not, however, in itself a manifestation of God’s eternal love. If it was, we would have a constant sense of God’s love to us, says Brine. The external manifestation of God’s favor and election is in the gospel, while the internal manifestation is by the Spirit. But faith only perceives the manifestation of God’s love as revealed in the gospel and in the Spirit. For this reason, it is possible that one believer has a fuller discovery and assurance of his justification than other.
These ideas was further developed by John Gill in a chapter of his Doctrinal Divinity named “Justification as an Eternal and Immanent Act of God”.21 Being an “immanent act in the divine mind” justification is not just before faith, but from eternity, says Gill, as he identifies that which is immanent to the divine mind with that which is “from eternity”.22 If God’s plan to justify sinners is not by itself already a justification of sinners, then justification happens outside God, making it either intrinsic to human beings or a relation between human beings and something which God does not completely control, e.g. a moral law. But according to Gill the eternal justification of the elect rests solely on the eternal union between the elect and Christ flowing from the love of God.23 Justification follows from the eternal union of the elect with Christ in the will of God to justify sinners on the cross.
Justification happens from eternity as God’s decision to justify the elect is in itself a justification of the elect, says Gill. But it also happens in time. Christ had the sins of the elect imputed to him when he died on the cross, and they were justified again, when Christ in his resurrection was justified “as a public person”.24 Justification in time, understood as the public declaration of an already existing righteousness, further happens by faith in the consciousness of the justified, on the one hand, and by works in the eyes of others, on the other hand. By this distinction Gill manages to harmonize the idea of justification from eternity with Paul’s remarks on justification by faith in the Epistle to the Romans as well as the notion of justification by works in the Epistle of James. Again there seems to have been pastoral concerns, as this distinction makes it clear that our eternal righteousness neither depends on our degree of faith or good works in time.
At any rate, these ideas of justification had practical consequences for how the gospel was to be preached. Gill asserted that if there is no revelation made unto a person, then no faith is required of that person.25 Brine also argued that faith is not a demand of the law, since faith is not “a righteousness free from imperfection”. It may just as well be required of sinners to form divine and supernatural principles in their own souls as to “get faith”, said Brine, for both are works proper to God. The exhortation to “get faith” does not debase and humble proud sinners, but rather swells them up as they imagine that they are “possessed of a power which they are not”.
Objections to the doctrine
It is not hard to see why some have believed the theology of Gill to be responsible for the alleged lack of evangelistic fervour in 18th century Particular Baptist life before and during the “great awakenings”. Even if Gill was in fact not against “invitations”, a case can be made that only with the theology of Andrew Fuller did Baptist theology adapt to the modern missional approach. Though the gospel is strictly speaking not a law, but a message of grace, it requires the obedience of “saving faith”, Fuller argued in his The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation from 1786, as sins are only pardoned after being repented by the sinner.26 The gospel is to be preached to all people, as all are required to have faith. With Fuller’s missional theology, leading to the formation of the Baptist Missionary Society, the notion of justification from eternity lost its influence in 19th century Baptist theology, except for small groups of so-called Primitive Baptists who rigorously opposed the new missionary methods. In the British context Strict and Particular Baptists defended the doctrine against Charles Spurgeon’s somewhat “ambivalent” views about justification.27
The doctrine of justification from eternity did not, however, become the exclusive property of the primitives, as it reappeared in the writings of Dutch neo-Calvinist minister Abraham Kuyper.28 This sparked some controversy in Dutch reformed theology.29 Though acknowledging its sincere “religious” motivation, G.C. Berkouwer criticized the doctrine for what he perceived as a tendency to move justification and redemption out of time into eternity.30 As everything occurring in time merely formalizes or illustrates what has been “molded in eternal quietness”, even the reality of the cross is swallowed up in the still waters of eternity, argued Berkouwer, noting a “remarkable correspondence” between the anti-nomianism associated with the doctrine and the conception of time and eternity in the kind of idealism that debases time and history, as well as God’s acts in history. There is, argued Berkouwer, no place for an eternal justification side by side with a justification in time. Berkouwer concluded that we need to center on the historical revelation of God in Christ rather than on his eternal decrees outside revelation.
Following these objections it seems that justification must be understood much more dynamically, as a real change taking place historically. The charges of anti-nomianism easily follows if this is not the case, as the doctrine of justification from eternity can easily be misunderstood as implying that the elect were never really considered unrighteous. This objection was made by the Particular Baptist preacher Benjamin Keach (1640-1704) in a dialogue between ‘Godliness’ and ‘Antinomian’, as it was argued against the doctrine that persons cannot simultaneously have the status of unjust and justified.31 The point was not here, that the justified are not also sinners (as in simul peccator et justus), but that justified sinners cannot also be considered as having the status of unjust. But if justification is from eternity, this is exactly the case. While for Keach this counted against the doctrine of justification from eternity, the objection suggests that it must be understood dialectically in the sense of holding two opposite truths about human beings simultaneously. Human beings are simultaneously counted as unjust (perceived in themselves, as the old Adam) and just (as perceived in Christ).
There is, however, admittedly something quite Platonic to the idea of justification from eternity as it was often construed. God was said to be timeless and immutable, he does not change, his decrees are settled once and for all, and so on, which is why justification must also be eternal. But following contemporary post-theism it could easily be argued, like Berkouwer did, that the philosophical conception of eternity as abstract timelessness and immutability cannot really be used in a biblical notion of justification. Jürgen Moltmann has argued that a true trinitarian theology must be based on the revelation of the incarnate Christ that dies on the cross rather than on classical theism’s metaphysical notions of an abstract, immutable God that does not engage in human history.32 In so far the doctrine of justification from eternity seems to depend on such an abstract metaphysical theism rather than the living God of the Bible, it may be argued that a truly biblical theology does not leave much room for the doctrine’s conception of justification.
Towards a reconstruction of the doctrine
The doctrine of justification from eternity does not replace traditional protestant or evangelical doctrines, but radically changes them from within. Most fundamentally it changes the ontological status of historical events from causes into signs: Conversion, faith and works are never causes, but signs of something which is already the case prior to the sign. In important difference from the Puritan ordo salutis, these are not, however, necessary signs, but contingent expressions of an eternal truth that is quite independent of any sign. The gospel is good ‘news’ in the sense that it uncovers a grace that was literally given “before the times of the ages” (2 Timothy 1:9-10). But if we are to avoid the dangers of a too rigid Platonism, we need to explain how this does not leave history void of meaning. The false dichotomy between making justification dependent on historical factors on the one hand or making it a static, transcendent and abstract truth on the other, should be avoided.
For a reconstruction of the doctrine to work we need a renewed reflection on the relationship between time and eternity. The cross of Christ must be made the basis on which all theological statements about God is made (Moltmann).33 It could be argued that this is exactly what the doctrine of justification from eternity does, as it makes the justification of sinners on the cross foundational in our understanding of eternal truths. Gill at least suggested that justification from eternity implies a kind of sublapsarianism, as God is said to justify the ungodly (Romans 4:5), i.e. the elect conceived as sinners.34 Justification is as such eternally true because it anticipates the cross and the resurrection as historical events. Eternity, we might say, anticipates or even takes place in humanity’s union with Christ on the cross as the center of history, determining everything else.
Saying that justification is ’from eternity’ may not just mean ’from infinite time before creation’ but could also be taken to mean ‘from the eternal God’. The point is to emphasize that justification is alone a work of God, as when Gill and Brine argued that justification is an immanent act of God and is thus not dependent on historical circumstances. Justification happens, to use a phrase from Karl Barth’s commentary to Romans, in the “eternal moment”, in which humanity is transferred from death to life.35 But this does not make historical reality superfluous or a mere reflection of eternal truths, as this eternal moment takes place historically in the cross of Christ. Christ’s death happened in time, but it was an eternal sacrifice as the influences of it reached eternity (Drapes).36 The ‘eternality’ of justification does not depend on the metaphysics of classical theism, but on the fact that the cross and the resurrection has revolutionary consequences for all of human history. That we are justified from eternity simply means that God is in Christ always the crucified God, to borrow Moltmann’s phrase.
The merits of the doctrine of justification from eternity is that it collapses all artificial scholastic distinctions between the sufficiency and efficiency of the atonement. All for whom Christ died are effectively justified. Repentance and faith are not conditions that are to be fulfilled to make justification efficient. But what rightly raises the concern of many is the particularism in many cases associated with the idea, as it was often persistently argued that Christ only died for the elect, and not for the whole world.37 It is especially noteworthy how John Gill in his comments to Crisp’s sermons frequently seems to have felt a need for explaining how Crisp’s strong claims about grace, were only true for the elect. But Gill’s persistence is, perhaps ironically, enough to suggest, that a non-particularistic understanding of justification from eternity is actually quite plausible.
An alternative to the soteriological particularism often associated with the doctrine can, perhaps surprisingly, be found in parts of the self-same Baptist tradition which engendered it, e.g. Samuel Richardson, mentioned above. Though much of his work suggests a notion of election much in line with 17th century Reformed and Puritan orthodoxy, his main concern was hardly particularism, but the unconditionality of grace. In his final work, A discourse of the torments of hell, Richardson argued that ‘hell’ does not mean an endless state of torture after death. Though seemingly suggesting the final annihilation of the godless, Richardson in conclusion argued that there are in fact no limits to God’s grace: “It is more for his glory to save all, than to save a few”.38 This perspective was taken up by Primitive Baptist Universalists, who, perhaps influenced by 18th theologians James Relly and James Murray, held that ’the elect’, are not so at the expense of the non-elect, but simply those to whom the universal truth of the gospel is revealed here and now, “in time”.39 The separation following from the judgment on the cross and in the resurrection is not one between actual individuals, but between the old, unjust creation in Adam and the new, righteous creation in Christ.
Following this perspective, while all are eternally justified in Christ, only the elect are justified and saved here and now in time. As implied in the concept of “time salvation”, sometimes associated with Primitive Baptist theology, salvation in time is conditional upon hearing and believing the gospel. Salvation means, in line with Hebrews 2. 15, to be saved from the fear of death, when believing that Christ has conquered death. Justification from eternity does not make preaching superfluous, but salvation happens concretely as human beings hear the gospel and understand their justification in Christ. As held by the Primitive Baptist Universalists, ‘saved’ believers are distinguished from the ‘unsaved’, simply by enjoy the comfort of knowing their salvation here and now, while unbelievers are still unaware that they are already saved in principle.
On this basis, the particular election of concrete individuals should be understood in teleological (or eschatological) terms. As 18th century American Baptist preacher Elhanan Winchester argued, there is both a particular and a general redemption: The church is redeemed in particular in order to preach the gospel for the rest of the world, which was redeemed in general.40 This general redemption of the world becomes partly manifest historically as people come to faith by hearing the gospel, but fully at the eschaton at the end of the aeons.
The contemporary relevance of the doctrine
The idea of justification from eternity was for many of its proponents arguably a way of stating the permanence of the love of God – admittedly in a perhaps somewhat clumsy manner. If so, a post-metaphysical way of saying that we are justified from eternity may simply be to say that we are always already loved, as the atonement on the cross determines the truth about our whole existence prior to every moment in time.41
But is the doctrine of justification from eternity relevant for contemporary issues in theology and church? As suggested above, it is. At least some of the concerns of someone like Richardson, Brine and Gill was shared by 20th century ‘Neo-Orthodox’ theologians such as Karl Barth and T.F. Torrance, who similarly argued that justification precedes faith.42 Thus, the doctrine of justification from eternity may facilitate a fruitful dialogue between Neo-Orthodox theology and the older Baptist tradition. The doctrine presents a radical alternative to the rampant subjectivism of contemporary conceptions of faith, which Neo-Orthodoxy also rallied against. Both present an account of justification and faith that sees human subjectivity as meaningful only as founded in the reality of a prior divine grace.
James McClendon claimed that the debates on predestination and election is foreign to the broader Baptist tradition (‘small b-baptists’), which is characterized by a narrative understanding of faith rather than reflection on doctrine.43 While this is an important observation, the risk of the narrative approach is, however, that it assumes a too subjectivist notion of faith. When telling stories, we easily put much weight on historical circumstances in the life of the believer. Perhaps the doctrine of justification from eternity can be a way of remedying this, by framing or putting the narrative into a larger perspective, so to speak. The doctrine does not diminish the importance of narrative theology, though it sees the deeper meaning and truth about our lives to be outside the narrative. This is what lets the narrative be narrative, and nothing more, nor less: We can confidently tell stories about our life, knowing that the truth about our existence does not ultimately depend upon the exact details of the narrative. The date and time of our conversion is of lesser importance compared to our ongoing story with the God who loved us before we were born. Just as important is the assurance that our story with God has a future even if there are gaps in the narrative.
The doctrine of justification from eternity has the potential of cutting through judgmentalism and doctrinalism as it makes it impossible to evaluate the status of persons in the sight of God based on their expressions of faith, holiness, confession, church attendance and so on. It also means that the ‘success’ of the cross does not depend on the initiative of the church. The church can do its work because the cross is already successful. Being a witness in the world does not mean to preach a “turn or burn gospel” that can hardly be considered good news. To preach the gospel means to speak about what God has already effectively done in Christ prior to all conversion and repentance.
Rather than trying to defend the doctrine of justification from eternity against the charges of anti-nomianism, why not respond, ‘yes, this is anti-nomianism, though in a very specific sense’? The so-called anti-nomianism following from the doctrine actually makes good sense in a secular or post-secular context, where the main existential question asked by the unchurched is often not “how do I get a gracious God?” (Luther). Perhaps it is rather a search for a deeper truth that can embrace the fragmented lifes of post-modernity, that must be met by the church’s preaching. The gospel does not depend on the ‘law’ or other contingent historical circumstances. That we are justified from eternity means that the church does not need to teach the unchurched about the the law and the wrath of God before preaching the gospel. That we are justified from eternity – always already loved by God – in spite of everything, is the eternal truth about human life that the church must preach to the world.
1See “Evangelicals’ Favorite Heresies Revisited by Researchers” in Christianity Today (September 28, 2016).
2The popularity of neo-calvinism (e.g. John Piper) in parts of evangelicalism can perhaps be explained by a dissapointment with liberal ideals of human autonomy. But as formulated in a framework where justification is still said to happen as a result of the exercise of faith by the human will (free or not), neo-calvinism offers no real alternative.
3Karl Barth, Deliverance to the Captives (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2010), p. 31.
4As it was only later formulated as a ‘doctrine’, it must be excused if the following attempts at an ‘archeology’ of the idea of justification from eternity involves some degree of anachronism. It should also be considered that the idea that justification happens ‘from eternity’ was far from peculiar to Baptist thinkers, who frequently borrowed from reformed theologians of other denominations. The most of these will be left out in the following, in order to focus on the Baptist reception of the idea.
5This tradition has also by contemporary scholarship been termed ‘Hyper-Calvinism’. See Peter Toon, The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity, 1689-1765 (London: The Olive Tree, 1967); James Leo Garrett, Baptist Theology: A Four-century Study (Macon: Mercer University Press, 2009), pp. 89ff.
6John Eaton, Honey-Combe of Free Justification by Christ Alone (1642), quoted heavily from Luther. Though scarcely quoted in Crisp’s sermons, Crisp also seems to have been inspired by Luther’s attacks on works righteousness. Tobias Crisp, Christ Alone Exalted (London, 1643).
7David Parnham, “The Covenantal Quietism of Tobias Crisp” in Church History, Vol. 75, Issue 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 511-543.
8Quoted in Daniel Steele, A Substitute for Holiness; or, Antinomianism Revived (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2016), p. 139.
9A defense of Crisp can be found in Samuel Richardson, Divine Consolations (London, 1649).
13Samuel Richardson, “Divine Consolations” in Collected Writings 1645–1658, Vol. 1 (Lulu.com 2016), p. 442.
14First London Confession 1644, §25; §28. Cf. the 1689 Baptist Confession (based on the Westminster Confession), §11,4, where the elect are said not to be personally justified until Christ is “applied”.
15Edward Drapes, Gospel Glory (Francis Tyton: London, 1649), pp. 43f. Drapes’ opponents may have been Schwenkfeldians or other spiritualists who developed into Quakerism.
16John Bunyan,“The Pharisee and the Publican”in The Works: Being Several Discourses Upon Various Divine Subjects, Vol. 2 (London: Gardner, 1737), p. 709.
17John Bunyan, The Doctrine of Law and Grace Unfolded (London, 1659), p. 2.
18Another influence may have been Joseph Hussey (1660-1726). Hussey understood Galatians 2. 16 as saying that we are justified “by the faith of Jesus Christ” and took it to mean that the elect are justified in Christ before coming to faith. See Joseph Hussey, The Glory of Christ Unveil’d, etc. (London, 1706).
19John Skepp (1675-1721) is often associated with so-called Hyper-Calvinism, but I have not found evidence that he taught the particular idea of justification from eternity.
20Brine refers to “Hydra Socin., Vol. III, Maresius, Ch. xxi., p. 604”.
21For more on Gill’s version of the doctrine, see George M. Ella, John Gill and Justification from Eternity: A Tercentenary Appreciation 1697-1997 (Go Publications 1998).
22Cf. Karl Barth, CD IV.1 (London: T&T Clark, 1975), p. 554ff. “That we live as righteous men is not an immanent determination of our existence […] In Him I am already the one who will be this righteous man”.
23Gill lists four ways in which this union takes place. John Gill, The Doctrines of God’s Everlasting Love to His Elect, etc. (London: Aaron Ward, 1732).
24John Gill, A Body of Doctrinal Divinity (London, 1769) II,5,2.
25John Gill, Faith in God and his Word, etc. (London, 1754), p. 31.
26Andrew Fuller, The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation (1786), part II, prop. 3; The Complete Works of Rev. Andrew Fuller, Vol. 2 (Boston: Lincoln, Edmands & Company, 1833), p. 286.
27Iain H. Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism (Carlisle: Banner of Truth Trust, 1995); Guest post, “Charles Spurgeon’s Ambivalent View on Justification” on www.mercyuponall.org(11/6 2018).
28Abraham Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946), pp. 367ff.
29Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns, 1953), p. 267. As eternity precedes time, being a divine act of grace effected outside of us, justification must also precede faith. Justification does not “spring” from the consciousness, but is “mirrored” in it.
30At least as it was formulated by Alexander Comrie in response to a “neo-nomianism” that saw faith as an act of human beings, making them partly responsible for their own justification. G.C. Berkouwer, Faith and Justification (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), p. 148.
31Benjamin Keach, The Travels of True Godliness (1683) (1831), pp. 125ff.
32Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015), p. 313ff.
34John Gill, The Doctrine Of Justification, etc. (London: George Keith, 1750), §1.
35Karl Barth, Epistle to the Romans (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), p. 404.
36Edward Drapes, Gospel Glory (Francis Tyton: London, 1649), pp. 43f.
37The particularistic idea of a limited atonement is arguably at odds with Romans 5. 18-19. See Thomas Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, 2. ed. (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2014).
38Samuel Richardson, A discourse of the torments of hell (London, 1658), p. 95f. The first edition is unnamed. It might in principle be a different author, but there are linguistic similarities to Richardson’s earlier works.
39See Howard Dorgan, In the Hands of a Happy God: The “No-Hellers” of Central Appalachia (Univ Tennessee Press, 1997); James Relly, Epistles, etc. (London, 1776), p. 27ff. James Relly held, like Barth later, that Christ is the one elect of God in whom rejected humanity is judged by participating in Christ’s death, but justified by participating in his righteousness.
40Elhanan Winchester, The Gospel Preached by the Apostles (London, 1788).
41The German expression ‘immer schon’ has in 20th century philosophy been applied to that which is always true of our existence in every moment of time even before we are aware of it.
42“Through union with him we share in his faith […] Therefore when we are justified by faith this does not mean that it is our faith that justifies us, far from it – it is the faith of Christ alone that justifies us […]”. Thomas F. Torrance, Theology in Reconstruction (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1996), pp. 159f. Moltmann states that “[i]t is not my faith that creates salvation for me; salvation creates for me faith.” Jürgen Moltmann, The Coming of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press 2004), p. 245.
In his fourth letter of The Great Salvation Contemplated, James Relly concentrates on a selection of bible passages that he believes to most clearly suggest a universal salvation when taken at face value. Relly mentions Gen. 23:18 (“In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed”), Psalm 65:2 (“Unto thee shall all flesh come“), Luke 3:6 (“all flesh shall see the salvation of God“), Rom. 5:18 (“As by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of One, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life“) and 1 Cor. 15:22 (“as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive”).
WHEN we read the sacred book, let our hearts feel none other bias, than the glory of Christ alone; to testify of whom, the unerring Spirit dictated what the prophets and apostles wrote.
If thus qualified, we investigate truth; we shall quickly perceive, that the love of God, and the salvation of Jesus, are, in their freeness and extent, infinitely beyond what the ancient Jews, or even the generality of modern Christians, have apprehended.
In the book we read, that “God is love:” that he hath so loved the world as to give his only beloved Son for the life of it; and that his Son has died for the sins of the whole world: From whence we may infer, that no man is excluded from the love of God, or from the salvation of Christ.
With what propriety can it be conceived, that God should create beings under an unavoidable destiny to sin, and endless misery? Does it consist with the righteousness and equity of the divine nature? does it consist with the warnings, calls, invitations, and reproofs, wherewith he has admonished men from the beginning? Is it compatible with his promises? or even with the threatenings, where the sinner and the ungodly are threatened? Nay, God our Father has taught us the reverse; where he has sworn by his life, that he desireth not the death of a sinner, but that he should turn from his wickedness, and live. Who are decreed and created to destruction, cannot be laid to be condemned for their own demerits, but for the sole pleasure of God; but, than this, there is nothing more untrue.
Will divine Justice censure men for not believing a lie? for not believing what they never had a right to believe; yea, what was never true to them? Will God the Judge of all men, destroy his creatures for not doing what he never gave them abilities for; yea, for not doing, what he decreed they should not do? Is our Father, Redeemer, and Savior, such an austere master, as to expect to gather, where he has not strewed, and to reap where he has not sowed?
He, who hath seen and declared the Father, and who only hath seen and declared him, has taught us, that God loved the world, yea so loved it, as to give the Son of his bosom; than whom, as given for the life of the world, heaven had not, in all its treasures, a richer gift, a higher and more incontestable evidence, of his love and good-will towards man. “And, if God hath not spared his own Son, but hath delivered him up for us all, how shall he not, with him, freely give us all things.
Who, that has tasted that God is gracious; who, that has considered his loving-kindness, can yet hesitate to believe, that God is good and gracious unto every man; yea, that his great good will extends to the children of men universally, without respect of persons?
When I behold the glory of the Son of man, the dignity of his person, the intention of his obedience and sufferings, the immensity of his blood, and the power and purity of his resurrection, I am ecstasied! I cannot with-hold, but am constrained to cry out, O! amazing grace! “where sin hath abounded, grace hath much more abounded.” What are the iniquities of a thousand worlds! O Zion, what are all thy transgressions, though numberless; when thy God deigns to purchase thee with his own blood! What are the complicated sins of a guilty world, to this great and glorious salvation! The demerit of the one, to the merit of the other, bears no more proportion than a pearly drop of morning dew to the deep and wide extended ocean, or than a dust of the balance, to the terrestrial globe: yea, the requisites to man’s deliverance from sin, and from all its consequences, bear not more proportion to that glorious deliverance, as wrought in and by Jesus Christ our Lord; than a moment of time to the ages of eternity. Such are the aboundings of God’s everlasting grace! such the divinity of our Savior’s blood and righteousness!
Who can see this, and yet start at the expression — “All flesh shall see his salvation?” Who can behold this, and yet be anxious to find out, among the individuals of Adam’s race, such whom they may exclude from salvation, so free and extensive as is that of our Lord Jesus Christ?
But, to avoid the imputation of an attempt to impose on the judgment, by an address to the passions, I shall proceed to collect a few of the most remarkable passages in the book, speaking of the general love and good-will of God to mankind: showing, by the way, the relation they stand in to the hypothesis of universal salvation. My intention is, next, to examine with candor, and ingenuously to reply, to what wears the face of the most material objections to this doctrine.
“In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 23:18). which seed is Christ, saith the apostle. The sum of which is, that all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in Christ. Nor does the text, to a simple and unprejudiced mind, need a comment. Nor shall I spend my time here, to shew the impropriety of such comments, as pretend, that “all the nations of the earth,” intend only various nations; or a few individuals out of all these various nations; or that the blessing, promised to all nations in Christ, intends the good example only, which they have in him; or the good instructions he has given them; or, the possibility of salvation for them, on such, or such terms or the temporal blessings which all possess through him; with many more such like human inventions, calculated to evade the force of the promise, and to limit its grace; since, but to mention these, is to expose their absurdity.
But, as I believe, that God our Savior meant not to trifle with his creatures, but to fulfill his promises to them; so am I persuaded that he meant to speak to their understanding and common sense, in all his promises: and not to propose theses for trials of skill, at logic, rhetoric, and sophistry. Hence, when I hear him say, all the nations of the earth, I readily conclude that he intended, not only all the nations inheriting the earth at some particular period; but all that the earth hath contained from the beginning, or shall contain, to the end of time.
When I hear God himself promise a blessing to mankind, my mind immediately conceives of somewhat very different from a curse: but if men are not blessed with eternal life, it is easily proved, that all other blessings, so called, terminate in a curse.
When I hear it promised, that this blessing should be in Christ, I readily conclude, that it is not in man: and can therefore conceive, how men may be blessed in Christ, though they may be ignorant of it in themselves.
In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. This is not only descriptive of God’s method of blessing mankind, i. e. in Christ; but it also denotes the continuance of the blessing. It is not in man, who is given to change, but it is in him, who is the same, yesterday, to-day, and for ever. Though all the nations be dead, yet the blessing, their eternal life, is hid with Christ in God; where it is so well secured, that they may not, by any means, be deprived of it. Nor is their present ignorance a proof that they shall not, in some future period, possess and rejoice in the blessing, which, by the grace of God, they are entitled to.
Unto thee shall all flesh come (Psalm 65:2). By all flesh, I would understand all mankind: for to this purpose is the term, all flesh, made life of, in the scriptures: as in Genesis, “For all flesh had corrupted his way, upon the earth” and in Numbers, “He is the God of the spirits of all flesh,” &c. So in the text, “Unto thee shall all flesh come.” This promise is already fulfilled, in the person of Christ; in whom all the promises are Yea and Amen. Jesus hath, in himself, brought up, all flesh to God; unto whom he hath presented them holy and irreprovable: nor will he cease to rule, until what is true in him, shall be true in them also: until all flesh shall come to the knowledge and enjoyment of his salvation.
The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together (Isaiah 40:5). This was revealed in Jesus Christ, who was the brightness of the glory, and the express image of the person of God: who was God manifested in the the flesh, so that angels were capable of seeing the Invisible.
Moses, and Others in their day, were desirous of seeing his glory; but saw it not. The glory which Moses was desirous of seeing, is called the face of God; and may intend the nature and properties of Deity, with his purposes and designs. But though this sight was denied to Moses, yet God promised that his glory should be revealed, and that all flesh should see it together.
This promise is fulfilled in Jesus, in him is the glory of God revealed; and in him all flesh, i. e. all mankind were so collected, and situated, that they saw it together. As Adam, so Christ occupied all flesh, in his knowledge of the Father: he being in his office-capacity, and mystery, all flesh gathered together: his views, his enjoyments, his knowledge, are theirs; and thus all flesh have together seen the glory of God.
Nor does this deny, but supposes; yea, secures to all flesh, a personal sight and enjoyment of the glory of God in some future age, when his glory shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
And all flesh shall see the salvation of God (Luke 3:6). According to the sense of the sacred book, the promise of seeing, is the promise of possessing and enjoying: does it not follow, then, that all flesh shall enjoy the salvation of God? As the terms, all flesh, in asserting the corruption of our species, manifestly include Adam and all his offspring, there can be no just reason offered, why the same terms, when used in promise, should not have the same latitude. Hence all mankind shall see, and enjoy the salvation of God.
As by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of One, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life (Rom. 5:18). To the unprejudiced mind this text needs no comment: here the plaister is manifestly as wide as the fore — and the remedy, both in its application and benefit, as extensive and powerful as the disease.
This text, like the pregnant comb, drops honey at the touch, and needs no pressure. Here the grace which distinguishes the ever adorable name, and inexplicable salvation of Jesus, shines in its meridian lustre. Here, the amazing freeness, and extent of love and grace, so sparkles and speaks, that the mole and the bat only can be blind, and the adder deaf! Meat is here brought out of the eater, and sweetness out of the strong.
This text shows us the method and freeness of God’s eternal grace, in the salvation of mankind by Jesus Christ our Lord. “As by the offense of one, so by the righteousness of one.” By the former, without their aid, concurrence, assent, or even knowledge, judgment came upon all unto condemnation: in like manner, by the latter, the free gift came upon all men to justification of life. This is free grace indeed! here the chambers of darkness and death, teem with the rays and evidences of light, life, and immortality: and even the wandering steps of man, fabled with guilt, and leading to judgment and condemnation, illustrate and perpetuate the method and freeness of the great salvation.
The free gift came upon all men, unto justification of life. — Upon all on whom judgment came unto condemnation. Hence, it is true beyond all controversy, that, as all Adam’s offspring, by means of his offense, were brought under judgment to condemnation; so it is equally true, that, by means of Christ’s righteousness, Adam and all his offspring were brought under the free gift of justification unto eternal life. We have most assuredly the same revelation of God for the one, as we have for the other.
What, if men do not believe, shall their unbelief make the faith of God of none effect? Is their unbelief a reasonable objection to a free gift? or, is their unrighteousness an argument, that this free gift cannot come upon them by the righteousness of Jesus Christ? Have those words — a gift, a free gift, a free gift of justification unto life, coming upon all men — no meaning in them? Nay, let priest-craft, bigotry, and prejudice, sift and winnow them, their substance will yet remain: It will be for ever true, that God hath concluded all in unbelief, that he might have mercy on all.
All the children of Adam do not at present know, that judgment came upon them to condemnation by his offense; nay, there are thousands who deny it. But does it follow from thence, that it is not true? Quite the reverse. Their ignorance and opposition confirm the proposition, that all are dead in him. Neither does man’s ignorance of it, nor even his opposition to it, indicate, that the free gift is not come him to justification of life. It is rather a proof of the free gift.
Justification of life, according to the words of the book, implies a perfect exemption from the charge of sin, and consequently from condemnation. This is justification: and justification of life, intends a justification of that life and impunity which they obtain as a free gift by the righteousness of Christ: Thus is God just, in justifying the ungodly.
If this grace be true to all, according to that great plainness of speech used by the apostle, wherefore should not all, sooner or later, possess it? Sin, or any impediment arising from thence, cannot prevent their final happiness in this grace: because the gift which came upon them, is that of justification: which acquits from sin, and all its consequences: nor can their poverty and helplessness prevent it; because it is a free gift, a good and perfect gift, which came from the Father of lights, with whom there is neither variableness nor shadow of turning: whose gifts and callings are without repentance. From all which, I see no reason wherefore all men should not in some future period, be blessed with the enjoyment of eternal life.
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive (1 Cor. 15:22). This is a text perfectly similar in its language to the former, and therefore would need none other remarks than what I have made on the above.— But, that expositors (in my judgment) give it a sense very different from the intention of the Holy Ghost by the apostle. Commentators tell us, that as by means of Adam’s offense, all men became mortal, and must necessarily see death; so by means of Christ’s resurrection and power, they shall all be made alive, or raised from the dead. Unto which I answer, If they meant that the all thus made alive in Christ, or raised from the dead in him, were raised to eternal life and glory, the comment would be good: but, as they intend nothing less than this; theirs is not the genuine sense of the text, as will appear from what follows.
The text manifestly opposes Christ, and his life, to Adam, and his death; and shows the former to be as extensive as the latter. As an infallible medicine to a sore disease, as a dispensation of comfort to a scene of misery; so is the text adapted to the helpless state of man. Those blessed words contain a declaration and promise of man’s deliverance in Christ: yea, of all men’s deliverance from the misery or death wherein they are involved in Adam.
But, wherein is the propriety of such a declaration, of promise, if the greater part of those who are made alive in Christ, are only made alive for destruction, and rendered thereby more capable of torment? Can they receive any possible advantage, in conjunction with eternal misery? Is not an annihilation preferable to eternal damnation? What profit will such receive by being made alive in Christ, who are made alive to greater and endless misery? Can this be the voice of love? Can it be the sense of the text? If so, the natural comment is this. For as in Adam all die, and according to the body mingle with the dull, and become senseless as the clay; so in Christ they shall all be made alive: some to the sense of happiness, but (by much) the greater part to the sense of everlasting torment. Except to a very few, where is the grace, where is the salvation, proposed in the text, agreeable to such a comment?
According to this method of explaining that scripture, Adam has laid the foundation of human misery, and Christ raises the superstructure. Adam has drank the deadly thing so soporiferous to all his offspring and Christ makes them alive, awakes and quickens them to inexplicable and never-ending torment. This is a notorious inversion of the gospel, and, according to my idea, a blasphemy against Christ: who says, that he “came not into the world to destroy the world, but that the world through him might have life.”
There are others, who, though they allow that all men without distinction die in Adam, yet will have the all who are made alive in Christ, to be all the elect only; who, according to them, are a very small number, in comparison of those who die in Adam. Hence the phrase often used, as in Adam all his seed die, even so in Christ all his feed shall be made alive, as though the seed of Christ was not so extensive as the seed of Adam. Others say, all who believe and obey the gospel shall be made alive in Christ Jesus: as if, when dead, they were to believe and obey, in order to their being made alive. Merely to mention these comments, and others of like nature, is sufficient to prove them a manifest perversion of the sacred text. And yet it is amazing to see, how greedily men swallow, how eagerly they adopt, the most strained unnatural comment; rather than acknowledge such a freeness and extent of grace as the true gospel preaches!
Who but reads the text with a heart unprejudiced, and open to the impressions of truth, must necessarily perceive the reality of salvation, the method and extent of it? The reality of it — They shall be made alive in Christ. The method of it — As they die in Adam, so shall they be made alive in Christ. The extent of it — All — “As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall All be made alive.” Thus the aboundings of grace are as extensive as those of fin: and Christ is declared to be as universal in his salvation, as Adam was in the ruin of mankind.
And, lest the old question should recur, i. e, “Who will show us any good?” If God has promised to make all alive in Christ, how comes it that his promise is not fulfilled, since the whole world yet lieth in the wicked one? I answer — In Christ the first fruits, the promise is already fulfilled, as it shall be in all that are his at his coming. All mankind are legally and mystically made alive in Christ, “who died for their sins, and rose again for their justification.” Thus, whether we wake or deep, we live together with him. The present ignorance and unbelief of mankind does not hinder their being made accepted in the beloved, nor will it prevent their knowledge and enjoyment in some age to come.
But here I recollect that I am writing a letter, and looking back on what I have written, am convinced that it is already too long, shall therefore conclude with subscribing myself,
David Bentley Hart, The New Testament (Yale University Press 2018)
For a long time few options have been available for those who wanted an alternative to the often dogmatically laden Bible translations commonly available in English (and many other languages)
In his new as-literal-as-it-gets translation of the New Testament, Orthodox scholar David Bentley Hart, seeks to remedy this by translating “as if no doctrine were given”. The result is a version of the New Testament at odds with great portions of traditional Protestant theology.
The translation also contains a nice introduction and a comprehensive post-script where Hart explains some of his more controversial translation choices.
Hart opts for translating the Greek words aion and aionion, traditionally translated as ‘eternity’ and ‘eternal’, by words more close to the original meaning of ‘age’ and ‘pertaining to an age’. But unlike, e.g. Young’s literal translation that translates aionios as ‘age-enduring,’ Hart chooses to render aionios as ‘of’ or ‘in’ the ‘Age’.
As with many others who defend a universalist soteriology, Hart argues that what has often been perceived as ‘eternal’ in the sense of being ‘never-ending’ should in fact not be understood so. This means that there are no biblical warrant for the belief in eternal (in the sense of never-ending) punishment:
“[…] in the original Greek of the New Testament, there really are only three verses that seem to threaten “eternal punishment” for the wicked (though, in fact, none of them actually does), and many who are doctrinally or emotionally committed to the idea of eternal torment for the unelect would feel gravely bereaved if the delicious clarity of the seemingly most explicit of those verses were allowed to be obscured behind a haze of lexical indeterminacy. To these I can say only that, if they really wish to believe in the everlasting torment of the reprobate, they are perfectly free to do so, whether there is any absolute unquestionable scriptural warrant for doing so or not; but, then again, even the Greek word typically rendered as “punishment” in that verse raises problems of translation […]” (Hart 2018, p. 541f).
Some thoughts on the baptism of Christ in the light of Gregory of Nazianzen’s baptismal sermon.
While the baptism of Christ is celebrated January 6th by most Eastern Orthodox churches in connection with Epiphany, most traditional western churches (Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Anglican) celebrate the baptism of Christ the week after Epiphany.
Joachim Patinir: The Baptism of Christ (1510-20)
In the west we seem to consider the Baptism of Christ to be of smaller importance in comparison with his incarnation, death and resurrection. Nevertheless, the story of Jesus’ baptism in Jordan by John is significant, as this is how Jesus is said to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15).
Now, I’ve argued before that this is to be understood in a radical sense: In Christ humankind is baptized. Any individual Christian baptism only has meaning as a declaration of the one true baptism that has already occurred with Christ in Jordan. What makes this baptism so significant is that it anticipates and culminates in Jesus’ death, which he also calls a ‘baptism’. This is the baptism that effectively fulfills all righteousness. When we celebrate the baptism of Christ we anticipate Easter.
I’m not sure that this is how the average 4th century Christians saw the issue, though Gregory of Nazianzen seems to grasp some of the significance of the baptism of Christ in his baptismal sermon, where he marvelously stated that in his baptism “Jesus rises from the waters; the world rises with him.” The baptism of Christ is truly the baptism of us all in him. Our individual baptism only repeats and confirms the truth about us, that we are already baptized, dead and resurrected (proleptically, i.e.) with Christ. Though Jesus does not need repentance, in him we are converted to God, as Barth puts it.
Of course Gregory would probably add that we only effectively get to partake in the mystery through the sacrament of baptism, which is where I would put more traditional Baptist views instead, claiming that our baptism and death with Christ is more than enough, though in our individual baptism we confess what is already true about us. Nevertheless, I find much that is good in Gregory’s great sermon:
Christ is bathed in light; let us also be bathed in light. Christ is baptized; let us also go down with him, and rise with him.
John is baptizing when Jesus draws near. Perhaps he comes to sanctify his baptizer; certainly he comes to bury sinful humanity in the waters. He comes to sanctify the Jordan for our sake and in readiness for us; he who is spirit and flesh comes to begin a new creation through the Spirit and water.
The Baptist protests; Jesus insists. Then John says: I ought to be baptized by you. He is the lamp in the presence of the sun, the voice in the presence of the Word, the friend in the presence of the Bridegroom, the greatest of all born of woman in the presence of the firstborn of all creation, the one who leapt in his mother’s womb in the presence of him who was adored in the womb, the forerunner and future forerunner in the presence of him who has already come and is to come again. I ought to be baptized by you: we should also add, “and for you”, for John is to be baptized in blood, washed clean like Peter, not only by the washing of his feet.
Jesus rises from the waters; the world rises with him. The heavens like Paradise with its flaming sword, closed by Adam for himself and his descendants, are rent open. The Spirit comes to him as to an equal, bearing witness to his Godhead. A voice bears witness to him from heaven, his place of origin. The Spirit descends in bodily form like the dove that so long ago announced the ending of the flood and so gives honor to the body that is one with God.
Today let us do honor to Christ’s baptism and celebrate this feast in holiness. Be cleansed entirely and continue to be cleansed. Nothing gives such pleasure to God as the conversion and salvation of men, for whom his every word and every revelation exist. He wants you to become a living force for all mankind, lights shining in the world. You are to be radiant lights as you stand beside Christ, the great light, bathed in the glory of him who is the light of heaven. You are to enjoy more and more the pure and dazzling light of the Trinity, as now you have received – though not in its fullness – a ray of its splendor, proceeding from the one God, in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory and power for ever and ever.
Sermon on Simeon’s words of praise in the temple (Luke 2:29-35)
Rembrandt van Rijn, Simeon with the Infant Jesus in the Temple (detail).
“Master, now you are dismissing your servant in peace, according to your word; for my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel.” (Luke 2:29-32)
“My eyes have seen your salvation!”
When Mary and Joseph entered the temple in Jerusalem, carrying the baby Jesus in their arms, they hardly expected a welcome like this.
Of course, Mary had heard many times now that her son was special – that he was to be the savior of the world. Already shortly after the birth of Jesus, Mary’s room was full of people like the wise men, who wasn’t exactly invited, but came anyway, as they were led there by hope and signs.
And now this guy in the temple comes up to Mary and talks about salvation as he tells her that her Child is appointed to cause the rise and fall of many in Israel. Simeon is his name, a righteous and devout man, led by the Holy Spirit. And now, as he sees the baby Jesus in Mary’s arms, Simeon praises God: “Lord, according to your word, you may now dismiss your servant in peace, for my eyes have seen your salvation”.
Simeon affirms what the prophets had already promised. The promise made to Isaiah – that all flesh would see the glory of the Lord (Isaiah 40:4) – had been repeated when John the Baptist in the dessert proclaimed, that all flesh would see God’s salvation (Luke 3:6).
A promise of seeing God’s glory. A promise of seeing God’s salvation. The promises are the same. Seeing God’s glory means seeing his salvation. And now Simeon proclaims that the promise has been fulfilled.
Apparently Simeon has been waiting for this moment – perhaps for his whole life. With the prophets he has waited for the Messiah who would bring the salvation of God to all peoples. And now he has seen it. Not just heard of it. No, Simeon sees the salvation of God, and knows that now he does not need to wait any longer.
We are used to thinking of sight in metaphorical terms. We can, so to speak, ’see’ the truth. Or, if we are ignorant and blind, we say that we can’t ‘see’ the truth. But in the case of Simeon, seeing God’s salvation is not just a matter of metaphor. Simeon actually sees the salvation of God, in a very concrete sense. He sees Jesus – and seeing Jesus means seeing God. Jesus is in himself the salvation of God.
Simeon’s words first of all proclaim joy. There is, however, also a warning added. This child, says Simeon, is “appointed to cause the rise and fall of many in Israel”. The rise – and fall of many. A sign that would be spoken against. Jesus would become a stumbling block, as Paul puts it in one of his letters. A stumbling block for the religious elite, who would eventually reject Jesus and turn against him.
Religious authorities may seem gentle and loving – until the moment when they are contradicted. When the religious authorities meet contradiction, this is when the “thoughts of their hearts” are revealed. When salvation is proclaimed to come not through the hierarchies and practices of religion, but directly from God, this is when it becomes clear whether the religious – and this also includes you and I – regard salvation as their own private property, not to be shared with others, or whether they are ready to receive it from God as a gift on equal footing with all those, who does not have a place in the religious hierarchy.
Even though Jesus is the salvation of God revealed for all peoples, this salvation leads to the fall of those religious elites who rejected him. This is not to say that he wasn’t also their savior as well. But it means that the salvation of God sometimes works by tearing down, by negating – even by destroying. Salvation sometimes works through contradiction.
The religious elites of Israel had to fall, so that all nations could see that God’s glory wasn’t confined to them, but that his salvation reaches to all people. Nevertheless, exactly by being a light of revelation for all nations, Jesus becomes the glory of God for Israel – even if Israel’s rejection of Jesus would case it’s downfall.
Keep in mind that all this is said on a bright background – indeed the brightest of all backgrounds: The proclamation of God’s salvation for all people. My eyes have seen your salvation, says Simeon. In a way, Simeon here pronounces a name over Jesus, who is called ”salvation”. In fact, the Hebrew name Yeshua means ”savior”. It is Jesus himself who is the salvation of God and ”a light for revelation”.
“A light for revelation”. The word of God is the true light who lights up every human being, says John in his gospel (John 1:9). It was he who had come into the world. It was this light, who Simeonrecognized and perceived clearly.
What Simeon saw that day was that Jesus was himself the word of God, who had come to us. Simeon, by seeing the baby Jesus, has seen God himself. This was not, of course, because Simeon had some inherent superpowers that made him stand out from everyone else. No, he saw God in Jesus because the Spirit of God gave him eyes to do so. When God wants us to see his salvation in Jesus, we will.
Of course, the salvation of God is there whether we see it or not. But when we see it, seeing brings joy – if it doesn’t, it’s not the salvation of God that we see. The sight of God’s salvation does not leave us unaltered. Seeing God’s salvation means taking part here and now in what Jesus is doing for the whole world.
Seeing God’s salvation – as when John said that “all flesh would see God’s salvation” – is not just a matter of observing something from a distance, as if God’s salvation could take place without being a salvation of and for someone. No, seeing God’s salvation means taking part in God’s salvation, it means being taken up and being drawn into the history of redemption in Jesus Christ. This is what it means that “all flesh shall see the salvation of God”, as all that is dead will be made alive in Jesus Christ.
This is why Simeon can personally rejoice in hope as he sees the salvation of God. It is not just that he perceives that Jesus is savior – for someone or perhaps no one in particular – in a way where it is still unclear whether Simeon gets to partake in this salvation himself. No, Simeon sees in Jesus the salvation that God has “prepared in the presence of all peoples”, for all “flesh”, and thus also for him.
For all people.
For us – you and me.
Let us pray today, that God will also grant us the sight of his salvation in Jesus Christ.
Giovanni Battista Lucini - Martyrdom of St Stephen (1680)
Sermon in Vestermarie Lutheran church, Bornholm, December 26th 2018
Giovanni Battista Lucini – Martyrdom of St Stephen (1680)
While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep. (Acts 7,59-60)
We all know that Christmas time means peace and joy. But what we often forget is, that it is also a time for commemorating persecuted Christians. In the midst of celebrating Christmas, we should keep in mind that not all Christians are lucky to live in peace and safety.
While the days after Christmas are popularly conceived as a time for relaxation and recreation after the busy period before Christmas, traditionally churches have celebrated Stephen, the first martyr of Christianity. Depending on ecclesiastical tradition, the celebration takes place somewhere between the 25th-27th of December.
According to the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 6:8-14, Acts 7,54-60), Stephen was stoned by a mob of angry Pharisees after having spoken against them and their practices. Fearing that his confession of Jesus of Nazareth would mean a change of the customs held in so high esteem by the Jewish religious authorities, the religious leaders set out to get rid of Stephen. They dragged him out of the city and stoned him.
Shortly before passing away, Stephen, just like Jesus before him, prayed that God would forgive his perpetrators. This is an important detail in the story, which should not just be seen as a description of Stephen’s virtue. The prayer of forgiveness also says something about God: God forgives.
Thus, the message in the story of Stephen, though it sounds harsh and brutal compared to the Christmas story, is fundamentally the same as that about Jesus in the manger: That God forgives, despite our enmity.
Now, Stephen may have been the first Christian martyr, but he surely wasn’t the last. Jesus himself warned his disciples, that they would be persecuted. For many years after Jesus’ death and resurrection this came true, as the Roman authorities brutally persecuted Christians frequently.
As many good theologians have noticed, the first Christians wasn’t just persecuted for preaching some harmless message about the afterlife, but for proclaiming that Jesus was Lord in a society where Caesar was said to be lord (Zahnd). And as is discernible from the story about Stephen, the Jewish religious authorities persecuted the first Christians for proclaiming a message that would alter their religious customs. By declaring the end of the Mosaic law, Christians were threatening to destroy the entire foundation of Judaism.
By his death Jesus has set us free from all religious repression. The only law now is love (see e.g. Rom. 13:8-10). Whatever religious practices we choose to follow, is a matter between the individual and God (see Rom. 14:22). This doesn’t mean that Christians should not follow the norms of society, but we are not to obey the law as if it was divine or absolute, but for the sake of peace. The gospel sets us free from religious rules and laws once and for all.
The Christian gospel is a message of freedom. But this is exactly why it is met with so much opposition. Jesus himself once declared that he did not come to bring peace, but a sword, that would break up social structures as people would turn against each other because of him (Matt. 10:34). The word of God is a two-edged sword, that cuts through all social, religious and political norms and traditions that binds us. Obviously the message of freedom is met with heavy opposition by people who put all their hope in absolute religious and political ideals – which is why Jesus warned that he did not bring peace, even if his message was in itself a message of peace.
Stephen was the first to experience the brutal consequences of proclaiming the gospel against the religious elites. Stephen was stoned for proclaiming a message of freedom and unconditional forgiveness. This proclamation was intolerable for the religious authorities of his time, as it is for religious authorities of all times. Even Christians have from the beginning of the Middle Ages until our time persecuted other Christians, who was seen to take the message of freedom and unconditional forgiveness too far.
Those who preach a gospel of universal grace and freedom from religious rules and laws will always be met by enmity from religious elites of all kinds. Today 75% of all persecuted for their religious beliefs are said to be Christians. In North Korea, China, India and most Muslim countries, Christians face harsh treatment for confessing Jesus as Lord. Bibles are confiscated, churches shut down, and converts to Christianity put to death.
As in New Testament times Christians today are not just persecuted for believing a harmless philosophy about personal piety, but for proclaiming a message of freedom – freedom from all sorts of religious, ideological and political totalitarianism.
In societies that worships the state or the dictator as god, or hold to a religion, that sees God not as loving and forgiving but as demanding utter subjection to a set of rules that divide groups of people into insiders and outsiders, believers and unbelievers, men and women, slaves and free, and so on, a gospel of freedom is seen not just as a deviation from the norm, but as a threat to the entire foundation of society. For this, many Christians around the world face persecution even today.
By commemorating the martyrdom of Stephen we also commemorate those Christians who are persecuted today. But we are also thereby reminded, that God forgives even those who persecute his people, as God forgives all.
Originally a Gregorian responsorial chant, the O Magnum Mysterium has been the subject of many new compositions celebrating the mystery of the incarnation of Christ. An all time favorite is French composer Francis Poulenc’s version from his Quatre Motets pour le temps de Noël (Four Motets for Christmas) (1952).
Latin text
O magnum mysterium,
et admirabile sacramentum,
ut animalia viderent Dominum natum,
iacentem in praesepio!
Beata Virgo, cujus viscera
meruerunt portare
Dominum Iesum Christum.
Alleluia!
English translation
O great mystery,
and wonderful sacrament,
that animals should see the newborn Lord,
lying in a manger!
Blessed is the virgin whose womb
was worthy to bear
the Lord, Jesus Christ.
Alleluia!
Eastern Orthodox icon of the birth of Christ by Saint Andrei Rublev, 15th century, Annunciation Cathedral in Moscow
“[…] how shall man pass into God, unless God has passed into man? And how shall he escape from the generation subject to death, if not by means of a new generation, given in a wonderful and unexpected manner by God— that regeneration which flows from the virgin through faith? Or how shall they receive adoption from God if they remain in this generation, which is naturally possessed by man in this world? And how could He have been greater than Solomon, or greater than Jonah, or have been the Lord of David, who was of the same substance as they were? How, too, could He have subdued; him who was stronger than men, who had not only overcome man, but also retained him under his power, and conquered him who had conquered, while he set free mankind who had been conquered, unless He had been greater than man who had thus been vanquished? But who else is superior to, and more eminent than, that man who was formed after the likeness of God, except the Son of God, after whose image man was created? And for this reason He did in these last days exhibit the similitude; the Son of God was made man, assuming the ancient production into His own nature […]” – Irenaeus of Lyons, 140-202 A.D. (Against Heresies, IV.33.4)
From G.K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy. Thanks to Jean Sobrinho for the screenshot.
“To hope for all souls is imperative; and it is quite tenable that their salvation is inevitable. It is tenable, but it is not specially favourable to activity or progress.” (G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy)
While seemingly affirming the final salvation of all, Roman Catholic writer G.K. Chesterton (1874–1936) warned against putting this belief at the center of our practical endeavors. In practice it is better to hold to a certain degree of pessimism, thereby making action more imperative.
Chesterton’s remarks are as relevant as ever, considering the impact of migration and global warming, etc. and similar issues, that seems to require urgent responses. A too optimistic approach to these issues may blind of us from the very present dangers we face. Nevertheless, we may ask if a strategical or practical pessimism like Chesterton’s is really the best way to go?
Of course, even Origen, who is famous for his theory on the restitution of all things, the apokatastasis pantôn, warned against a too promiscuous propagation of this truth – for the spiritually immature, fear of eternal torments may be the most appropriate means for disciplining and developing virtue. Indeed, there may be some truth to the concern that a too certain conviction of a happy ending makes us careless about the present. But this, of course, may be argued against the gospel as such: If God is going to settle everything eventually, why bother doing good now? This objection is of course mistaken. It is exactly because of our hope in the future, that we can act with confidence in the presence.
I think this is the point that reformed theologians such as Jacques Ellul and Jürgen Moltmann has made repeatedly, perhaps most famously in Moltmann’s Theology of Hope. Hope does not, however, preclude a certain kind of pessimism. Jacques Ellul in particular made this clear, as he described the Christian hope as “hope against optimism” (espoir vs. espérance). The Christian hope for all is always in spite of our very plausible, realistic and as such urgent pessimisms about the destiny of most people in the present. This is why the Christian hope for all is a call to action here and now rather than passivity. But this is also why Christians can act differently from those who only affirm the perspective of pessimism.
Georg Klain-Nicolai (Paul Siegvolck), The Everlasting Gospel. 159 pages. Forlaget Apophasis (2018).
A new paperback edition of Georg Klein-Nicolai’s classic, The Everlasting Gospel, is now available on Amazon.com.
The Everlasting Gospel was written by the German pastor Georg Klein-Nicolai of Friessdorf, Germany, under the pseudonym of Paul Siegvolck. This edition includes the original preface by Elhanan Winchester to the English translation from 1792.
The new edition has a slightly modernized American English language, updated formatting and an index of Biblical references.
Peter (or Petrus) Böhler (1712-1775) was a German Moravian bishop and missionary to England and America.
Böhler took part in the first great Protestant missionary movement inaugurated by the Moravians. Having been ordained to priesthood by Nicolaus Zinzendorf in 1737, Böhler soon after traveled to London, where he met John Wesley. He later traveled to America where he served as a missionary in the colonies. Böhler became the superintendent of the Moravian Church in England in 1747.
Böhler, as witnessed by George Whitefield in a letter to John Wesley, apparently confessed his beliefs in a universal redemption. For the calvinist Whitefield, the belief in a general atonement logically lead to a universal salvation, which for him counted against a general atonement. Whitefield writes:
“Peter Bohler, one of the Moravian brethren, in order to make out universal redemption, lately frankly confessed in a letter that all the damned souls would hereafter be brought out of hell. I cannot think Mr. Wesley is thus minded. And yet unless this can be proved, universal redemption, taken in a literal sense, falls entirely to the ground. For how can all be universally redeemed, if all are not finally saved?”1
While Wesley was more in line with the Moravians in the belief in a general atonement, he, however, saw salvation as conditional upon the individuals free exercise of faith. Peter Böhler seems to have agreed with Wesley, though seemingly also being convinced that God would eventually be able to convince all to have faith, thus leading to the final salvation of all.
This again shows how sorts of soteriological universalism should not be considered alien or heterodox to the great revivals in the 18th century. It should rather be considered one soteriological view among others. Böhler’s apparent views are arguably also an example that the belief in the final salvation of all need not diminish evangelical fervor and missionary zeal, as is sometimes claimed. Rather, it is exactly because Christ has died to save all, that the gospel must be proclaimed for all.
1See Robert F. Lay,Readings in Historical Theology: Primary Sources of the Christian Faith (Kregel Academic 2009), p. 339.
For Athanasius, the divinity of Christ was crucial for the salvation of humanity. By receiving a human body, Christ, the eternal Word of God, bestowed the gift of his divinity upon our humanity, says Athanasius. The solidarity of humanity means that Christ, by becoming a human being, has united himself to all human beings. By so doing he has taken upon himself our death, that we may share in his life. That all through Christ participate in his divinity as a result of the incarnation means, that all will receive his life and immortality. In his work on the incarnation of Christ, Athanasius wrote:
“The Word perceived that corruption could not be got rid of otherwise than through death; yet He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father’s Son, was such as could not die. For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection. It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human brethren by the offering of the equivalent. For naturally, since the Word of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled in death all that was required. Naturally also, through this union of the immortal Son of God with our human nature, all men were clothed with incorruption in the promise of the resurrection. For the solidarity of mankind is such that, by virtue of the Word’s indwelling in a single human body, the corruption which goes with death has lost its power over all.” (Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation 35).
In the third letter of The Great Salvation Contemplated, James Relly argues against the belief that human beings have the power in themselves to exercise saving faith. Human beings cannot believe if not Christ works in them. The elect are those who are predestinated to have faith and enjoy salvation in time. But the salvation enjoyed by the elect in time is not to the final exclusion of the rest in eternity.
I DO not pretend to have given you, in my last letter, a perfect copy of the Arminian creed; nay, I am well aware of the contrary. I know, that instead of our own works of righteousness and creature actings, which they make to be the conditions of salvation; I substitute a total cessation from all dependence and hope on these: and a simple unreserved submission to Christ. Nor are we agreed, on the object of our faith and obedience.—I, professing all things that are written in the scriptures, believe, that it is not in the nature of man to do, nor even to will what is good, and accords with the will of God. I must therefore always conclude it a fatal mistake, proceeding from the grossest ignorance of themselves, of the scriptures, and of the power of God; for men to pretend, to will and power in themselves to do what can save them, either in the whole or in part; or even recommend them to the favor of God, or qualify them for its reception. Man, thus considered, I believe that God reconciled him to himself in Jesus Christ, who in our nature, name, and persons, fulfilled all righteousness, and inherited the promise: Hence, that glorious record, “God hath given to us eternal life, and that life is in his Son.” He hath given it to us, not as righteous persons, but as sinners; not to us as believers, but as unbelievers, not to us as obedient, but as disobedient. Nor does man’s unbelief and refusal of the gift of God, make void his eternal donation, whose gifts and callings are without repentance: for if God alter his purpose of mercy and grace towards men, and recall the gift of eternal life, which he hath given them in his Son; then is their unbelief no longer culpable, nay, it is no longer unbelief, but an uncensurable sentiment.
But while unbelief is iniquity, whilst such who are under its influence, blasphemously, yet with impunity, give the lie to God; the grace which is opposed must certainly remain permanently free, full, and glorious. Hence, we fight, not as though we beat the air; nor do we preach uncertainties to man: we hold forth to them a finished salvation, a glorious rest remaining for them in Christ Jesus: into the glory and riches of which, nothing but their disobedience or unbelief prevents their entrance.
Undoubtedly, this is the hearing by which faith cometh; it is wisely and graciously adapted to the helpless state of man. But O! how widely different is this from the faith of such, who make man’s righteousness the condition of salvation, they know not the helpless state of the creature, nor that he is indeed subjected to vanity. Hence, they see no reason wherefore their salvation should be finished and secured in Christ. They believe it not; it is a doctrine repugnant to their hope and desire, and therefore they generally meet and encounter it with hatred or derision. Like the old Egyptian talk-masters,they call on you to make your tale of bricks, without allowing you proper materials: they call on you to obey, without communicating sufficiency, or even giving you a certain invariable rule for the extent, nature, and properties of true obedience. When they speak of believing, they acknowledge no truth until it is believed, nor a Christ, until he is applied. Hence, that very absurd saying, so frequent in the mouth and writings of some, who would be thought to be ministers of the gospel, “An unapplied Christ, is no Christ at all.”
But, I need not yet take pains to show you, that, by conditional salvation, I understand present salvation, or the salvation of Christ, enjoyed in this life: the conditions of obtaining and rejoicing in which, are undoubtedly faith and obedience; for, if we believe it not, we possess it not: and if we obey it not, we rejoice not in it: yet this faith and obedience, is the free gift of him who worketh in us to will and to do of his own good pleasure.” The apostle, speaking of faith, tells us, that it “comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” By affirming and illustrating the truth, and persuading men that they have, in Jesus, the forgiveness of sin: that they are saved in him, justified in him, sanctified and preserved in him: until, believing it unto righteousness, and confessing it unto salvation, they rejoice in him with joy unspeakable, and full of glory.
Hence, Salvation spoken of, and described in this manner, perfectly consists, not only with the free unconditional salvation of the elect; but even with the doctrine of universal salvation: when we distinguish between a finished salvation, the present enjoyment, and a future enjoyment.
The elect, where applied to the persons of mankind, in subordination to Christ, intends such, who are made choice of in time to the belief of the truth, and the joy of salvation.
These are chosen to this graces not on the consideration of present, nor on the foresight of future merit in themselves: but he, whom they sought not, is pleased to be found of them: Yea, lest aught should be placed to the account of human righteousness, the unerring Spirit has thus drawn the character of the chosen — “Not many wise men, after the flesh; not many mighty, not many noble; but God hath chosen the foolish, the weak, the base, the despised.” And the reason, which he has vouchsafed to give for his choice, is, “That no flesh should glory in his presence, but he that glorieth should glory in the Lord.”
Hence, I propose, that the elect are not a people chosen to be the objects of God’s love and salvation, to the final exclusion of others: but a people chosen to believe the truth, and to rejoice in the salvation of Jesus in time; while others yet remain in a state of ignorance, of what they are equally entitled to with the elect.
The elect, who are predestinated to the present knowledge, and enjoyment of eternal life, can only attain to this happiness through faith and obedience, as spoken of before, under the article of conditional salvation. But, as Christ effects this in them, by his gospel and free spirit, it comes not, as I have hinted before, under the imputation of man’s righteousness: nor is it a denial to the elect’s being freely saved, since what a man possesses without cost to himself, is free to him.
Should it be asked, what advantage have the elect above others? I answer, much every way: For “one day in his courts, is better than a thousand in the tents of wickedness; the secret of the Lord is with them; he hath shewed them his covenant: They have righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost: Through all the vicissitudes of life, and in death, they have assurance of eternal life.
If the scriptures ascribe predestination and election to the sovereignty of God, they clash not with my idea of it: since there can be none other reason assigned, for his choosing one rather than another, to the belief and enjoyment of the truth, than his sovereign will and pleasure. Do the sacred writings ascribe their election, &c. to free grace of God? This also corresponds with the hints above mentioned, as appears from the character of whom he hath chosen; and also from his manner in bringing them to the knowledge of the truth.
According to this idea of election, the consistency, and even the expediency of the apostle’s exhortation, is perceivable: “Give all diligence, to make your calling and election sure”, and, again, “Put on, as the elect of God, bowels of mercy, long-suffering,” &c.
Election and predestination, thus considered, are no denial to salvation finished for all, in the person of Christ; nor is it an objection to the future final happiness of all; for whom Christ died: nay, it rather supposes it; if the predestinate and elect are so called, from their being chosen to believe, and enjoy in time, what the residue neither know, nor enjoy but in eternity. But, as I purpose, towards the close of these letters, to explain myself more fully on this subject, I shall wave a further explanation of it here, to observe — That, in my first letters, I intended only a few hints to you, which I judged necessary to prepare the way to the subject on which, in particular, you defined to know my mind. Therefore, my intention is, in a few letters, to confine myself to the subject of God’s universal love and salvation in Jesus Christ, I am not aware of any hurt to your minds, that can proceed from it, if you are indeed satisfied with Christ; being well persuaded, that if you are really allured of the freeness of his salvation, you will no more enter into doubtful and fleshly deputations, concerning the extent of it.
May Jesus Christ, the apostle and High Priest of our profession, render it more than an amusement to you! May he use it to endear his name, person, salvation, and Spirit to you!
Christ the Pantokrator, Cathedral of Cefalù, Sicily.
It is sometimes argued that Gregor of Nyssa did not clearly teach universal restitution, as some of his remarks on salvation and eschatology in his Great Catechism seems to only ambivalently assert this issue. But more clear are Gregory’s statements in the short treatise on Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians 15:28, where Paul says that “the Son will be subjected to him who has subjected all things to himself”. Gregory argues that the subjection spoken of by Paul is in both instances not a forced, but a free and joyful subjection, that leads to salvation of all who are subjected to God through Christ.
The only available English translation of the treatise – often referred to by its Latin title “In Illud, Tunc et ipse filius” – was made by Casimir McCambley and published under the title “When (the Father) Will Subject All Things to (the Son), Then (the Son) Himself Will Be Subjected to Him (the Father) Who Subjects All Things to Him (the Son). A treatise on First Corinthians 15.28.” in Greek Orthodox Theological Review 28 (1983), p. 1-25.
As I do not own the rights for the translation I will only quote a few passages. The full text is still available here.
[…]
It is time now to quote the apostle himself on these matters. “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. ‘For God has put all things in subjection under his feet’ [a reference to Ps 8.6]. But when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection under him,’ it is plain that he is accepted who put all things under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who puts all things under him, that God may be everything to everyone” [1 Cor 15.22-28].
[…]
Paul signifies, by the Son’s subjection, the destruction of death. Therefore, these two elements concur, that is, when death will be no more, and everything will be completely changed into life. The Lord is life. According to the apostle, Christ will have access to the Father with his entire body when he will hand over the kingdom to our God and Father. Christ’s body, as it is often said, consists of human nature in its entirety to which he has been united. Because of this, Christ is named Lord by Paul, as mediator between God and man [1 Tim 2.5]. He who is in the Father and has lived with men accomplishes intercession. Christ unites all mankind to himself, and to the Father through himself, as the Lord says in the Gospel, “As you, Father, are in me, and I am in you, that they may be one in us” [Jn 17.21]. This clearly shows that having united himself to us, he who is in the Father effects our union (sunapheia) with this very same Father .
[…]
The exposition of the term ‘subjection’ as used here does not mean the forceful, necessary subjection of enemies as is commonly meant; while on the other hand, salvation is clearly interpreted by subjection. However, clear proof of the former meaning is definitely made when Paul makes a twofold distinction of the term ‘enemy.’ He says that enemies are to be subjected; indeed, they are to be destroyed. Therefore, the enemy to be blotted out from human nature is death, whose principle is sin along with its [M.1325] domination and power. In another sense, the enemies of God which are to be subjected to him attach themselves to sin after deserting God’s kingdom. Paul mentions this in his Epistle to the Romans: “For if we have been enemies, we have been reconciled to God” [Rom. 5:10]. Here Paul calls subjection reconciliation, one term indicating salvation by another word. For as salvation is brought near to us by subjection, Paul says in another place, “Being reconciled, we shall be saved in this life” [Rom 5.10]. Therefore, Paul says that such enemies are to be subjected to God and the Father; death no longer is to have authority. This is shown by Paul saying, “Death will be destroyed,” a clear statement that the power of evil will be utterly removed: persons are called enemies of God by disobedience, while they who have become the Lord’s friends are persuaded by Paul saying, “We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: ‘Be reconciled to God [2 Cor 6:20] .
According to the promise made in the Gospel, we are no longer slaves of the Lord; but once reconciled, we are numbered among his friends. However, “it is necessary for him to reign, until he places his enemies under his feet.” We reverently take this, I believe, as Christ valiantly holding sway in his power. Then the strong man’s ability in battle will cease when all opposition to the good will be destroyed. Once the entire kingdom is gathered to himself, Christ hands it over to God and the Father who unites everything to himself. For the kingdom will be handed over to the Father, that is, all persons will yield to God [Christ], through whom we have access to the Father.
When all enemies have become God’s footstool, they will receive a trace of divinity in themselves. Once death has been destroyed – for if there are no persons who will die, not even death would exist – then we will be subjected to him; but this is not understood by some sort of servile humility. Our subjection, however, consists of a kingdom, incorruptibility and blessedness living in us; this is Paul’s meaning of being subjected to God. Christ perfects his good in us by himself, and effects in us what is pleasing to him.
Gary Amirault, the founder of Tentmaker Ministries and tentmaker.org, has passed away. The ministry of Gary has been a great blessing to many around the world. Gary died of a broken heart after losing his wife, Michelle.
Gary Amirault’s personal testimony is available here.
Tentmaker.org is the largest collection of texts on Universal Reconcilation and Christian Universalism available. A great number of people have come to a greater hope in God’s love by, often accidentally, finding tentmaker.org in their search for a more gracious gospel.
In recent years Gary Amirault also made videos where he talked on his favorite topics, especially the idea of “hell” in the bible and Church history.
“There are but few individuals, so crucified to system, so detached from party, as to see and confess this truth much less can they perceive, how those doctrines, so seemingly contradictory, and opposite to each other, should yet be one in Christ, and preaching the same salvation, in the same language. Yet in this light I view them, and hope to speak intelligibly of the matter.” (James Relly)
As readers of this blog have probably noticed I am quite fond of James Relly – the 18th century radical universalist theologian, whose whole theology revolved around the union of Christ and humankind.
I am currently in the process of transcribing his Epistles: Or the Great Salvation Contemplated (which is fairly easy as the OCR has already done most of the job). Below follows the first two letters.
In the first letter, Relly introduces his theme by presenting the traditional alternatives of arminianism and calvinism, as well as universalism. According to Relly most people are too attached to “system” and “parties” to be able to see how these seemingly opposite doctrines are all one in Christ.
In the second letter, Relly presents his take on conditional vs. unconditional salvation. There is an unconditional salvation wrought by Christ for all in eternity, says Relly, but also a conditional salvation depending on faith and obedience in time. This distinction is, in fact, most important for Relly’s arguments in the letters that follow.
EPISTLES: OR, THE GREAT SALVATION CONTEMPLATED; IN A SERIES OF LETTERS TO A CHRISTIAN SOCIETY.
By James Relly
LETTER I.
Dear Brethren,
It grieved me to hear that there were disputings among you, being aware of their evil tendency, but, when the fruit appeared in the loss of your christian simplicity, it made me unhappy indeed. Alas! how destructive to the pure and peaceable spirit of the gospel, is fleshly opinionative knowledge!
More than twelve months are elapsed, since I was first informed of your mutual heats, and trials of skill, respecting knowledge, argument and orthodoxy; during which, I have written sundry letters to you, without taking the least notice of your dissensions in opinion.
From knowledge of human nature I was aware, that my interfering in your disputes at that time would be adding fuel to fire, and would operate as an inflammative in a fever: hence I waited for a favorable crisis, for a happy period, when I might interpose with advantage but this I could not expect, until both parties were reduced to reverence truth alone, though at the expense of the darling, and to the notorious mortification of the selfish principle.
I thank God our Savior, I have not waited in vain: I have now the pleasure to find you united again in that one grand and only interesting subject, Jesus Christ and him crucified: and that you are mutually influenced to lay aside such peculiar tenets or dogmas, as have, for some time past, distinguished your parties; joining in Christian sincerity, to worship God in the Spirit, to rejoice in Christ: Jesus, having no more confidence in the flesh. Under this influence may your souls abide, as they will prosper.
In your last letter, unto which you all subscribed, you assure me, that you are perfectly satisfied with the great salvation, rejoicing in its freeness and fullness: intent alone on knowing and enjoying your personal interest and happiness therein, without the inquiry, Lord, what shall this man do? I cannot but applaud your spirit and conduct; may you persevere therein to the end.
In reply to your desire (that I would give you my thoughts, according to the scriptures, on the subjects which so lately distracted you) I have no objection to communicate to you all that is in my heart concerning these matters. But are you prepared to hear it ? Are not your late divisions on these accounts rather too recent ? May not the former spirit and temper, in some measure, recur, from my attempting a solution of what formerly gave birth to them? You tell me, that your satisfaction and rejoicing in Jesus Christ is such, that whether all, or only a part of the human race, shall be saved, is a point now of the uttermost indifference to you; and that the lights which the scriptures throw on these doctrines, will not again confound nor dazzle your christian eye.
Be it so. But in speaking of the fullness, freeness, and extent of the great salvation, let me premise, that the two former are more immediately necessary to be known and believed by us: for on the belief and experience of these depend our consolations; whereas, whether all mankind will be saved, or not, is, among Christians, rather a question of curiosity than of necessity. Hence, I declare, that the rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus, neither depends on, nor connects with, either side of the question; but hath its foundation, rise and support, in the report and testimony of the Spirit, speaking by the prophets and apostles, concerning Jesus Christ, and his free and full salvation. Therefore, should I be mistaken in my ideas, respecting the extent of the salvation of Christ, yet, this mistake cannot in the least affect my own interest or rejoicing in that salvation nor can I be distressed, or greatly disappointed, at the detection of error in such opinions, as I neither derived nor expected comfort from.
On the face of the letter, there are, in the holy scriptures, three doctrines, which, to a literal view, are notoriously repugnant to each other; and these occasion no small bustle and deputations among the religious part of mankind: for when men are influenced by either of these doctrines, they conclude themselves under obligation to militate against the others; and this is one of the principal causes of altercation, and of dissensions so prevailing among Christians.
First, there is a conditional salvation, dependent on man’s repentance, faith and obedience. Secondly, there is a free and unconditional salvation of mankind, not dependent on works of righteousness, as wrought by them; but this, from God’s absolute will and pleasure, is limited to a few only whom he has loved and made choice of for that purpose; while the others, which are by far the greater part of mankind, are, by the same will and pleasure, rejected, and excluded from that salvation. Thirdly, a general or universal salvation, where all, who died in Adam, shall be made alive in Christ.
To such, who, in simplicity and christian candor, are conversant with the sacred book, I need go no further for proof, than barely to mention it; that these doctrines, so apparently contradictory, so diametrically opposite, are, nevertheless, contained in that book; and to this, the different professions of Christians bear witness: for, while in particular they explode and deny my assertion, yet, as they are Calvinists, Arminians, or Universalists, they confirm it: and, with a general voice affirm, what, as particular sects, they deny with abhorrence.
Notwithstanding which, there are but few individuals, so crucified to system, so detached from party, as to see and confess this truth much less can they perceive, how those doctrines, so seemingly contradictory, and opposite to each other, should yet be one in Christ, and preaching the same salvation, in the same language. Yet in this light I view them, and hope to speak intelligibly of the matter to you in my next; recommending myself to your esteem, I conclude, with assuring you that I am, in sincerity,
Your affectionate Brother and Servant,
(for Christ’s Sake)
J. R.
LETTER II.
Dear Brethren,
CHRIST Jesus, our Lord, is, in the holy scriptures, eminently called the Truth. Every work and word of God, are only shadowy of him: Christ, as the one only truth, is the consistence and harmony of all the seeming contradictions contained in the scriptures: he hath believed and obeyed, and therefore inherits the promise: — While the people, as united to him, as gathering with him, are, with him, partakers of the same salvation: — All the promises of God being, in him. Yea and Amen, to them: — Jesus, as our fore-runner, is the elect, precious, the predestinated to eternal life; and such are the people in him: He took not on him angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham: This is their election. Christ also sustained the reprobate character, when made sin for us, and when encompassed with the sorrows of death, and the pains of hell.
And as to universal salvation: He is also the truth of that. For, though we see not yet all the individuals of Adam’s race, as such, brought up, through the knowledge of Christ, to the great salvation; yet, in him, all flesh have seen the salvation of God: in him, all are taught of God: in him, all know God, from the greatest to the least. In him, the whole earth is filled with the knowledge of the glory of God, as the waters cover the sea.
But, to explain this more according to reason and argument, I would observe; that not only the term Salvation, but every other term relating to the thing itself, has divers significations in the scriptures: yet, with consistence of matter, and harmony of spirit. To instance — by salvation, we understand that state and condition in which Jesus Christ, by the purity of his life, the intention of his death, and the power of his resurrection, hath placed mankind before the face of God. This state is called in the scriptures, an everlasting salvation; the great salvation; eternal salvation; and is defended as wrought in the Lord; independent of knowledge, faith, or obedience, on the part of the saved, individually considered; ”God was, in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.” In this salvation, God beholds us without spot, or blemish, or any such thing: Our iniquities are pardoned, our warfare is accomplished; so that the Lord beholdeth no iniquity in Jacob, nor perverseness in Israel. This is the salvation, in which God ever beholds his creatures, and which the gospel preaches to them as glad tidings, that faith might come by hearing.
Again, Salvation, sometimes in the scriptures, is made to depend on our repentance, belief, and obedience. This I might explain in a twofold sense; either as the voice of the law, in contradistinction to the free unconditional gospel-salvation, spoken of above; or, as relating to the knowledge and joy of that free salvation; a proper explication in either sense, would be true: But, to abide by the subject in hand, I wave the first, and adhere to the second.
This salvation distinguishes the person who believeth on Jesus, from him who believeth not; and, in a gospel sense, is described, as the happy consequence, the only and blessed fruit of believing the report concerning Jesus Christ: i. e. that he is, before God, our free, perfect, and eternal salvation. It consists in a peculiar state of mind, an exemption from guilt, sin and fear, a possession of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. This is not only to have bread enough in our Father’s house, but to sit down at his table and eat: This salvation may be instantaneous or gradual, as it pleases God to reveal his Son in us.
This salvation, as I hinted before, is obtained, on condition of believing and obeying the truth: nor does it follow, that because faith is the gift of God, and obedience the influence of his free Spirit, that these are not conditional; since we are active in both, our faculties are in exercise in believing and obeying: Hence, “with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation.” And, until we have this belief and confession, we attain not to salvation in the above sense.
In a first sense, Repentance, faith and obedience, are what constitute the everlasting righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ: his repentance confided of strong cries and tears, of the broken heart, and contrite spirit: his deep inexplicable humiliations — such as were heard in that he feared — such as were rewarded with the highest name, and the most glorious exaltation: his faith consisted in believing the promises, which were all made to him: and these he believed, through all the most discouraging scenes of life and death; even when the terrors of death encompassed him, and the pains of hell gat hold on him: And when his faith was perfected by his works.
The obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, is usually distinguished into active and passive. The one implying his immaculate life, and the other his submission to sufferings, and his obedience to death: all which infinite purity approved of, justifying him in the spirit of holiness, and declaring him the Author of salvation.
These, the Savior, from the success of his undertakings, and his exaltation in consequence thereof, hath full power to reckon over, impute or give to the children of men; “for him hath God exalted with his own right hand, to be a Prince and a Savior, to give repentance unto Israel, and remission of sin.” Our Savior’s repentance, faith, and obedience, are perfect and permanent: but our repentance, faith, and obedience, are neither perfect, nor permanent. But, as that which is perfect, is necessary to give us confidence towards God, he gives us his repentance, faith, and obedience: and when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part only is done away. We no longer depend on or gather with our own repentance, obedience, and faith. The utmost that our faith, or the faith which is in us, can attain to, is to believe, receive, and appropriate, according to his will, the faith, repentance, and obedience of Christ; and in these we find salvation.
But, though it be true, that we know in part, see but in part; yet to experience and rejoice in this salvation, it is necessary that we should know and see in our measure. For it is easily seen, that, except we are personally possessed of faith, we can neither believe, know, nor appropriate the faith of Christ. Hence the necessity of faith in us to this salvation; as there is of eating, to the man who (having bread in his house) would fill his belly therewith.
Repentance, as it respects the exercise and feelings of the human heart, consists of conviction, compunction, and renovation. Light breaks in upon the mind, discovering to us the error of our ways, and the insufficiency of all our own righteousness: Compunction of heart follows, for the deception we have been under, and for the yet corrupt bias of our spoiled nature: we loath, abhor, and detest ourselves, for what we feel: more especially for that vile propensity which is in us (notwithstanding the viciousness and poverty of our nature) to trust in ourselves, and in our own righteousnesses; in opposition to the free-grace and salvation of our Lord Jesus Christ; whom now we languish for, and pant to have every thought brought into captivity to his obedience, counting all things as loss, yea, but dung, that we may win Christ, and be found in him; not having our own righteousness. These particulars manifest a change, a renewal; but this change, this renewal, withstands and over-rules our original bias, not permitting us to look for righteousness and strength into ourselves, but inclines us to Jesus, in whom we have everlasting righteousness, and invincible strength.
In brief, the salvation promised in the scriptures, on condition of believing, obeying, &c. is, that blessed and happy state of mind, which is the assured fruit and consequence of knowing, believing, and obeying Jesus Christ, as the great, finished, eternal, unchangeable salvation: which state consists of righteousness, parity, peace, joy, and full assurance of everlasting life. This is a salvation: for we are here saved from sin, guilt, war, distress, and fear: not physically, as though we were not yet men subject to like passions with others, but legally and imputatively, as the man is saved whole debts are paid, and whole crimes are cancelled, by an equal chastisement; and withal, conscientiously: for the gospel teaches, and we believe, that Jesus Christ, through the whole of his obedience, active and passive, and in all that he obtained thereby, was Hill considered as those whom he came into the world to save.
Hence we have an undoubted right to believe, that we are freed from sin and condemnation; and that he hath presented us to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that we should be holy and without blemish. If our heart live in contact with this truth, we have, in perfect peace and purity, complete salvation in Jesus; without works of righteousness, as done by us, individually considered; as saith the apostle, “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that juftifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Obedience here, consists in an entire submission to the will of God, as thus revealed and executed in Christ Jesus; without attempting, by what we may do or suffer, to recommend ourselves to the divine favor, or to qualify ourselves for the reception of it, or to make adequate returns for the blessings received. Thus is Christ the author of eternal salvation, unto all them that obey him. — Of ourselves we are nothing, we have nothing, we can do nothing — but, eating him, we live by him. On the above condition, we have, we inherit, we enjoy the salvation of God, by Jesus Christ.
Thus would I understand and explain conditional salvation, as taught in the scriptures; as what respects the state of believers only, in the ages of time; and not that rest which yet remaineth for the people of God, that final determinate salvation, which God has decreed, and which Jesus has perfected, and ordained, to be the eternal state of man. What influence this salvation has on the mind, is better felt and enjoyed, than explained; nor are there any other means of attaining to it, than the faith and obedience already described: May the testimony of Jesus, by the hearing of which they come, produce and maintain them in all your hearts. This is the prayer and desire of
Sermon at Baptistkirken Bornholm in Rønne, August 2018.
Greek depiction of Jonah and the sea creature
“An evil and adulterous generation craves a sign. Yet no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah, because just as Jonah was in the stomach of the sea creature for three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.” (Matt. 12:39-40)
In today’s text we hear how Jesus once more has a fallout with the Jewish religious elite. The scribes knew their Bible through and through and ought to have had a sense of what was going on, when Jesus started healing people, driving out demons and proclaiming the presence of the Kingdom of God.
But the Pharisees want a sign. And we can’t blame them. Like them we don’t just accept everything without some kind of proof. But our relation to God is not a matter of proofs. We cannot with reason argue our way to faith. Faith is given by the Holy Spirit. Again and again we see in the New Testament, that it is not the scribes and the religious elite that come to faith, but the “poor in spirit” – those who have nothing but an acute need for God’s grace.
But, says Jesus, if you really want a sign, actually you have already got one, namely the sign of the prophet Jonah: Just as Jonah was in the belly of the sea creature for three days and three nights, so the Jesus will also be in the Realm of Death for three days and three nights.
Of course Jesus was only in his grave for two nights – which is something critics of Christianity like to point out. But the thing is with signs, that signs shouldn’t be taken to literally, as they are signs and not the matter itself. What’s important is what the sign signifies.
When Jesus reads the stories and prophecies from the Old Testament as being about himself, we can learn from this, that the Old Testament first of all has value as a witness about the Gospel. The texts – including the book of Jonah – must be read as a witness about Jesus.
From the earliest days of Christianity, critics have rejected the story of Jonah as way to implausible to be true. Today many biblical scholars have noticed, that the story probably comes from Pagan mythology. But for us, what matters is what Jesus makes of the story, not what is plausible or historical ‘facts’.
So what is the story about? The story of Jonah is first of all a story
about God’s grace and mercy. God has mercy on Nineveh – despite having said that he would destroy the entire city. The verdict had been pronounced, and it wasn’t conditional. Nevertheless, God shows mercy.
There’s a clear evangelic point, that on the other side of all the hard words about judgment and punishment there is a merciful ‘however’. The Gospel is that God is merciful in spite of everything. But Jonah becomes angry. He seems to have been looking forward to the destruction of Nineveh. Finally they would learn a lesson! In this way Jonah is a fitting picture of much religion – and perhaps also us as Christians. We too want order and justice, we want the guilty to be punished and so on. How annoying it is, when God turns out to be merciful!
From Jonah’s point of view, the story probably looks a bit different, though it’s also for him about God’s mercy. From Jonah’s point of view, the story is first of all about his conversion, when he had been swallowed by the sea creature and from its belly prayed for help. According to Jonah’s own word, he has ended up in the Realm of Death (or “the belly of sheol”, Jonah 2:2). Jonah has actually died, but exactly there, in the Realm of Death, Jonah learns that God is merciful. In hopelessness Jonah learns that there is hope. Jonah has faith without proofs or signs: “The earth with its bars closed upon me for ever”, says Jonah, but still he has a hope of God’s mercy. And eventually it did turn out, that Jonah was not to stay in the Realm of Death “for ever”, but only for three days.
The experience that Jonah had, has throughout Church history been seen as an expression of how we experience conversion and salvation: Human beings have to go through some kind of spiritual crisis, the experience of a deep spiritual darkness, leading to a final experience of being born again. From this perspective the book of Jonah shows us that God does not save people from death and hell, but through death and hell.
Following this line of thought, Jonah realizes that God is “present in his absence”. According to the medieval mystic Heinrich Seuse, this has to do with the nature of love as such: It is exactly when we experience the absence of love, that we realize how much love means to us. By experiencing God’s total absence in the Realm of Death, Jonah realizes how important God’s mercy really is.
This way of reading the book of Jonah can be quite edifying. In tough parts of our life it can be helpful to know, that it is not necessarily in life’s happiest moments, that we experience the presence of God, but rather the contrary, that God is closest when we are the most unhappy.
There are, however, also the risk that the idea of Jonah’s experience as an example of spiritual rebirth, can lead to new worries. If we think that salvation only follows after a radical spiritual crisis, we easily end up asking ourselves: “did I have this radical kind of experience, like Jonah?” or “am I really a born again Christian?”. And suddenly it’s all about our own self, our feelings and experiences.
But this is where we need to keep focus – and recall that it is Jesus’ use of the story about Jonah that we need to learn from. When Jesus talks about the sign of the prophet Jonah, it is not so much about us, but first of all about Jesus. The story of Jonah is a story about the cross and resurrection of Christ. It is Jesus who is to experience the uttermost darkness at the bottom of death, he who is about to go through a radical spiritual crisis in order to experience salvation.
This does not mean, of course, that the story is not about us at all. But only because it is a story about Jesus, his death and resurrection, is it also a story about us. We have all died with him – not because we have had some sort of radical spiritual experience, but because we died with him at the cross Christ (2 Cor. 5:14). And because he has risen we will rise again. Because of him we will be born again.
Now, of course Jonah knew nothing about all this. He probably thought about his experience as unique, and he might have seen himself as someone special, as being chosen by God. This at least explains why he couldn’t understand why God suddenly had mercy on Nineveh.
Something similar might have been the case with the Pharisees, the religious elites, whom Jesus debated. They too did not understand that the sign of the prophet Jonah was about something much greater, that it was about the all-embracing grace of God.
The challenge to us today is that we ask ourselves: Do I think that this story is about my own private spiritual rebirth or do I dare to believe, that it is first of all about the death and resurrection of Jesus and through him about all human beings?
Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans. Translated from the 6th edition by Edwyn C. Hoskyns, Bart., M.A. with a preface to the English edition by the author (1933).
One of the most important theological works of the 20th century was arguably Karl Barth’s commentary to Paul’s epistle to the Romans.
Here Barth developed his version of what would become known as ‘dialectical theology’. Dialectical theology emphasizes the radical contradiction between God and everything human, revealed in the cross. But at the same time God’s judgment is seen to be only the negative side of the matter, always containing God’s mercy. God’s ‘no’ and ‘yes’, the cross and the resurrection, cannot be separated.
While The Epistle to the Romans is famous for its harsh criticism of human religiosity and every attempt at pronouncing absolute negative or positive judgments on human conduct independently of God’s revelation in Christ, the sometimes overlooked core of Barth’s argument is to be found in the chapters on Romans 9-11.
Here, the dialectical approach to theology is worked out by Barth in a renewed understanding of the classical reformed doctrine of double predestination. In traditional accounts, when Paul says that God “has mercy on whomever he wills, and hardens whomever he wills” (Rom. 9:18) this means that some individuals are the object of divine election, while others are the objects of divine reprobation. This theory, however, fails to take into account Paul’s conclusion in Rom. 11, where he famously asserts that “God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all” (Rom. 11:32).
According to Barth the elect and the reprobate are not two separate categories of human beings, but in Christ all are subject to God’s judgment as well as his grace. Most importantly, Barth perceives Paul’s words in Romans 11:32 (“For God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all”) to be the key for understanding Paul’s theology in the Epistle to the Romans as such. Paul’s conclusion is not to be understood, however, as if mercy neatly dissolves judgment in such a way, that judgment is rendered void of meaning. The two are to be understood dialectically, as contradictions that are nevertheless to be held together. This cannot be done through ordinary human logic and reason, but only through faith and hope.
In the Church Dogmatics, Barth would develop a more Christocentric understanding of double predestination, where Christ is the object of both election and reprobation, so that Christ takes part in the rejection of humanity in order that humanity may join in his election, but this is arguably a development of the dialectical understanding, rather than an alternative.
In a chapter of The Epistle to the Romans called ‘The Hope of the Church’, Barth writes:
“‘For God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all’ […] Our understanding or our misunderstanding of what Paul means – and not only Paul – by the key words, God, Righteousness, Man, Sin, Grace, Death, Resurrection, Law, Judgment, Salvation, Election, Rejection, Faith, Hope, Love, the Day of the Lord, is tested by whether we do or do not understand this summary. How are we to spell out the meaning of those great words? In what context are we to interpret them? Well! it is this passage which provides the standard by which they can be measured, the balance in which they can all be weighed. In its own way, it is the criterion by which every one who reads or hears the Epistle is himself judged; for by it the final meaning of ‘Double Predestination’ seeks to make itself known. Pregnant with meaning is the diving shutting up; pregnant also is the divine mercy. Most significant is the first all; most significant also is the second all – for even these last run the risk of being reckoned among those who, as Calvin says, nimis crasse delirant. Here it is that we encounter the hidden, unknown, incomprehensible God, to whom nothing is impossible, the Lord, who is as such our Father in Jesus Christ. Here is the possibility of God pressing upon us, vastly nigh at hand, vastly rich, but also vastly beyond our understanding. Here is Beginning and End, the road and the goal of the thought of God. Here is the object of faith, which may never be depressed to an ‘object’. Here is the inner meaning of Christianity, which defies analysis. The Church hopes. Well, this is the hope of the Church. There is no other hope. Would that the Church might comprehend it!” (Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 421)
Irenaeus of Lyon (130-202) is widely acknowledged for his emphasis on the unity of God and the history of salvation. Crucial for the salvation of humankind is the humanity of Christ. In the incarnation of Christ humanity is united to God, Christ becoming the head of fallen humanity instead of Adam.
In his polemic against “the heretics” (Gnostics, etc.) Irenaeus in a central passage developed this idea, and emphasized that Christ lived through a common life in order to have all human beings born again. Irenaeus writes:
Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself — all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence,Colossians 1:18 the Prince of life, Acts 3:15 existing before all, and going before all. (Against Heresies II.22.4)
Notes for a sermon in the Baptist church of Bornholm, spring 2018
“And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one.” (John 10:22-30)
Giovanni Paolo Panini, Christ among the Doctors 1743
“You are not my sheep”.
These are hard words. The Jews in Jesus’ time must have been accustomed to think of themselves as the flock of the Lord. The Old Testament is full of language drawn from shepherding: “The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want”, etc. (Psalm 23).
‘But’, says Jesus when he discusses with the pharisees in front of the temple, ‘you are not my sheep. If you were you would believe in me.’ How are we to understand Jesus’ words?
As I’ve understood it, there’s the thing with sheep that what matters is not so much what exactly is being said, but who says it. Sheep obviously doesn’t understand much, but they recognize the voice of their shepherd, and they follow when they hear his voice.
Notice that Jesus says ‘you don’t believe, because you are not my sheep’. We are used to think of it the other way round. We usually think that we decide whether we want to believe and be disciples of Jesus. As if hearing is a choice.
But the point here is the opposite. Just as the sheep don’t pick and choose their shepherd, we don’t get to choose whether we belong to Jesus’ flock or not. His sheep hear his voice, because they are his flock. They who believe Christ do so because they are his, because he has chosen them.
But who are then Jesus’ flock? Who hears him and believes him? Who, in other words, belong to the church?
Not the self-righteous religious elite. The pharisees are too busy with their identity as the chosen people, their holiness and morality. They are so busy that they have become completely deaf and incapable of hearing God’s address to them in Christ.
Instead, all kinds of sinners, tax collectors and prostitutes gather around Jesus. It turns out that Jesus’ sheep are the unmoral, the unholy, the unrighteous. Not the religious. Not the moral.
But what is it, then, that they hear when they hear his voice? What does it mean to hear the voice of the Lord?
We hear God’s voice in Christ when we understand that he is the Son of God. That he and the Father are one, as he puts it. Those who hear the voice of Christ, follow and obey him, are those who confess that Jesus is the Son of God (1 Jn 5:1). This is to obey Christ.
The identity of Jesus Christ as one with God the Father has been at the core of every Christian confession since the ancient church. Not morality. Not eschatology. Not even soteriology, but Christ himself is the gospel.
That Jesus and the Father are one is good news, as this means that everything which belongs to the Father also belongs to Jesus. ‘What the Father has given me is greater than everything’, says Jesus. In John 3:35 we hear that ‘everything’ has been put in the hands of the Son by the Father.
This lends an important perspective to the words about those who belong to Jesus’ flock and those who don’t.
That everything is in the hands of Jesus means that the Jews are also in his hands – even if they don’t recognize him as their shepherd, even if they do not hear him and obey him.
Yet.
The Jews do not yet follow, obey and confess Christ as the Son of God. Most people don’t. But they will, as we know from Paul. Eventually all will kneel and confess that Christ is Lord (Phil. 2:10).
When the pharisees in front of the temple heard Jesus saying that they were not his sheep, they have probably heard it as a complete rejection of their status as elect. But the Jews have not lost their election. In regards to the gospel they are enemies, but in regards to election they are beloved (Rom. 11:28-31).
We who confess Christ know that they are also in his hands, as all are. To belong to the flock of Christ – to be a part of his church – means to confess that he is one with the Father and that all and everything has been put into his hands. This also means to have a hope that is larger than a particular and narrow hope for the elect only. This larger hope is exactly what distinguishes the church from the pharisees of Jesus’ time and indeed all religious elites who want to narrow down the gospel.
I’m currently working on a sermon on ‘the sign of Jonah’ in Matthew 12:38-42. Jesus makes it clear that “just as Jonah was in the stomach of the sea creature for three days and three nights,so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights”. This suggests that the book of Jonah is quite relevant for understanding the gospel.
Jonah in the whale, on a door in Waterland (Netherlands)
The story of Jonah needs no further introduction. Jonah was called to be a prophet, but tried to escape. Having been thrown overboard and swallowed by the “sea creature”, Jonah sings a song, thatseems to indicate a turning point in the story:
“In my distress I called to the Lord, and he answered me. From deep in the realm of the dead I called for help, and you listened to my cry. You hurled me into the depths, into the very heart of the seas, and the currents swirled about me; all your waves and breakers swept over me. I said, ‘I have been banished from your sight; yet I will look again toward your holy temple.’ The engulfing waters threatened me, the deep surrounded me; seaweed was wrapped around my head. To the roots of the mountains I sank down; the earth beneath barred me in forever. But you, Lord my God, brought my life up from the pit. “When my life was ebbing away, I remembered you, Lord, and my prayer rose to you, to your holy temple. “Those who cling to worthless idols turn away from God’s love for them. But I, with shouts of grateful praise, will sacrifice to you. What I have vowed I will make good. I will say, ‘Salvation comes from the Lord.’” (Jonah 2:2-9)
Jacques Ellul, The Judgment of Jonah (Eerdmanns 1971)
How are we to understand the song that the prophet Jonah sings at the bottom of the depth? Some possible answers may be found in Jacques Ellul’s book on Jonah (I hope to make use of it when finishing my sermon, we’ll see).
Jonah, being a sign anticipating Christ’s death and resurrection, is, according to Ellul, actually in hell (Sheol, “the realm of the dead“). But this is exactly where he experiences the grace of God, even if he has not yet seen deliverance.
What Jonah realizes is that God’s grace is both eternal and permanent, even when it has not been recognized as such. In this way Ellul develops a core theme in dialectical theology, where God’s ‘yes’ is always implicit in his ‘no’, his mercy in his judgment.
“Jonah, even while he is not saved, even while he is at the nadir of his misery, in hell, suddenly rediscovers the permanence of grace: “I called to the Lord, out of my distress, and he answered me.” Jonah has not been answered if we take the answer to be rescue from the belly of the fish, salvation from hell. But he has been answered if we take the answer to be adoption under the care of God who takes on the totality of our sufferings, dramas and situations. He is answered because grace does not fail in any way, and even if there is no visible, actual and personal sign, Jonah can state that the answer takes place because grace has been granted to him from all eternity. Jonah rediscovers this grace of God at the very moment his situation is hopeless and to all appearances nothing more is to be expected. His refusal and flight were clearly outside grace. Events have taken place without any indication of a favorable intervention, only signs of judgment. But suddenly, when he has accepted his condemnation, when he has acknowledged before God that he was guilty and that God was just, he sees that at no point did God cease to show him grace. Under condemnation in hell he finds the faithfulness which permits him to say: “Thou hast answered me.” In his return to God he comes to know God again. There is no bargain: “I repent and so you show grace.” God has been gracious from the very beginning. He does not change when man returns to him. He simply brings to light his hidden mercy and makes his general and eternal benediction near and actual. In all these twists, in this debate, in the fall of Jonah, grace has never left him. Quite the contrary! But it is in hell that he really comes to take account of it.” (Jacques Ellul, The Judgment of Jonah (Eerdmanns 1971), pp. 48f).
Christoph Blumhardt (1842–1919) was a German pastor whose Christian radicalism and emphasis on the living kingdom of God against bourgeois personal pietism and religion influenced theologians such as Karl Barth and Jürgen Moltmann.
Action in Waiting is a collection of sermons that presents Blumhardt’s thinking in an easily accessible manner. This is not complicated theological speculation, but clear words about the all-embracing grace of the Kingdom of God.
Blumhardt’s dialectical point is that only when we are ready to wait for the coming Kingdom of God are we truly able to act in the world here and now. Our religious practices and affiliations do not bring the Kingdom of God a bit closer: A comfortable Christianity will never change the world, says Blumhardt. Instead we must await the Kingdom in “active expectation”. Most importantly the Kingdom of God cannot be limited to the “church” or certain pious persons, but must embrace the whole world.
From the book:
“[…] we must begin to speak of God’s kingdom in a new way. In spite of present-day conditions where much of the church and of Christian fellowship is almost dead, we can speak of God’s kingdom to men and women of our time. The kingdom of God is and was and will be the rulership of justice, of order, of power, of authority, of all that is of God, over creation. This is what moves those of us who seek, and this must come more fully into being. And unless our lives are molded according to this rulership, we shall always remain dissatisfied.”
“I am frequently saddened to hear and see how so many people who call themselves Christians, and often even real Christians, cannot bring themselves to wish good to all people as they wish it for themselves. How few are filled with God’s gift of forgiveness! Instead most set themselves apart by setting themselves above others. But if we are awaiting the Savior, then we are awaiting the forgiveness of the world’s sins, not just our own (1 John 2:2).”
Jürgen Moltmann (1926-) is a German reformed theologian and professor emeritus of systematic theology at the University of Tübingen.
In his important work, The Crucified God (first released in German in 1972 as Der gekreuzigte Gott. Das Kreuz Christi als Grund und Kritik christlicher Theologie), Moltmann established the crucified Christ as the criterion of all Christian theology. Moltmann, with Luther, affirms that the cross is the test of everything which deserves to be called Christian (‘Crux probat omnia’).
Theological reflection cannot start with abstract, philosophical ideas about God or systematic theories about sin, justice, predestination and so on, but must start with the cross. We know first of all God, not as the omnipotent creator and judge, but as the crucified Christ.
When we let the crucifixion of Christ determine our theological concepts, this has radical and all-embracing consequences for how we view the relationship between God and human beings in general. Moltmann further argues, that putting the crucified Christ in center of Christian faith and theology, is the only way for the church to show the world the freedom from the forces of history and society that Christ offers.
Moltmann’s The Crucified God also anticipates his version of a Christian universalism known from his later book The Coming of God. Moltmann, with Christoph Blumhardt, argues that the cross is “Christianity for all the world”, as the cross dissolves all distinctions between human beings, including those “between Christians and non-Christiand, the pious and the godless” (p. 280).
From the book:
“The cross is not and cannot be loved. Yet only the crucified Christ can bring the freedom which changes the world because it is no longer afraid of death.” (p. xix)
“Whatever can stand before the face of the crucified Christ is true Christian theology. What cannot stand there must disappear.” (p. xii)
“[…]the theology of the cross is the true Christian universalism. There is no distinction here, and there cannot be any more distinctions. All are sinners without distinction, and all will be made righteous without any merit on their part by his grace which has come to pass in Christ Jesus (Rom. 3:24). As the crucified one, the risen Christ is there ‘for all’. In the cross of the Son of God, in his abandonment by God, the ‘crucified’ God is the human God of all godless men and those who have been abandoned by God.” (pp. 279-280)
Jacques Ellul (1912-1994) was a French sociologist, theologian, and professor of law at the University of Bordeaux.
In his short book (a long essay) on the Old Testament book of Jonah, Ellul finds the meaning of the story of Jonah in its prophetic relation to Jesus Christ.
The key to understanding Jonah’s descent into the abyss and his subsequent salvation is Jesus’ own interpretation of “the sign of Jonah” as anticipating his death and resurrection (eg. Matt. 12:38-42).
While the book of Jonah is valuable for reflecting on our own personal experiences with God, its ultimate meaning is unveiled by the gospel about the relation of all human beings to God through Christ.
“What is really intimated is the adventure of Jesus. What happens to Jonah happens to Jesus. For Jesus took on him the fulness of man. We are thus confronted here by the insoluble mystery of the unity of all men in Christ. If all are dead in Adam, all are made alive in Christ. This is why the Book of Jonah, so rich in instruction for each of us (our life, our personal problems), for Israel, and for the Church, is also the prophetic book of Jesus Christ. Jesus truly lives the life of each of us. All that Jonah is in his abandonment, revolt, and misery, and later in his discussions with God, all this Christ has assumed, transformed into prophecy who the Savior and Messiah is and what he will do. Conversely, it is also a revelation that what happens to Christ will all happen to man. If Christ in Jesus takes on our adventures and condition, he gives us in exchange his own sanctity and righteousness. The Book of Jonah is essentially prophetic in this twofold relation.” (p. 59)
“The Book of Jonah has no conclusion, and the final question of the book has no answer, except from the one who realizes the fulness of the mercy of God and who factually and not just mythically accomplishes the salvation of the world.” (p. 103)
“For God has made all men prisoners, that he may have mercy upon all.” (Rom 11:32)
In his groundbreaking commentary on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Swiss reformed theologian Karl Barth, noted that Romans 11:32 is the key to understanding Paul’s theology. God’s all-embracing judgment on everything human has only one purpose: All-embracing mercy. God’s ‘no’ cannot be understood apart from his ‘yes’.
When Barth during his professorship in Basel started preaching for the inmates in the city’s prison, he took up again once more this insight. The thought that God’s grace is close to all, even though we are all imprisoned by sin, is recurrent in Barth’s prison sermons from the period – though perhaps most explicitly, of course, in his sermon on Romans 11:32 from 1957. Can we imagine a more appropriate place to preach, that God has made all prisoners, that he may have mercy on all?
We must start with the fact that God had mercy and will have mercy on all – that his will and work are determined and governed by his compassion. This he proved in Jesus Christ not only by words, but by the mightiest of his deeds. He gave himself for us in his dear Son and became man, our brother. This is the mighty deed and through it the word of God’s mercy on all has been spoken. We may and we must stick to this truth and ever anew begin with it.
God has mercy on us. He says ‘yes’ to us, he wills to be on our side, to be our God against all odds. Indeed against all odds, because we do not deserve this mercy, because, as we rightly suppose, he should say ‘no’ to us all. But he does not say ‘no’; he says ‘yes’. He is not against us; he is for us. This is God’s mercy.
Contrary to human mercy even in its kindest expression God’s mercy is almighty. It is almightily saving and helpful. It brings light, peace and joy. We need not be afraid that it might be limited or have strings attached. His ‘yes’ is unequivocal, never to be reversed into ‘no’.
Since God’s mercy is divine and not human, it is poured out on all men, as emphasized in our text [Rom. 11:32]. In his letter to the Romans Paul interprets this mercy by insisting that it is extended to the Jews and the Gentiles – to those near, or at least nearer, to God and to those far away from him – to the so-called pious and the so-called unbelievers – to the so-called good and the so-called evil people – truly to all. God has mercy on all, though on each one in his own way. God’s mercy is such as it is described in the parable of the lost sheep, of the lost coin, and of the prodigal son.
Let us pause for a moment. As according to God’s holy word, spoken in Jesus Christ, he has mercy on all, each one of you may and shall repeat – not after me, but after him -‘I am one of them’. God has mercy on me and will have mercy on me. The one great sin for anyone right now would be to think: ‘This is not meant for me. God does not have mercy on me and will not have mercy on me.’ […] The one great sin from which we shall try to escape this morning is to exclude anyone from the ‘yes’ of God’s mercy. […]
‘God has made all men prisoners of disobedience.’ What does this mean? What kind of imprisonment is this? […] The text insists that God has made all men prisoners of disobedience. All, including me, the preacher if this Sunday sermon? Yes, including me! Including the good or at least the better fellows among you? Yes, including them! Including the best people that ever lived or may live on earth? Yes, including these! The all-knowing God declares that all, each one in his own way, yet each and all, are prisoners of disobedience.
We must again pause for a moment. Because this is our common predicament, non shall secretly exempt himself; none shall point to the other fellow as a more obvious target; none shall think of himself as an exception, if only a half-exception or a quarter-exception. My brothers and sisters, everything depends on our readiness not to escape at this point. Not only because there is no escape – but because an escape would work to our disadvantage. Our peace and our joy, our salvation in time and eternity are here determined. We are not to deny, but to acknowledge, not to mutiny against, but to confess: God has made me and you prisoners of disobedience. […]
The arms of his eternal love, if I may say so, are already outstretched when he makes us prisoners of disobedience. He does so in order to have mercy on all. He keeps us, the prisoners of disobedience, togehter like a shepherd his flock. He keeps us in line and holds us in check. He places us on the very spot where his mercy is operative and manifest, he gathers us as his people, transfers us into a community of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he has made Jesus Christ our Saviour by delivering his own beloved and obedient Son to disobedience and death in our place. […] (Karl Barth, Deliverance to the Captives (Wipf & Stock Pub 2010), “All!”, pp. 85ff)
The following poem by the German pastor and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, was written in 1944, two days before he participated in the failed attempt to kill Hitler. According to Bonhoeffer, to live in the world as a Christian is to partake in the sufferings of Christ by living a ‘wordly’ life, without religion. God is with all people in their sufferings. Bonhoeffer concludes:
Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945)
People go to God when they’re in need, plead for help, pray for blessings and bread, for rescue from their sickness, guilt, and death. So do they all. All of them, Christians and heathens.
People go to God when God’s in need, find God poor, reviled, without shelter or bread, see God devoured by sin, weakness, and death. Christians stand by God in God’s own pain.
God goes to all people in their need, fills body and soul with God’s own bread, goes for Christians and heathens to Calvary’s death and forgives them both.
The original text in German:
Menschen gehen zu Gott in ihrer Not, flehen um Hilfe, bitten um Glück und Brot um Errettung aus Krankheit, Schuld und Tod. So tun sie alle, alle, Christen und Heiden.
Menschen gehen zu Gott in Seiner Not, finden ihn arm, geschmäht, ohne Obdach und Brot, sehen ihn verschlungen von Sünde, Schwachheit und Tod. Christen stehen bei Gott in Seinen Leiden.
Gott geht zu allen Menschen in ihrer Not, sättigt den Leib und die Seele mit Seinem Brot, stirbt für Christen und Heiden den Kreuzestod, und vergibt ihnen beiden.
– Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945), Works, Volume 8, Letters and Papers From Prison, pp. 460-61 / Widerstand und Ergebung, DBW Band 8, Seite 515 f
75. Nor let the words ‘before the world’ and ‘before He made the earth’ and ‘before the mountains were settled’ disturb any one; for they very well accord with ‘founded’ and ‘created;’ for here again allusion is made to the Economy according to the flesh. For though the grace which came to us from the Saviour appeared, as the Apostle says, just now, and has come when He sojourned among us; yet this grace had been prepared even before we came into being, nay, before the foundation of the world, and the reason why is kindly and wonderful. It beseemed not that God should counsel concerning us afterwards, lest He should appear ignorant of our fate. The God of all then — creating us by His own Word, and knowing our destinies better than we, and foreseeing that, being made ‘good Genesis 1:31,’ we should in the event be transgressors of the commandment, and be thrust out of paradise for disobedience — being loving and kind, prepared beforehand in His own Word, by whom also He created us , the Economy of our salvation; that though by the serpent’s deceit we fell from Him, we might not remain quite dead, but having in the Word the redemption and salvation which was afore prepared for us, we might rise again and abide immortal, what time He should have been created for us ‘a beginning of the ways,’ and He who was the ‘First-born of creation’ should become ‘first-born’ of the ‘brethren,’ and again should rise ‘first-fruits of the dead.’ This Paul the blessed Apostle teaches in his writings; for, as interpreting the words of the Proverbs ‘before the world’ and ‘before the earth was,’ he thus speaks to Timothy ; ‘Be partaker of the afflictions of the Gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who has abolished death, and brought to light life 2 Timothy 1:8-10.’ And to the Ephesians; ‘Blessed be God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with all spiritual blessing in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, according as He has chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself Ephesians 1:3-5.’
76. How then has He chosen us, before we came into existence, but that, as he says himself, in Him we were represented beforehand? And how at all, before men were created, did He predestinate us unto adoption, but that the Son Himself was ‘founded before the world,’ taking on Him that economy which was for our sake? Or how, as the Apostle goes on to say, have we ‘an inheritance being predestinated,’ but that the Lord Himself was founded ‘before the world,’ inasmuch as He had a purpose, for our sakes, to take on Him through the flesh all that inheritance of judgment which lay against us, and we henceforth were made sons in Him? And how did we receive it ‘before the world was,’ when we were not yet in being, but afterwards in time, but that in Christ was stored the grace which has reached us? Wherefore also in the Judgment, when every one shall receive according to his conduct, He says, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world Matthew 25:34.’ How then, or in whom, was it prepared before we came to be, save in the Lord who ‘before the world’ was founded for this purpose; that we, as built upon Him, might partake, as well-compacted stones, the life and grace which is from Him? And this took place, as naturally suggests itself to the religious mind, that, as I said, we, rising after our brief death, may be capable of an eternal life, of which we had not been capable , men as we are, formed of earth, but that ‘before the world’ there had been prepared for us in Christ the hope of life and salvation. Therefore reason is there that the Word, on coming into our flesh, and being created in it as ‘a beginning of ways for His works,’ is laid as a foundation according as the Father’s will was in Him before the world, as has been said, and before land was, and before the mountains were settled, and before the fountains burst forth; that, though the earth and the mountains and the shapes of visible nature pass away in the fullness of the present age, we on the contrary may not grow old after their pattern, but may be able to live after them, having the spiritual life and blessing which before these things have been prepared for us in the Word Himself according to election. For thus we shall be capable of a life not temporary, but ever afterwards abide and live in Christ; since even before this our life had been founded and prepared in Christ Jesus.
77. Nor in any other way was it fitting that our life should be founded, but in the Lord who is before the ages, and through whom the ages were brought to be; that, since it was in Him, we too might be able to inherit that everlasting life. For God is good; and being good always, He willed this, as knowing that our weak nature needed the succour and salvation which is from Him. And as a wise architect, proposing to build a house, consults also about repairing it, should it at any time become dilapidated after building, and, as counselling about this, makes preparation and gives to the workmen materials for a repair; and thus the means of the repair are provided before the house; in the same way prior to us is the repair of our salvation founded in Christ, that in Him we might even be new-created. And the will and the purpose were made ready ‘before the world,’ but have taken effect when the need required, and the Saviour came among us. For the Lord Himself will stand us in place of all things in the heavens, when He receives us into everlasting life. This then suffices to prove that the Word of God is not a creature, but that the sense of the passage is right. But since that passage, when scrutinized, has a right sense in every point of view, it may be well to state what it is; perhaps many words may bring these senseless men to shame. Now here I must recur to what has been said before, for what I have to say relates to the same proverb and the same Wisdom. The Word has not called Himself a creature by nature, but has said in proverbs, ‘The Lord created me;’ and He plainly indicates a sense not spoken ‘plainly’ but latent , such as we shall be able to find by taking away the veil from the proverb. For who, on hearing from the Framing Wisdom, ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways,’ does not at once question the meaning, reflecting how that creative Wisdom can be created? Who on hearing the Only-begotten Son of God say, that He was created ‘a beginning of ways,’ does not investigate the sense, wondering how the Only-begotten Son can become a Beginning of many others? For it is a dark saying ; but ‘a man of understanding,’ says he, ‘shall understand a proverb and the interpretation, the words of the wise and their dark sayings Proverbs 1:5-6.’
The following is a paper originally presented at a conference at International Baptist Theological Seminary (IBTS) in Amsterdam on how to reconcile conflicting convictions. The paper was also published in Baptistic Theologies (no. 1 Spring 2016).
A central discussion in Protestant orthodoxy has been that between those who affirmed the sovereignty and the predestining election of God on the one hand, and those who affirmed the general scope of the atonement and the freedom of human beings to reject grace on the other. While both assumed an eschatology where only some human beings would finally be saved, a third position was held by theologians who simultaneously affirmed the sovereignty of God and the generality of his love and the atoning sacrifice of Christ. Some of these were Anabaptists or Baptists, who argued that the conflicting opinions in Protestant orthodoxy about the sovereignty of God and the freedom of the human will could be reconciled by applying some sort of biblical universalism.
Introduction
Should we emphasize the sovereignty of God at the cost of having to narrow the scope of his love and mercy and the freedom of human beings? Or should we instead emphasize the universal scope of God’s love as well as the freedom of human beings to resist grace at the cost of God’s sovereignty? Questions such as these seem to have been at the core of many theological controversies in the slipstream of the Reformation.
The broad variety of answers makes the period of Protestant Orthodoxy somewhat confusing: Lutheran Orthodoxy seems to have had more in common with Erasmus, and later the Arminians, than with Luther, who in turn seems to have been more Calvinist than Calvin himself. The High and Hyper-Calvinists of the 18th century were neither Lutheran nor Calvinists in the sense of Calvin, while the Anabaptists and Baptists did not seem to embrace an idea of universal salvation as was claimed in the Augsburg Confession. Or did they? Well, some did, and some even saw the doctrine of universal salvation as a way of reconciling the conflicting beliefs about God’s omnipotence and sovereignty on the one hand and the freedom of the human will to resist the general grace of God on the other. This will be the topic of the following.
My first example is Hans Denck (1500-1527), a contemporary of Erasmus of Rotterdam and Martin Luther, whose opposing views on the freedom of the human will Denck sought to reconcile by applying a concept of yieldedness or Gelassenheit. My second example is Georg Klein-Nikolai (1671-1723), author of The Everlasting Gospel, a work from around 1700 in which a form of restorationism is proposed as a way to reconcile Lutheran Orthodoxy with Reformed theology. My third and final example is the theology of Elhanan Winchester (1751-1797), who believed that a kind of biblical universalism much like that of The Everlasting Gospel could reconcile Calvinism and Arminianism especially as conceived by the Particular Baptists and the General Baptists respectively.
As already suggested in the above, the background of this whole discussion is the problem of how theology should handle the sovereignty and omnipotence of God on the one hand and the responsibility and freedom of human beings to choose between belief and unbelief on the other. This issue was at the core of one of the most important discussions of the Reformation, namely that between Erasmus of Rotterdam and Martin Luther. In 1524 Erasmus released his book On Free Will (De libero arbitrio diatribe sive collatio) in which he argued that human beings possess some degree of freedom in their relationship to God and that the traditional Augustinian doctrine of predestination was not biblical.
Luther, against Erasmus, famously held the view that the human will is not free in relation to God. As he put it, the human will is in bondage – either to God or the Devil. Thus it depends on the predestining decision of God alone whether a person will have saving faith in the Gospel or not. According to his revealed will it is true that God wants all people to be saved (1 Timotheus 2. 4), says Luther, but there is also a hidden will of God outside revelation that will not give all persons the capability of accepting faith.1In other words, Erasmus defended the general scope of God’s love as well as the freedom of human beings to reject grace in spite of this love, while Luther held that God sovereignly and unconditionally decides who to love andwho to hate – and who will as a result of this love have saving faith and who will not.
Yielding to God
With Erasmus many Anabaptists, such as Balthasar Hubmaier, held some notion of the freedom of the human will and the belief that human beings should actively choose to believe in or follow Christ.2 But this was just one of many doctrines which separated the Lutherans from the Anabaptists. Besides the obvious disagreement on baptism another important disagreement seems to lie behind the condemnations against the Anabaptists in the 17th article of the Augsburg Confession. This article condemns the Anabaptists for their alleged belief that there will be an end to the punishments of condemned men and devils.
The condemnations of the 17th article of the Augsburg Confession does not at face value reflect the conflicting opinions on the freedom of the human will. But even so, for those Anabaptists who were subject to the condemnations, there might have been an implicit connection between some sort of soteriological universalism and an alternative view on the freedom of the human will.
This was at least the case for the South German Anabaptist leader Hans Denck. Hans Denck was born in 1500, studied in Ingolstadt and became acquainted with the Anabaptists at the time of the Reformation.3 Hans Denck not only sought a middle way between Erasmus and Luther on the issue of the freedom of the will, but also argued that damnation is only a temporary step on the way to salvation. Damnation and salvation are not irreconcilable opposites but parts of a greater whole.
An important source of inspiration for Hans Denck seems to have been the anonymous work Deutsche Theologie, probably from the 14th century.4 In this work, which was also positively received by the young Martin Luther, a kind of spiritualism in the vein of German medieval mysticism is developed. An important element in the Deutsche Theologie is what has been called resignatio ad infernum. This theme is worked out as the human self is said to be unable of doing any good in and of itself. In order to be saved, the human self must be broken down in a spiritual hell where it is deprived of all hope, and as a result is made to turn to God. This framework was taken over by Hans Denck.
As was also common in the tradition of mysticism, Denck showed a high appreciation of paradoxes. According to Denck theological schisms and sects arise when people take out passages from Scripture and ignore the fact that there are always passages which seem to contradict each other. But truth can only be found, says Denck, by reconciling seemingly contradictory statements.5 Prophets can seem to disagree, but if they lead to God they all lead to truth.6 This approach to theological disagreements was also expressed in Denck’s positive approach to Jews and Judaism. Werner Packull has for this reason called Hans Denck ‘the ecumenical anabaptist’.7
Denck’s desire to reconcile oppositions can be seen clearly in his approach to the discussion on the freedom of the will. At face value there seems to be two possible options, namely that human beings are either free or unfree in their relation to God.8 But, says Denck, both claims are in themselves true. But when made by sinful human beings both claims are at the same time untrue, as they speak about human nature from human nature itself. But it makes no difference whether we call the human will free or in bondage. The truth about human freedom should be found in neither of these two claims, but in a third point. This third point is the breaking down of the human will, free or not, in yieldedness or Gelassenheit.
In his short treatise Divine Order, Denck describes how this works. Denck writes:
God desires everyone to be saved, 1 Timotheus 2. 4, 2 Peter 3, but knows full well that many condemn themselves, Romans 9. If then his will were to force anyone through a mere order, he could say the word this instant and it would happen, Matthew 8, Luke 7. But this would diminish his righteousness.9
So far, this sounds much like usual arguments for the freedom of human the will to choose between belief and unbelief. But Denck goes on to argue that as soon as the godless person rejects God he ‘has come to the place for which he was predestined, which is hell.’ But, says Denck:
He does not necessarily want to nor need he remain there, of course, Psalm 77; for even hell is open to the Lord and damnation has no cover, Job 26. [Hell] is not mightier than his strong arm except in the highest righteousness which we call his wrath, when he inflicts upon us the pains of hell, Psalm 18, and makes us aware of our misery that we might call on him in our despair for him to help us, Hosea 9.10
The point is that God inflicts on us the pains of hell in order to make us aware of our misery, so that we may eventually call upon God and be saved, Denck argues. Denck bases his position on passages in scripture such as Romans 11. 32 where Paul states that ‘God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all‘ (ASV). God, in other words, humbles in order to save. But where this for Paul seems to have worked historically in the relationship between Israel and the Gentiles, for Denck it was more an inner, spiritual experience. Human beings need to go through an existential experience of being lost and damned in order to come to faith and thus salvation. Human beings are not saved from hell, but through hell.
In a similar way Denck in his confession states that the office of Christ is twofold (rather than threefold as, e.g., in Eusebius and Calvin) as Christ through Law and Gospel destroys the unbeliever and brings life to the believer. But, says Denck, ‘all believers were once unbelievers. Consequently, in becoming believers, they thus first had to die in order that they might thereafter no longer live for themselves, as unbelievers do, but for God through Christ […]’. David verifies this, Denck notes, as he says that ‘The Lord leads down into hell and up again’ (1 Samuel 2. 6-8).
While many scholars have held Denck to be a universalist others have argued that he was probably not since he did hold to a belief in some degree of human freedom to reject grace.11 I will not go further into this discussion here, but only mention that it is far from obvious that Denck believed that anyone would in fact keep on rejecting God forever. At any rate, the position of Hans Denck should not be considered a humanism of the Erasmian sort where human beings are not so depraved by nature that they are incapable of choosing their own destiny.12 By nature human beings are only free to do evil. But neither is Denck’s position that of Luther’s. Human beings are not forced into accepting grace, but as God works on the human will it will eventually break down and yield before God.
Hans Denck’s position could be characterized as a kind of critical spiritualism.13 Human beings cannot be said to be good by nature, as they are incapable of doing anything but evil by themselves, says Denck.14 In order to do good human beings must be led to faith by the spiritual crisis inflicted on the self by the judgment of God which breaks down the human self. This is why faith is not a matter of exercising the human will, free or not, but of not exercising the human will in Gelassenheit. In faith human beings become nothing to themselves and thus something to God.15 Human beings are not in this way predestined to belief or unbelief in the strict deterministic sense, but are made to yield by God’s active work in the spirit.
The Everlasting Gospel
While Luther’s view was taken over by Calvin and formulated in terms of a double predestination, a moderate version closer to Erasmus’ view was formulated by Melanchton as the claim that human beings, while not capable of choosing faith in God, are capable of resisting grace. This view became common in subsequent Lutheran Orthodoxy as we know it from the Formula of Concord in which it is repeatedly stated that human beings are capable of resisting the Holy Spirit.16
Thus in the 17th century the positions held by Luther and Erasmus were now more or less represented by Calvinism and Lutheran Orthodoxy respectively. While the Reformed (Calvinist) side on the one hand accentuated double predestination and the belief that God sovereignly saves the elect, Lutheran Orthodoxy emphasized the generality of the atonement and the ability of human beings to resist grace on the other.
Now, a theological strategy somewhat similar to that of Denck’s can be found in Georg Klein-Nikolai’s pseudonymous work Das von Jesu Christo dem Richter der Lebendigen und der Todten, aller Creatur zu predigen befohlene ewige Evangelium, von der durch Ihn erfundenen ewigen Erlösung, wodurch alles dem Richter der Lebendigen und der Todten, aller Creatur zu predigen befohlene ewige Evangelium, von der durch Ihn erfundenen ewigen Erlösung, wodurch alles published in the name Paul Siegvolck.
Georg Klein-Nikolai was an associate of the radical pietist Johann Wilhelm Petersen and his theology seems to have drawn on Petersen, who was in turn influenced by Jane Leade and the Philadelphians. Another source of influence may have been the Schwarzenau Brethren, a radical pietistic group of German Baptists also known as the Neue Täufer or the Tunkers.17Alexander Mack, the founder of the Schwarzenau Brethren, expressed a belief that after the collapse of several eternities or aeons there would be a final and universal restoration of all things, in which the godless through Christ would finally be saved from their torments in hell.18 It is not, however, necessary to talk or speculate much about it, says Mack. It is much better to practice truth here and now than deliberating about how to escape the torments of hell at a later point. Even though the doctrine of the universal restoration of all things is true, ‘it should not be preached as a gospel to the godless’.
The doctrines of radical pietist universalists such as Mack and Petersen seem to have been derived partly from Jacob Boehme and perhaps Origen. The theology of The Everlasting Gospel was similarly Origenistic in its understanding of the history of salvation as progressing through ages or aeons, culminating in a final telos, the restitution of all things or apokatastasis pantonthrough Christ. But while Origen eagerly emphasized human freedom, The Everlasting Gospel is more reserved.
It does seem, however, that the author of The Everlasting Gospel allows some degree of free choice of human beings between belief and unbelief. Those who chooses not to believe will be subject to harsh punishments in this and the coming world. But this is not an eschatological freedom in the sense that human beings in particular points of time can ultimately choose their final destination. God has designed punishments in order to correct the sinner so that the sinner will eventually be led into salvation – again, in this world or the world to come. Klein-Nikolai writes:
The Holy Scripture declares that wicked men both can and do oppose and resist God; As also that no creature can resist the will of God. Though here seems an apparent contradiction, yet both these positions may well consist together;19
The creatures may resist the will of God, says Klein-Nikolai. This does not mean, however, that there is an ability and power in them, whereby they might repel and conquer the power and might of God that works in and upon them, in such a way that God could never get his will with the rebellious creatures.
The belief that creatures are in all eternity capable of resisting God makes creatures stronger than God and thus opens the way to all kinds of ‘iniquity and atheistic mockery’, says Klein-Nikolai.20 It is only with God’s permission that the creature is allowed to resist God. The purpose is, says Klein-Nikolai, that ‘the creatures, who will not voluntarily choose the salvation and well-being offered to them, may taste of the bitter fruits of their disobedience’. As a result the rebellious creatures will be finally conquered and thus ‘give themselves up to their Creator’, who is ‘able to subdue all’.21
The point is again, as with Hans Denck, that even if human beings have some degree of freedom, this freedom is essentially relative and subordinated to God’s sovereignty. Human beings do not have the ultimate freedom to choose their own destiny. God’s purposes cannot be thwarted. But in distinction to the more Augustinian view of the human will as conceived by High Calvinism, God does not work directly upon the will or mind of human beings but only indirectly. By inflicting suffering on the human person God directs the will of that person into eventually accepting his free grace.
As with Denck it is central for Klein-Nikolai that it is simultaneously true that human beings are capable of resisting God on the one hand and that no creature can resist the will of God on the other. But truths most be reconciled in God’s plan of salvation. And moreover, Klein-Nikolai likewise saw the doctrine of universal salvation as having a reconciliatory potential between conflicting opinions on the freedom of the human will. As he says:
This holy doctrine likewise shows the right foundation of divine election and eternal reprobation, and demonstrates both to Lutherans and Calvinists as well wherein each party is right, as what they want of the understanding of this important point.22
Lutheran Orthodoxy is correct in claiming that God wills the salvation of all human beings and that he saves all who in this life come to faith in Christ. Likewise the Calvinists are right in teaching that all who God wills to be saved shall actually be saved: ‘Those whom God will have to be saved, will actually be saved. Now God plainly declares in his word, that he will have all men to be saved; therefore all men will be really saved at last.’23 Klein-Nikolai adds that the doctrine of universal restoration is also capable of deciding the dispute with the Roman Catholics about purgatory.24
The Everlasting Gospel was made available for the American audience by the German Baptists (Schwarzenau Brethren) of Germantown in Pennsylvania as it was translated and published in English in 1753. It was this book which would become a main source of inspiration for Elhanan Winchester, who will be discussed in the following.
The Outcasts Comforted
Elhanan Winchester was born in Massachusetts, USA, in 1751. He was raised in a Congrationalist setting but after a conversion experience he joined a Free Will (General) Baptist church in which he became a preacher. Winchester seems to gradually have become convinced of a High Calvinist theology in the vein of John Gill, and, after renouncing Arminianism, Winchester became a minister in a Calvinistic (Particular) Baptist church, first in Bellingham (MA) and then in Welsh Neck (SC).
Winchester originally came from a moderate Calvinist standpoint and only subsequently became convinced of the High Calvinism of John Gill, who believed that the Gospel should be preached primarily, or only, to the elect rather than everyone indiscriminately. As suggested by Finn it was his missionary zeal and the possibility to preach repentance and conversion to all human beings that later made Winchester drop High Calvinism. Winchester himself writes that he esteemed John Gill almost as an oracle, but at some point began to adopt a more open and general method of preaching as he found himself stirred up to exhort his fellow creatures to repent and believe the Gospel. Winchester points out, however, that he did not consider whether this was consistent with strict Calvinism or not.25
After a friend of Winchester’s in 1778 brought the English edition of The Everlasting Gospel to Welsh Neck, Winchester became more and more convinced of universalism. Later Winchester would make contact to the German Baptists of Germantown and he would write the foreword for a later edition of The Everlasting Gospel which he published in London in 1792. In the foreword to this edition Winchester noticed that:
The system held out in the following pages appears to me the only one that in the least bids fair to unite the two great bodies of Christians, that have so long and so bitterly opposed each other, viz. those who assert that Christ died for all, and yet that there shall be but few, comparatively, that shall finally derive any saving benefit therefrom; and those who assert that all for whom the savior died shall indeed be saved, but that he died only for a few.26
Winchester notes that it seems highly unlikely that either of these sects should change their principles. The one charges the other with a lack of benevolence while the other charges the one with lacking a proper view on the omnipotence of God. For a reconciliation to take place between these two opinions, it must be ‘on some middle ground where both may meet without giving up their favorite opinions’, says Winchester.27 Such a middle ground is exactly what ‘the system of the Universal Restoration’ offers. As soon as the doctrines of Universal Restoration are accepted, says Winchester, it will bring reconciliation between the two opposing bodies of doctrines in Christian theology.
In Elhanan Winchester’s time and context the conflicting convictions fleshed out in the above were represented by Arminianism and Calvinism. In Reformed theology the opposition between an idea of some degree of freedom of the will to choose faith in the Gospel, and the idea that there is no such freedom, had become most explicit during the controversies on the views of Jacob Arminius (1560-1609) and the Remonstrants who shared his views on conditional election (the condition being foreseen faith) and the general scope of the atonement.
The main points of Arminianism, though maybe not exactly expressive of the views of Jacob Arminius himself, is often formulated something along the following lines: (1) In spite of sin, human beings have the freedom to choose between belief and unbelief, (2) human beings are never so controlled by God that they cannot reject the Gospel, (3) God’s election of the saved is prompted by His foreseeing that they will believe of their own accord, (4) Christ’s death did not ensure the salvation or the gift of faith to anyone, but created a possibility of salvation for all who believe, and (5) it rests with believers to keep themselves in a state of grace by keeping up their faith.
In response to Arminianism a synod was held in Dordrecht (the English name being Dort) in 1618-1619 by the Dutch Reformed Church together with eight voting representatives from foreign Reformed churches. Against the Arminians the Synod of Dort formulated five points which would become known in the English by the T.U.L.I.P. acronym. The acronym is perhaps most famous for its insistence on the unconditionality of election and the irresistibility of grace coupled with its claim that the atonement was limited to the elect.
In the 17th century this debate became relevant for Baptists who formed separate denominations. On the one hand there were the General Baptists who followed the first English Baptists John Smyth’s and Thomas Helwys’ beliefs (similar to the Mennonites) in a general atonement combined with a belief in the freedom of the human will to accept the Gospel and follow Christ. On the other hand there were the Particular Baptists who followed the Synod of Dort in holding to a limited atonement combined with a belief in irresistible grace.28
It was these positions that Winchester sought to reconcile using the universalist doctrines contained in The Everlasting Gospel. For Winchester, universalism offered a way of affirming the key principles of both High Calvinism and Arminianism in ‘one grand system of benevolence’, as he puts it in his dialogues on Universal Restoration.29 This is not to say that Winchester necessarily had a very high view of theological systems. In his dialogues on universal restoration he even suggests that it is exactly because people have preferred systems to the simple truth of the gospel that they have thought it necessary to diminish the omnipotence or love of God: ‘O the mischiefs of bigotry, prejudice, and vain attachment to system!’30.
Even so, in On the Outcasts Comforted it is as a system of thought that universal restoration is thought to reconcile the conflicting bodies of theological doctrine. What Winchester proposes is an ecumenical system of thought. As Robin Parry notes, ‘the universalist system understood as a theological via media seemed to Winchester, perhaps somewhat naïvely, to have some ecumenical potential in bringing Calvinists and Arminians together.‘31That Winchester’s ecumenical hopes were really quite naïve is clear from the controversy that his views awoke.
Of course Winchester’s universalism was by many not seen as being very conciliatory – on the contrary. Winchester’s successor in Welsh Neck saw Winchester as ‘the means of dividing the Baptist Church‘ in the city, while Winchester himself relates how he was treated with enmity from former friends.32In the following years after Winchester’s profession of universalism he and his congregation would experience exclusion and marginalization from the broader evangelical community which would eventually lead to the foundation of an independent Universal Baptist church.
In 1782 Winchester addressed this issue in a sermon delivered at the University in Philadelphia. The sermon was later printed with the title The Outcasts Comforted: A SERMON Delivered at the University in Philadelphia, January 4, 1782 To the Members of the BAPTIST CHURCH, who have been rejected by their Brethren, For holding the Doctrine of the final Restoration of all Things. Winchester argues in the sermon that it is strange that the Universal Baptists are looked upon as heretics when they only affirm the doctrines already held by others:
I have often considered it with astonishment, that two ministers shall preach, and prove what they say from the scriptures, and neither of them shall be looked upon as holding damnable heresy, and yet we shall be looked upon as the worst of heretics by both of them, and all their people, for believing only what both of them put together have asserted.33
Winchester’s attempt to reconcile Arminianism and Calvinism should not be confused with the so-called Middle-Way Calvinism which sought to avoid the doctrinal conflicts between the two, often simply by not mentioning the extreme positions. Rather, Winchester’s position takes in the extremes in a very explicit way and makes them part of a greater system. With Arminianism Winchester affirms that God loves all, while with Calvinism Winchester affirms that all the object’s of God’s love will be saved. And with Arminianism Winchester affirms that God desires all people to be saved, while with Calvinism he affirms that all God’s purposes will be fulfilled. With Arminianism Winchester affirms that Christ died for all, and with Calvinism he affirms that all for whom Christ died will be saved so that the blood of Christ was not shed in vain:‘One will declare that the blood of Jesus Christ was freely shed for all; the other, that his blood is infinitely sufficient to cleanse and purify all. This is what we believe.’34
So how should we characterize Winchester’s position? Based on Winchester’s own claims Robin Parry suggests that Winchester believed in a general atonement and universal salvation from early on, but suppressed these beliefs in order to ‘conform to the Calvinist theology he had been raised with’.35 This does not, however, match well with Winchester’s other claims of having esteemed John Gill ‘almost as an oracle’, made in the foreword to the dialogues, and the fact that he joined the Calvinist Baptist church in Bellingham (MA).36 According to Finn, Winchester believed in High Calvinism for a period, but ‘did not reject Calvinism for universalism, but rather rejected High Calvinism for Arminianism, though his commitment to universal penal substitutionary atonement encouraged him to eventually affirm universal salvation.’37 Winchester only left the ‘revival-friendly Baptist evangelicalism of his early ministry’ for a similarly revival-friendly conversionistic or eschatologically conscious evangelical universalism.38
But was Winchester an Arminian more than a Calvinist as the above suggests? Hardly. Winchester describes the revelation of Christ’s love that converted him as compelling (‘a manner as constrained me’), so it seems that we are not here dealing with the Arminian freedom to choose between belief and unbelief.39 The counsel of God shall stand and he will perform his pleasure, notwithstanding all the opposition that men can make, says Winchester with reference to Isaiah (Isaiah 46. 10). If God will have all men to be saved, as we hear in the first epistle to Timothy (1 Timotheus 2. 4) and if God is determined to perform his pleasure and if nothing is impossible with God, as stated in Luke 1. 37, then ‘is not the doctrine of the Restoration true?’, Winchester asks rhetorically.40
God gets his will by inflicting pain on the human self in order to make it yield. In this way Winchester, as Denck and Klein-Nikolai, affirms that God only punishes in order to correct: ‘Punishment to a certain degree, inflames and enrages, in a most amazing manner; but continued longer, and heavier, produces a contrary effect–softens humbles, and subdues.’41 But God is love from the beginning, and his love towards human beings does not only begin in the moment that persons are converted. It seems that for Winchester, when the love of God is revealed to a person it does not begin at that point but is simply made manifest.42 This looks like the idea of eternal justification (not to be confused with supralapsarianism, though apparently compatible with this idea) which can be found in High Calvinism where the sinner is not redeemed in the moment of faith but from eternity, so that the moment of faith is only the point in time where the sinner realizes that he or she is already justified and redeemed from before creation.
It does not seem that Winchester dropped Calvinism for Arminianism, or that he was never really a Calvinist, but rather that he found a way to combine what he saw as the core principles of both. Winchester took in and kept Calvinism’s belief in the sufficiency of the cross to redeem sinners and that God in his sovereignty will in the end get his will and save all the objects of his love. It was only the soteriological particularism of Calvinism that Winchester left behind as he embraced universalism and an Arminian method of preaching.
The more precise way of characterizing Winchester’s position would be that he was both a Calvinist and an Arminian, in so far as he simultaneously emphasized the sovereignty and omnipotence of God on the one hand and the love of God and the generality of the atonement on the other. In this he was not far from Hans Denck and Georg Klein-Nikolai.
Conclusion
The views described above were not new. Gregory of Nyssa argued in the 4th century that the perfections of God implies all His other perfections, since the opposite of one perfection can never be reconciled with other perfections.43 For Gregory this meant that God’s goodness and his righteousness are never exclusive but rather two sides of the same coin – and that all would eventually because of this be saved, not from but through death. It was this kind of theology which can be recognized later in, e.g., the anonymous Deutsche Theologie – the 14th century anonymous work that influenced Hans Denck so much, and which seems to have had a greater impact on Protestant theology than has often been acknowledged.
The ecumenical potential in reconciling conflicting positions on the omnipotence and love of God and the freedom of human beings was noticed by theologians of different streams in the 19th and 20th centuries. But in a Protestant context this tradition of thinking to a large degree originated in a (b)aptist setting. The future will show if baptists are capable of learning from this aspect of their tradition. This is not to say that all baptists should suddenly turn soteriological universalists (something which is unlikely to happen, though miracles do occur, also among baptists), but rather that we can learn from the theological method of bringing together opposites in a larger whole as a way of reconciling conflicting convictions.
This is not to say that we should at all costs construct complex theological systems, but rather that we may also have to learn to keep apparent as well as very real contradictions, paradoxes and conflicts alive without ultimately choosing the one pole over the other. That many modern protestants have become better at at least respecting differences among themselves seem to be clear, but respect for differing opinions must not be confused with post-modern relativism or subjectivism, but can just as well be seen as a particular theological method which can be found in the larger baptist tradition.
As Robin Parry remarks, one of the truly inspiring things about Winchester was his belief that Christians must debate with love and gentleness, and with an openness to being persuaded to change their views in the light of Scripture.44 While Klein-Nikolai may have been more stern in his views, he too held an ecumenical hope. A similar hope seems to have been held by Hans Denck who may have been even more cautious than Winchester in his attempts to avoid controversy and reconcile conflicting opinions. At the end of the day, what they all teach us is that insisting on God’s love and sovereignty is not a bad way of overcoming doctrinal disputes, no matter what positions we may hold.
Bibliography
Hans Denck, Schriften. T. 1-3, Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte / Bd. 24.6. (ed. Walter Fellman, 1956)
Rufus M. Jones, Spiritual Reformers in the 16th and 17th Centuries (London: Macmillan & Co., 1914)
Georg Klein-Nikolai, The Everlasting Gospel (Copenhagen: Apophasis, 2015) <http://www.apophasis.dk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/The-Everlasting-Gospel.pdf>
Morwenna Ludlow, ‘Why Was Hans Denck Thought To Be a Universalist?’, in The Journal of Ecclesiastical History Issue 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 257-274.
Martin Luther (ed.), Eyn Deutsch Theologia, etc. (Wittenberg 1518)
Alexander Mack, Rights and Ordinances; trans. H. R. Holsinger, History of the Tunkers and the Brethren Church (Oakland, Cal.: Pacific Press Publishing Co., 1901).
Kirk R. MacGregor, ‘Hubmaier’s Concord of Predestination with Free Will’, in Direction: A Mennonite Brethren Forum 35, no. 2 (2006), pp. 279-99.
Werner O. Packull, Mysticism and the Early South German-Austrian Anabaptist Movement 1525-1531 (Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 1977).
Johannes Aakjær Steenbuch, ‘Kærlighedens dialektiker: Karakteristik af Hans Dencks kritiske spiritualisme’, in Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift 77/3 (Copenhagen: Anis, 2014), pp. 218-234.
Peter Toon, The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity,1689-1765 (London: The Olive Tree, 1967).
Elhanan Winchester, The Universal Restoration: exhibited in a series of dialogues between a minister and his friend: comprehending the substance of several conversations that the author hath had with various persons, both in America and Europe, on that interesting subject, wherein the most formidable objections are stated and fully answered (UR) (London: Gillet, 1788).
Elhanan Winchester, The Outcasts Comforted. A sermon delivered at the University of Philadelphia, January 4, 1782 (Philadelphia: Towne, 1782).
Elhanan Winchester, Letter to the Rev. C. E. De Coetlogon, A.M. Editor of President Edwards’s lately revised sermon on the eternity of Hell-torments (London: Scollick, 1789).
1E.g., Martin Luther, De Servo Arbitrio (1525), WA 18,685.
2Kirk R. MacGregor, ‘Hubmaier’s Concord of Predestination with Free Will’, in Direction: A Mennonite Brethren Forum 35, no. 2 (2006), pp. 279-99; Morwenna Ludlow, ‘Why Was Hans Denck Thought To Be a Universalist?’, in The Journal of Ecclesiastical History Issue 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 257-274.
3See Clarence Bauman, The Spiritual Legacy of Hans Denck (Leiden: Brill, 1991).
4Eyn Deutsch Theologia, etc. (Wittenberg 1518); Bernard McGinn, The Harvest of Mysticism (New York: The Crossroad Pub. Co., 2005), p. 393.
5Hans Denck, Schriften. T. 1-3, Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte / Bd. 24.6. (ed. Walter Fellman) (Gütersloh, 1956); Denck II.68.14; Denck II.58.18-21.
12In this I tend to disagree with, e.g., Rufus Jones, Werner Packull and others. See Rufus M. Jones, Spiritual Reformers in the 16th and 17th Centuries (London: Macmillan & Co., 1914); Packull 1977, p. 58.
13See Johannes Aakjær Steenbuch, ‘Kærlighedens dialektiker: Karakteristik af Hans Dencks kritiske spiritualisme’, in Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift 77/3 (Copenhagen: Anis, 2014).
17It is not clear how closely associated Klein-Nikolai was with the Schwarzenau Brethren, or whether he was one of them, but his theology seems to express some basic ideas of theirs.
18Alexander Mack, Rights and Ordinances; trans. H. R. Holsinger, History of the Tunkers and the Brethren Church (Oakland, Cal.: Pacific Press Publishing Co., 1901), pp. 113-115.
19Georg Klein-Nikolai, The Everlasting Gospel (Copenhagen: Apophasis, 2015 (1700)), p. 18
25Winchester, The Universal Restoration, pp. viii-ix.
26Winchester 1792, foreword to The Everlasting Gospel.
27Winchester 1792, foreword to The Everlasting Gospel.
28A leading proponent of Particular Baptist theology was the English Baptist pastor and biblical scholar John Gill (1697-1771) whose views are sometimes described as Hyper-Calvinism. Peter Toon, The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity, 1689-1765 (London: The Olive Tree, 1967).
29Winchester, The Universal Restoration II.A3 (chapter II, answer 3).
36Winchester, The Universal Restoration, pp. viii-ix.
37Nathan A. Finn, ”The Making of a Baptist Universalist”, p. 12.
38Nathan A. Finn, ”The Making of a Baptist Universalist”, p. 15. Finn distinguishes this form of universalism from the non-conversionistic universalism of John Murray and others who believed that the general atonement of Christ was sufficient for saving all without conversion in this life.
I recently got the chance to finally read Jürgen Moltmann’s theological classic The Crucified God. I’ll post more on that later. Below is an excerpt where Moltmann contemplates the confession of the Gentile centurion, who stood in front of Jesus as he died: “Surely this man was the Son of God!” (Mark 15:39) and how that relates to Jesus’ appearances to his disciples after his resurrection.
Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press 2015)
“The confession of faith does not come from a pious disciple of Jesus, nor even from a Jew, who might have some understanding, but from the Gentile, Roman centurion who was presumably in charge of the execution squad. Whereas only the disciples who had fled had a part in the Easter appearances, and they shared with the Jews a certain common context in which to set Jesus’ ‘resurrection from the dead’ when they began to preach, according to Mark the passion and the cross of Jesus is directed immediately towards the Gentiles. If the Easter appearances were only perceived in the utmost privacy by the disciples, and if the message of the resurrection was at first understandable only in the realm of Israelite apocalyptic traditions, this happened publicly through the crucifixion of Jesus. Indeed, it even happened outside the gate of the city of Jerusalem with its temple, and therefore outside the boundary of Israel, on Golgotha, and outside the ‘hedge of Israel’, i.e., its legal tradition. It happened, in fact, on the boundary of human society, where it does not matter whether a person is Jew or Gentile, Greek or barbarian, master or servant, man or woman, because death is unaware of all these distinctions. So the crucified one does not recognize these distinctions either. If his death is proclaimed and acknowledged as the death of the Son of God ‘for many’, as by that centurion, then in this death God’s Son has died for all, and the proclamation of his death is for all the world. It must undermine, remove and destroy the things which mark men out as elect and non-elect, educated and uneducated, those with possessions and those without, the free and the enslaved. The Gentile-Christian proclamation concerns all men, because confronted with the cross all men, whatever the differences between them and whatever they may assert about each other, ‘are sinners and fall short of the glory of God’ (Rom. 3:23). ‘Here there is no distinction’ (Rom. 3:23a). Gentile-Christian proclamation must therefore essentially be the proclamation of the crucified Christ, i.e. the word of the cross (1 Cor. 1:18). The proclamation of the cross is ‘Christianity for all the world’ (Blumhardt), and may not erect any new distinctions between men, say between Christians and non-Christians, the pious and the godless. Its first recognition leads to self-knowledge: to the knowledge that one is a sinner in solidarity with all men under the power of corruption. Therefore the theology of the cross is the true Christian universalism. There is no distinction here, and there cannot be any more distinctions. All are sinners without distinction, and all will be made righteous without any merit on their part by his grace which has come to pass in Christ Jesus (Rom. 3:24). As the crucified one, the risen Christ is there ‘for all’. In the cross of the Son of God, in his abandonment by God, the ‘crucified’ God is the human God of all godless men and those who have been abandoned by God.” (Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God 2015, pp. 279-280)
Melito of Sardis (d. c. 180) was bishop of Sardis in Asia minor. In his Easter sermon (On the Passover) Melito explained, among other things, how the Old Testament prefigured the coming and suffering of Christ, the “Passover lamb” who was fully God and fully man. The mystery of Passover, explains Melito, is both new and old, eternal and temporal.
In the final part of his sermon Melito superbly describes how Christ has defeated death by dying himself after being judged for the condemned:
“Who is my opponent? I, he says, am the Christ. I am the one who destroyed death, and triumphed over the enemy, and trampled Hades under foot, and bound the strong one, and carried off man to the heights of heaven, I, he says, am the Christ.” (On the Passover §102)
Joakim Skovgaard, Christ’s Descent Into Hades (Kristi nedfart til dødsriget)
Melito of Sardis On the Passover (excerpts)
Introduction
1. First of all, the Scripture about the Hebrew Exodus has been read and the words of the mystery have been explained as to how the sheep was sacrificed and the people were saved.
2. Therefore, understand this, O beloved: The mystery of the passover is new and old, eternal and temporal, corruptible and incorruptible, mortal and immortal in this fashion:
3. It is old insofar as it concerns the law, but new insofar as it concerns the gospel; temporal insofar as it concerns the type, eternal because of grace; corruptible because of the sacrifice of the sheep, incorruptible because of the life of the Lord; mortal because of his burial in the earth, immortal because of his resurrection from the dead.
4. The law is old, but the gospel is new; the type was for a time, but grace is forever. The sheep was corruptible, but the Lord is incorruptible, who was crushed as a lamb, but who was resurrected as God. For although he was led to sacrifice as a sheep, yet he was not a sheep; and although he was as a lamb without voice, yet indeed he was not a lamb. The one was the model; the other was found to be the finished product.
5. For God replaced the lamb, and a man the sheep; but in the man was Christ, who contains all things.
6. Hence, the sacrifice of the sheep, and the sending of the lamb to slaughter, and the writing of the law–each led to and issued in Christ, for whose sake everything happened in the ancient law, and even more so in the new gospel.
7. For indeed the law issued in the gospel–the old in the new, both coming forth together from Zion and Jerusalem; and the commandment issued in grace, and the type in the finished product, and the lamb in the Son, and the sheep in a man, and the man in God.
8. For the one who was born as Son, and led to slaughter as a lamb, and sacrificed as a sheep, and buried as a man, rose up from the dead as God, since he is by nature both God and man.
9. He is everything: in that he judges he is law, in that he teaches he is gospel, in that he saves he is grace, in that he begets he is Father, in that he is begotten he is Son, in that he suffers he is sheep, in that he is buried he is man, in that he comes to life again he is God.
10. Such is Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever. Amen.
[…]
4. Predictions of Christ’s Sufferings
57. Indeed, the Lord prearranged his own sufferings in the patriarchs, and in the prophets, and in the whole people of God, giving his sanction to them through the law and the prophets. For that which was to exist in a new and grandiose fashion was pre-planned long in advance, in order that when it should come into existence one might attain to faith, just because it had been predicted long in advance.
58. So indeed also the suffering of the Lord, predicted long in advance by means of types, but seen today, has brought about faith, just because it has taken place as predicted. And yet men have taken it as something completely new. Well, the truth of the matter is the mystery of the Lord is both old and new–old insofar as it involved the type, but new insofar as it concerns grace. And what is more, if you pay close attention to this type you will see the real thing through its fulfillment.
59. Accordingly, if you desire to see the mystery of the Lord, pay close attention to Abel who likewise was put to death, to Isaac who likewise was bound hand and foot, to Joseph who likewise was sold, to Moses who likewise was exposed, to David who likewise was hunted down, to the prophets who likewise suffered because they were the Lord’s anointed.
60. Pay close attention also to the one who was sacrificed as a sheep in the land of Egypt, to the one who smote Egypt and who saved Israel by his blood.
61. For it was through the voice of prophecy that the mystery of the Lord was proclaimed. Moses, indeed, said to his people: Surely you will see your life suspended before your eyes night and day, but you surely will not believe on your Life. Deut. 28:66.
62. And David said: Why were the nations haughty and the people concerned about nothing? The kings of the earth presented themselves and the princes assembled themselves together against the Lord and against his anointed. Ps. 2:1-2.
63. And Jeremiah: I am as an innocent lamb being led away to be sacrificed. They plotted evil against me and said: Come! let us throw him a tree for his food, and let us exterminate him from the land of the living, so that his name will never be recalled. Jer. 11:19.
64. And Isaiah: He was led as a sheep to slaughter, and, as a lamb is silent in the presence of the one who shears it, he did not open his mouth. Therefore who will tell his offspring? Isa. 53:7
65. And indeed there were many other things proclaimed by numerous prophets concerning the mystery of the passover, which is Christ, to whom be the glory forever. Amen.
5. Deliverance of Mankind through Christ
66. When this one came from heaven to earth for the sake of the one who suffers, and had clothed himself with that very one through the womb of a virgin, and having come forth as man, he accepted the sufferings of the sufferer through his body which was capable of suffering. And he destroyed those human sufferings by his spirit which was incapable of dying. He killed death which had put man to death.
67. For this one, who was led away as a lamb, and who was sacrificed as a sheep, by himself delivered us from servitude to the world as from the land of Egypt, and released us from bondage to the devil as from the hand of Pharaoh, and sealed our souls by his own spirit and the members of our bodies by his own blood.
68. This is the one who covered death with shame and who plunged the devil into mourning as Moses did Pharaoh. This is the one who smote lawlessness and deprived injustice of its offspring, as Moses deprived Egypt. This is the one who delivered us from slavery into freedom, from darkness into light, from death into life, from tyranny into an eternal kingdom, and who made us a new priesthood, and a special people forever.
69. This one is the passover of our salvation. This is the one who patiently endured many things in many people: This is the one who was murdered in Abel, and bound as a sacrifice in Isaac, and exiled in Jacob, and sold in Joseph, and exposed in Moses, and sacrificed in the lamb, and hunted down in David, and dishonored in the prophets.
70. This is the one who became human in a virgin, who was hanged on the tree, who was buried in the earth, who was resurrected from among the dead, and who raised mankind up out of the grave below to the heights of heaven.
71. This is the lamb that was slain. This is the lamb that was silent. This is the one who was born of Mary, that beautiful ewe-lamb. This is the one who was taken from the flock, and was dragged to sacrifice, and was killed in the evening, and was buried at night; the one who was not broken while on the tree, who did not see dissolution while in the earth, who rose up from the dead, and who raised up mankind from the grave below.
[…]
III. The Final Triumph of Christ
100. But he arose from the dead and mounted up to the heights of heaven. When the Lord had clothed himself with humanity, and had suffered for the sake of the sufferer, and had been bound for the sake of the imprisoned, and had been judged for the sake of the condemned, and buried for the sake of the one who was buried,
101. he rose up from the dead, and cried aloud with this voice: Who is he who contends with me? Let him stand in opposition to me. I set the condemned man free; I gave the dead man life; I raised up the one who had been entombed.
102. Who is my opponent? I, he says, am the Christ. I am the one who destroyed death, and triumphed over the enemy, and trampled Hades under foot, and bound the strong one, and carried off man to the heights of heaven, I, he says, am the Christ.
103. Therefore, come, all families of men, you who have been befouled with sins, and receive forgiveness for your sins. I am your forgiveness, I am the passover of your salvation, I am the lamb which was sacrificed for you, I am your ransom, I am your light, I am your saviour, I am your resurrection, I am your king, I am leading you up to the heights of heaven, I will show you the eternal Father, I will raise you up by my right hand.
104. This is the one who made the heavens and the earth, and who in the beginning created man, who was proclaimed through the law and prophets, who became human via the virgin, who was hanged upon a tree, who was buried in the earth, who was resurrected from the dead, and who ascended to the heights of heaven, who sits at the right hand of the Father, who has authority to judge and to save everything, through whom the Father created everything from the beginning of the world to the end of the age.
105. This is the alpha and the omega. This is the beginning and the end–an indescribable beginning and an incomprehensible end. This is the Christ. This is the king. This is Jesus. This is the general. This is the Lord. This is the one who rose up from the dead. This is the one who sits at the right hand of the Father. He bears the Father and is borne by the Father, to whom be the glory and the power forever. Amen.
“While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table. When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.” Aware of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. Truly I tell you, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.” (Matt. 26:6-16)
In the story of Jesus’ anointment by the woman at Bethany we have a peculiar measuring stick for whether the gospel is being preached or not: Wherever the gospel is preached, says Jesus, the story of this woman will also be told! I think the story is best told, though, with the immediate context in mind.
When Jesus had entered the city Palm Sunday riding on a donkey the crowd was hyped: ”Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!” (Matt. 21:9). Jesus was being hailed as the coming Messiah that was to bring back Israel’s lost greatness. In the eyes of the people he was a political leader, who was about to become king, fight the Romans and rebuild David’s kingdom.
Not long after Jesus’ entrance in Jerusalem he went to Bethany to dine in the house of a man called Simon the Leper. It was while seated there with his disciples, that suddenly a women came to Jesus, and poured expensive perfume over his head.
The disciples obviously saw this as quite inappropriate. Couldn’t this precious oil have been used for more reasonable purposes? Think of all the money that could have been released for the poor by selling it! And here she goes wasting it all!
But Jesus welcomes the woman and uses her devotion as a symbol: By anointing him with oil the woman has anointed Jesus to his coming death. Now, according to John the perfume was made from spikenard oil, a kind of oil used for anointing the dead on the on hand, but also for anointing kings on the other.
The point could be made here, I think, that when the woman anoints Jesus, she doesn’t just anoint him for his death, but also for his coming kingship. Or rather, these are two sides of the same coin. It is exactly through his death that Jesus becomes king. This is why he entered Jerusalem – not to become a worldly king or political leader like David, but to die on the cross.
This is what his disciples does not understand. Jesus’ disciples seem to have been more concerned about worldly justice, than with the righteousness of the kingdom of God. Often this is exactly what we do as well, even if we come to different conclusions. From a typical ”right-wing” standpoint we could argue that the woman, having the property rights over the perfume, had the right to do as she wanted with it. Or we could argue from a ”left-wing” standpoint, like the disciples, that the oil should have been sold and the money given to the poor.
But Jesus doesn’t care too much about our worldly ideas of justice. Our ideas of justice must die on the cross with Jesus, just as the crowd’s worldly ideas of the Messiah and his kingdom must go. But just as Jesus does not stay in the grave, our concepts of justice are not to stay dead either. Rather they are to be transformed by the kingdom of God.
We are to understand that in the light of Jesus’ resurrection, true justice and righteousness is something infinitely greater and wider and deeper, than anything we can imagine with our narrow concepts of justice. Jesus is himself the righteousness of God!
This is what the story of the woman with alabaster jar reminds us: That the kingdom of God explodes all our narrow concerns and ideas of justice. Instead we are to look to Jesus as the woman did. When we do that we are ready to help the poor, who are always with us in the kingdom. When we loose our concepts of justice we gain the possibility of true solidarity as we realize that we are one with the poor. The justice of the kingdom of God does not exclude worldly justice, but includes it and brings it all into a much wider perspective.
”Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!” (Matt. 21:9)
The gospel is simply the good news that Jesus Christ is the savior of the world, that he died for all, and that all has been and will be made righteous by his death. Theological ideologies, ’-isms’, are the attempts of human beings to impose limitations on the gospel, making it true only for some.
I don’t usually describe myself as a “universalist”. Here are some thoughts on why that is.
Angels with the “everlasting gospel”
The gospel not an “-ism”
We are often quick to define the Christian message in terms of one of the many theological systems that have been developed by theologians throughout history with the purpose of explaining how exactly it is that people are saved by Christ.
But the Christian message, the gospel, is not in itself a ”system” – not an ”-ism”, as in ”Pelagianism”, ”Augustinianism”, ”Lutheranism”, ”Arminianism”, ”Calvinism”, ”Methodism”, and so on. The gospel is not one ’-ism’ to be pitted against other ’-isms’, but simply the message that God in Jesus Christ has died and become alive in order to save humankind from sin and death.
To be a Christian simply means to confess Christ as the son of God and risen savior, not to adhere to this or that theological system.
Most theological systems, however, attempt to limit the gospel, by claiming that it is only partially good news, or only good news for some. Theological ideologies typically start out with the good news, but then add one or more conditions that must be fulfilled for the gospel to be true – e.g., ”…if you believe” or ”…if you are among the ’elect’” or ”…if you do certain things right”.
In either case the gospel is said to be limited by something other than the gospel, i.e. by the will of human beings or, perhaps, an obscure election and predestination made by some ’hidden God’ with ’two wills’ (Luther, Calvin). But ”the word of God is not chained” (2 Tim. 2:9). The good news cannot be limited by our theological systems.
What is the gospel?
The gospel is – to put it shortly – that God is ”light” and ”love” (1 John 1:5), that the kingdom of God is near (Mark 1:15), that God himself have become one of us in Jesus Christ(Luke 2:10) and that Jesus died as a propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2) in order to make our entrance into his kingdom possible – even if it is impossible for us as human beings (Matt. 19:26).
The gospel is that God has reconciled the whole world to himself through Jesus Christ (2 Cor 5:19). By his death Jesus has destroyed the power of death (Heb. 2:14).
But what about faith? Are we not required to willinglyaccept salvation in order for the gospel to be true ’for us’? Yes and no. We are freed from the fear of death when we believe the gospel and confess Jesus Christ as risen lord and savior. This is salvation here and now.
But as James Relly pointed out, even if we don’t believe, the gospel is still true for us, which is exactly why it should be believed. It is Jesus Christ alone that makes the good news true for all those for whom he died, not our decision to confess Jesus as lord. We can confess Jesus as lord because he already is lord.
Not “universalism”
The gospel does not in itself contain conditions that limit its scope. Universalists have claimed that the gospel is true for all human beings. But the gospel rightly understood isn’t for that reason ”universalism”, if by this we mean a theological system designed to convince people, that all will be saved eventually, etc.
Saying that ’all’ have been reconciled to God through Jesus’ sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, is not automatically ”universalism”. The gospel is not a theological system comparable to other theological systems like ”particularism” or ”conditionalism”. Elhanan Winchester clearly saw this when he exclaimed “O the mischiefs of bigotry, prejudice, and vain attachment to system!”. For Winchester it was our human systems that limited our experiences of the universal love of God, the theme of the gospel.
That God out of love has reconciled the world to himself through Christ, leading to acquittal and life for all human beings who became unrighteous in Adam (Rom 5:18-19), is simply the gospel, nothing more, not a theological system, an -ism or an ideology.
From this perspective there is something problematic in the formation of “universalist” denominations or churches based upon certain “universalist” theological systems. The gospel should be preached in all churches and all denominations, even those trying to limit its scope.
Is it still the gospel when limited?
The important thing is who you say Christ is. Being a Christian is first of all a matter of who you confess Christ to be: ”Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.” (1 John 4:15). That’s why all creeds for the first four or five hundreds years were all about who Christ is, and don’t even mention how many will be saved.
The fact that we are simultaneously sinners and justified (simul peccator et justus) does not first of all show in flawed morality or bad habits, but in our bad theology. No one has a pure faith and understanding of the gospel without flaws and influences from human ideology.
The gospel is the good news that Jesus is the savior of the world, but most people have a narrow and limited conception of what that means. This is only natural, however, as God has only revealed the truth in fragments for them. We still see in a mirror, darkly (1 Cor. 13:12).
Most Christians do not perceive the radicalism of the gospel. But those who hold to the unlimited gospel of infinite grace need not for that reason distance themselves from Christians with more limited conceptions of the gospel.
The gospel might still be the gospel even if expressed in a way that seems to limit its scope. What matters is whether the preacher cherishes the gospel or what limits the gospel most. If someone affirms the gospelas the core of Christian preaching, but also for some reason believes there to be limits to the gospel, then this might be excused as a result of a limited understanding of the gospel.
But if someone knowingly values the ’ifs’ and ’buts’ against the infinite character of the gospel and for this reason constantly tries to limit the gospel, then we might ask ourselves if we are not dealing with someone who does not believe the gospel at all? Only then is it time to leave and find a different church.
Tarek Saleeby (Lebanon) interviews Robin Parry (GB), author of The Evangelical Universalist. Parry explains his reasons for believing that everyone will eventually be saved through Christ. He also convincingly argues that Christian universalism is inside the scope of traditional Christian orthodoxy and should not as such be considered as ‘liberal’ heterodoxy.
Athanasius, On the Incarnation (St Vladimirs Seminary Press 2012). John Behr is formerly the Dean of St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, Professor of Patristics, and Editor of the Popular Patristics Series.
Athanasius’ On the Incarnation is certainly one of my all time favorite theological works. The Latin title of the book, written sometime during the 4th century, is De incarnatione Verbi Dei (On the Incarnation of God’s Word). In the book Athanasius explains why the incarnation is so central to the gospel. By becoming a human being the Word of God has joined itself to humanity, not just in, e.g., a contractual manner, but in a real ontological manner.
Like other Alexandrian theologians before him, such as Clement and Origen, Athanasius emphasizes human participation in Christ’s death and resurrection. With Paul he affirms that all have died with Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 5:14), because of our union with Christ through his incarnation. In this way the atonement on the cross is not so much about a forensic payment on our behalf as it is about our participation in the death and resurrection of Christ.
Athanasius tirelessly affirms the universal scope of Christ’s work, frequently referring to Christ as the “Savior of all” (De in. 21), even if he can at times also warn against the “eternal fire and outer darkness” (De in. 56) (it could be argued, though, that ‘eternal’ does not here mean of infinite duration, see Ilaria Ramelli’s book on The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis). The general mood of Athanasius’ treatise is one of wide-ranging hope and joy in the gospel. As such On the Incarnation is a good introduction to the central elements of the gospel.
“Therefore the body, as it had the common substance of all bodies, was a human body. If it was constituted by a new miracle from a virgin only, yet being mortal it died in conformity with those like it. Yet by the coming of the Word into it, it was no longer corruptible by its own nature but because of the indwelling Word of God it became immune from corruption. And thus it happened that both things occurred together in a paradoxical manner: the death of all was completed in the lordly body, and also death and corruption were destroyed by the Word in it. For there was need of death, and death on behalf of all had to take place, so that what was required by all might occur.” (De in. 20)
Some thoughts on the ordinance of baptism in the light of Epiphany.
At Epiphany, January 6, many Christians have traditionally celebrated the revelation of God as incarnate in Jesus Christ. One of the things commemorated at Epiphany is the baptism of Jesus (especially in the eastern church).
Ethiopian Biblical Manuscript U.Oregon Museum Shelf Mark 10-844.
But why did Jesus need to be baptized in the first place? John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance (Acts 19:4), but Jesus, being free of sin, did obviously not need to “repent”.
This was clear from John’s reluctance to baptize him. But Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” (Matt. 3:15). Then John consented to baptize Jesus.
So what does it mean that Jesus fulfilled “all righteousness” when he was baptized? Didn’t this only happen later, when he died at the cross?
I think we need to be aware, that the New Testament has a broad concept of “baptism”. Besides the baptism in water, there’s the baptism of the spirit, of course. But more important in this context, Jesus talks of his suffering and death as a baptism: ”But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed!” (Luke 12:50).
This is the baptism that fulfills all righteousness. Or rather, we might say that Jesus’ whole life, his ministry, beginning from his baptism by John in the Jordan until his suffering and death on the cross, is the “baptism” that fulfills all righteousness.
Perhaps we might even say, that just as all died with him on the cross (2 Cor 5:15), all were also baptized with him in Jordan. This seems to have been James Relly’s view, when he concluded that through our eternal union with Christ we have also by his baptism fulfilled all righteousness: “Has he fulfilled all righteousness? So have we. Is he justified? So are we.” (Relly 1776, pp. 125f).
James Relly and later Judith Murray concluded from the fact that we have in a sense already been baptized with Christ in Jordan, that we don’t need to be baptized in water now (though we need the baptism of the Spirit to know that we are justified by Christ). The ordinance of baptism in water they felt to be outdated.
I can follow the reasoning of Relly and Murray, though I don’t agree with their conclusion regarding the ordinance of baptism. It’s true that it is not our individual baptism in water that justifies us or unites us to Christ, as the sacramentalist churches have traditionally claimed. But this doesn’t mean that we should stop baptizing.
Baptists (like Richardson and Gill) have in distinction from sacramentalist churches traditionally claimed, like Relly and Murray, that it is Christ alone that justifies (and not, e.g., sacraments). But they have not for this reason stopped baptizing. Rather, individual baptism in water is our response to a reality that is already there.
Similarly, Karl Barth also taught that we are justified by Christ alone before we believe and are baptized. When Jesus was baptized he repented on behalf of the whole world, which was then reconciled to God. But like traditional baptists Barth also saw individual baptism as a response to our justification by Christ (Church Dogmatics IV,4).
This logic runs parallel to Paul’s when he says that God has reconciled the whole world to himself in Christ, but then goes on to exhort us to “be reconciled to God!” (2 Cor 5:17-20). We are reconciled, but are to be reconciled. Notice that this does not mean that our reconciliation by Christ is only ‘potential’, so that it must be put in effect by our choice and efforts (this would be an unevangelic synergistic conception). Our personal reconciliation to God is simply our response to the reconciliation that God has already put in effect for us in Christ.
Perhaps we could say in a similar vein, that we arealready baptized with Christ on the one hand, but that we are still to respond to this baptism with him in our own baptism on the other. This logic of baptism would accentuate believer’s baptism as the most appropriate form of baptism, but it wouldn’t (as traditional baptist accounts of baptism) exclude those baptized as infants as being ‘unbaptized’.
We are all baptized with Christ, but there are individual baptisms which are all signs of this “one baptism” (Eph. 4:5) which we confess together with the “one lord” who was baptized – some more, some less adequate, but never invalid (though this may seem to pedobaptists to devalue infant baptism it should be rather uncontroversial that as a sign believer’s baptism more closely corresponds to Jesus’ baptism).
Our baptism can never be a way to righteousness, but only a sign corresponding to the one incarnate Christ who has already fulfilled “all righteousness”. Happy Epiphany!
Notes based on a sermon @ Café Grace in Copenhagen.
“And lo, a messenger of the Lord stood over them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they feared a great fear. And the messenger said to them, `Fear not, for lo, I bring you good news of great joy, that shall be to all the people — because there was born to you to-day a Saviour — who is Christ the Lord — in the city of David” (Luke 2:9-11, YLT)
Prayer: Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, our Lord and savior. We are gathered in your name, and we thank you for being present among us. We pray that you will send your Spirit, and teach us what it means when you tell us not to fear. We have heard that a thousand times, but we still need to understand it, not just with our heads, but also with our hearts. In your name. Amen.
“Fear not, for I bring good news of great joy“. This is the message of Christmas: Do not fear. It’s the message of Christmas, and, in fact, the message of the whole bible – if we read it carefully, with the gospel in mind.
We have often heard that the phrase ‘do not fear’ appears 365 times in the bible. That’s one time for each day in the year. So we know very well that we are not supposed to worry. That we don’t need to. David writes about this in some of his Psalms:
“Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me.” (Psalm 23:4)
But still, David was often frigthened, worried, fearful and full of sorrows. It’s not only Jesus who says ‘my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ David also says that once. It seems that often, it doesn’t really help much telling ourselves that we don’t need to worry. David can tell himself that the Lord is his light and salvation, and that he does not need to fear. But when things doesn’t work out, and fear, sorrow and death knocks at our door, we need to hear it from God himself: “Do not fear.”
In the new testament, the first time we hear that we don’t need to fear is perhaps when Jesus is born. Luke tells us about that. The shepherds are sitting in the fields, when suddenly an angel appears before them, with amazing light and sound, and so on. Of course they were scared, but the angel tells them: “do not fear!, I bring you good news that will bring great joy to all people.” Why did Christ come to us as a human being? To free us from the fear of death. Hebrews tells us:
“Seeing, then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, he himself also in like manner did take part of the same, that through death he might destroy him having the power of death — that is, the devil — and might deliver those, whoever, with fear of death, throughout all their life, were subjects of bondage” (Heb. 2:14-15)
Icon of the transfiguration
Throughout his ministry Jesus repeatedly told people not to fear. One episode is what we call the ‘transfiguration’, when Jesus brings some of his disciples to the mountain Tabor, up in northern Israel. Suddenly Jesus is surrounded by light, his face is shining, and the disciples see Moses and Elijah, two of the great prophets from the old testament, talking with Jesus. One of Jesus’ disciples, Peter, immediately starts chatting, he says ‘Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah’. But while he was still speaking, a bright cloud covered them, and a voice said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!” (Luke 9:28-36). When the disciples heard this, they fell to the ground, terrified. But Jesus came and touched them: “Get up,” he said. “Don’t be afraid.” When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.
In the transfiguration it again becomes clear that Jesus has the authority to say ‘do not be afraid’. From now on, we don’t need the prophets. God himself has told us that it’s Jesus we need to listen to. So what is it that Jesus says? He says: ‘Get up, don’t be afraid!’ He doesn’t say: ‘it’s alright’, or ‘it’s probably not that bad’. He doesn’t start giving us reasons not to worry. No, he commands us to not be afraid! If any random person you met on the street told you that you don’t need to worry, you would shake your head. That’s just silly, what does strangers know about your problems? Maybe you don’t know where to sleep tonight. Maybe you don’t know where to get your next meal. But Jesus commands you: ‘Do not be afraid, do not worry!’. And he can do that, because he is not just anyone, but the son of God. And like a soldier in the army is not expected to ask all kinds of questions about how and why, Jesus don’t expect you to ask ‘why?’. He doesn’t give you all kinds of reasons. That he tells you not to worry is enough.
Not to worry is a commandment. But we still worry. We don’t follow Jesus’ commandment. And that’s the problem. Worrying is not just one of many problems. Worrying is actually at the root of sin itself! You probably remember the story of Cain and Abel? Cain and Abel were brothers. Abel a nomad, Cain a farmer. Abel was doing fine, but not Cain. And out of envy Cain killed Abel. Now God has mercy on Cain, and tells him that he will protect him, on the condition that he will live as a nomad, without a permanent home, just as his brother had done. God leaves a mark in Cain’s forehead, and tells him, that if anyone kills him he will be avenged. You can probably imagine, that Cain was thinking, ‘right, as if that would help me anything, being avenged after I’m killed.’
At any rate, Cain chooses not to follow God’s offer. Cain turns his back on God, and instead of living like a nomad, he builds the first city, Enoch. Enoch means something like ‘a new beginning’. It wouldn’t be strange if Cain was worried to death. Cain worries and builds a city. By building a city, a house with a roof, walls to protect him, he tries to find safety. But by inventing his own protection, he also rejects God’s protection. The bible is full of stories like that, about people who want to rely on what they have and possess and what they can do themselves, instead of on what God gives them. Always having great plans and ideals for the future, instead on relying on God. When we start worrying about what we have, that’s when we start competing about things. That’s when we start judging others. That’s when we start judging ourselves, and finally God. That’s sin. That’s death.
When Jesus comes to us, he comes to us in all our poverty. He was born on the edge of civilisation, in a manger. Jesus comes to us as one without possesions. Restless, like Cain. But unlike him Jesus accepts his situation. He comes to us as one who does not rely on wealth, but on God alone. And he tells his disciples to do the same. This is what Jesus talks about in the sermon on the mount.
“You cannot serve both God and Mammon. That is why I tell you not to worry about everyday life—whether you have enough food and drink, or enough clothes to wear. Isn’t life more than food, and your body more than clothing? Look at the birds. They don’t plant or harvest or store food in barns, for your heavenly Father feeds them. And aren’t you far more valuable to him than they are? Can all your worries add a single moment to your life? And why worry about your clothing? Look at the lilies of the field and how they grow. They don’t work or make their clothing, yet Solomon in all his glory was not dressed as beautifully as they are. And if God cares so wonderfully for wildflowers that are here today and thrown into the fire tomorrow, he will certainly care for you. Why do you have so little faith? So don’t worry about these things, saying, ‘What will we eat? What will we drink? What will we wear?’ These things dominate the thoughts of unbelievers, but your heavenly Father already knows all your needs. Seek the Kingdom of God above all else, and live righteously, and he will give you everything you need. So don’t worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring its own worries. Today’s trouble is enough for today.”
I think that when those of us, who are well off, hear this, we often hear it as something pretty and sweet. Like: don’t worry, be happy, it’s gonna be alright. Take it easy. But for others, it might rather sound like something that’s hard to believe. But really, don’t we all worry? And if we do, at the end of the day our worries are the same: Whether we worry about small things, like what pants to wear today, or whether we worry about how we will get fed tonight, at the end of our worries is always the same thing – death. Death is the one big worry that it all comes down to, death is the horizon of all our fears. We worry because we are afraid to lose what we have – ultimately our life.
But Jesus knows that we worry. When Jesus tells us not to worry, that’s good news. Jesus knows that his disciples worry, that’s why he tells them not to! But how do we stop worrying? Listen to the gospel: We know, that God knows what it means being a human being. Christ was one of us. He has been through death itself. Do you think he was feeling ‘alright’ when he was hanging on that cross? No! He was scared to death. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? But by going through death, Jesus also conquered death. He came out on the other side, resurrected, in body and soul.
God is love and has done what it takes to save us from the powers of death. God’s love is no mother’s love. It’s no soft love that protects you from all suffering and harm. He will let you go the same way as Jesus. Through death, at some point. But because of what Jesus did, on the other side of death, there’s life. Even here and now. There is a whole landscape of fear and worries, but beyond the horizon there is something completely new. This is why we do not need to fear – even death.
These notes are based on a sermon in Café Grace in Copenhagen 2013.
No Christmas without G.F. Händel’s oratorio Messiah. Händel’s popular masterwork is not just one of the most marvelous pieces of music ever written. The libretto by Charles Jennens also happens to present a perfect compilation of Bible verses from the King James versions of the Old Testament (especially Isaiah) and the New Testament. According to wikipedia, musicologist Watkins Shaw described it as “a meditation of our Lord as Messiah in Christian thought and belief”, which “amounts to little short of a work of genius”. This is pure gospel.
Jennens wasn’t completely satisfied with Händel’s composition (“He has made a fine entertainment of it, though not near so good as he might and ought to have done”), but Händel’s work has become one of the most well known classical pieces of all times.
This performance is from the Czech Republic (conducted by Václav Luks) (I’m not sure if it’s the “best performance”, but it’s good!).
Chamberlin the elder, Mason; Charles Jennens, Esq.; The Foundling Museum; http://www.artuk.org/artworks/charles-jennens-esq-191906
Chamberlin the elder, Mason; Charles Jennens, Esq.; The Foundling Museum; http://www.artuk.org/artworks/charles-jennens-esq-191906
Händel’s Messiah one of the most marvelous pieces of music ever written. But moreover, the libretto by Charles Jennens also happens to present a perfect compilation of Bible verses from the King James versions of the Old Testament (especially Isaiah) and the New Testament. According to wikipedia, musicologist Watkins Shaw described it as “a meditation of our Lord as Messiah in Christian thought and belief”, which “amounts to little short of a work of genius”. This is pure gospel.
PART ONE
1. Sinfonia (Overture)
2. Accompagnato
Tenor
Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.
Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned.
The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness; prepare ye the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
(Isaiah 40:1-3)
3. Air
Tenor
Ev’ry valley shall be exalted, and ev’ry moutain and hill made low; the crooked straight and the rough places plain.
(Isaiah 40:4)
4. Chorus
And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together:for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.
(Isaiah 40:5)
5. Accompagnato
Bass
Thus saith the Lord, the Lord of hosts:Yet once a little while and I will shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land.
And I will shake all nations; and the desire of all nations shall come.
(Haggai 2:6-7)
The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His temple, even the messenger of the Covenant, whom you delight in; behold, He shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.
(Malachi 3:1)
6. Air
Alto or soprano
But who may abide the day of His coming, and who shall stand when He appeareth? For He is like a refiner’s fire.
(Malachi 3:2)
7. Chorus
And He shall purify the sons of Levi, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.
(Malachi 3:3)
8. Recitative
Alto
Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call His name Emmanuel, God with us.
(Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23)
9. Air and Chorus
Alto
O thou that tellest good tidings to Zion, get thee up into the high mountain. O thou that tellest good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up thy voice with strength; lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, behold your g od!
(Isaiah 40:9)
Arise, shine, for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee.
(Isaiah 60:1)
Chorus
O thou that tellest. . . etc.
10. Accompagnato
Bass
For behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people; but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and His glory shall be seen upon thee.
And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.
(Isaiah 60:2-3)
11. Air
Bass
The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light;
and they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.
(Isaiah 9:2)
12. Chorus
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon His shoulder; and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.
(Isaiah 9:6)
13. Pifa (“Pastoral Symphony”)
14a. Recitative
Soprano
There were shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flocks by night.
(Luke 2:8)
14b. Accompagnato
Soprano
And lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them, and they were sore afraid.
(Luke 2:9)
15. Recitative
Soprano
And the angel said unto them:”Fear not, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.”
(Luke 2:10-11)
16. Accompagnato
Soprano
And suddenly there was with the angel, a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God, and saying:
(Luke 2:13)
17. Chorus
“Glory to God in the highest, and peace on earth, good will towards men.”
(Luke 2:14)
18. Air
Soprano
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Behold, thy King cometh unto thee; He is the righteous Saviour, and He shall speak peace unto the heathen.
Rejoice greatly. . . da capo
(Zechariah 9:9-10)
19. Recitative
Alto
Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped.
Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall sing.
(Isaiah 35:5-6)
20. Air (or Duet)
(Alto &) soprano
He shall feed His flock like a shepherd; and He shall gather the lambs with His arm, and carry them in His bosom, and gently lead those that are with young.
(Isaiah 40:11)
Come unto Him, all ye that labour, come unto Him that are heavy laden, and He will give you rest.
Take his yoke upon you, and learn of Him, for He is meek and lowly of heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
(Matthew 11:28-29)
21. Chorus
His yoke is easy, and His burden is light.
(Matthew 11:30)
PART TWO
22. Chorus
Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world.
(John 1:29)
23. Air
Alto
He was despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
(Isaiah 53:3)
He gave His back to the smiters, and His cheeks to them that plucked off His hair:He hid not His face from shame and spitting.
He was despised. . . da capo(Isaiah 53:6)
24. Chorus
Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows!
He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him.
(Isaiah 53:4-5)
25. Chorus
And with His stripes we are healed.
(Isaiah 53:5)
26. Chorus
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way. And the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
(Isaiah 53:6)
27. Accompagnato
Tenor
All they that see Him laugh Him to scorn; they shoot out their lips, and shake their heads, saying:
(Psalm 22:7)
28. Chorus
“He trusted in God that He would deliver Him; let Him deliver Him, if He delight in Him.”
(Psalm 22:8)
29. Accompagnato
Tenor
Thy rebuke hath broken His heart:He is full of heaviness. He looked for some to have pity on Him, but there was no man, neither found He any to comfort him.
(Psalm 69:20)
30. Arioso
Tenor
Behold, and see if there be any sorrow like unto His sorrow.
(Lamentations 1:12)
31. Accompagnato
Soprano or tenor
He was cut off out of the land of the living:for the transgressions of Thy people was He stricken.
(Isaiah 53:8)
32. Air
Soprano or tenor
But Thou didst not leave His soul in hell; nor didst Thou suffer Thy Holy One to see corruption.
(Psalm 16:10)
33. Chorus
Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of Glory shall come in.
Who is this King of Glory? The Lord strong and mighty, The Lord mighty in battle.
Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of Glory shall come in.
Who is this King of Glory? The Lord of Hosts, He is the King of Glory.
(Psalm 24:7-10)
34. Recitative
Tenor
Unto which of the angels said He at any time:”Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee?”
(Hebrews 1:5)
35. Chorus
Let all the angels of God worship Him.
(Hebrews 1:6)
36. Air
Alto or soprano
Thou art gone up on high; Thou hast led captivity captive, and received gifts for men; yea, even from Thine enemies, that the Lord God might dwell among them.
(Psalm 68:18)
37. Chorus
The Lord gave the word; great was the company of the preachers.
(Psalm 68:11)
38. Air (or « duet and Chorus »)
Soprano or alto (or soprano, alto and Chorus)
How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things.
(Isaiah 52:7; Romans 10:15)
39. Chorus (or air for tenor)
Their sound is gone out into all lands,
and their words unto the ends of the world.
(Romans 10:18; Psalm 19:4)
40. Air (or « Air and Recitative »)
Bass
Why do the nations so furiously rage together, and why do the people imagine a vain thing?
The kings of the earth rise up, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord, and against His anointed.
(Psalm 2:1-2)
41. Chorus
Let us break their bonds asunder, and cast away their yokes from us.
(Psalm 2:3)
42. Recitative
Tenor
He that dwelleth in Heav’n shall laugh them to scorn; The Lord shall have them in derision.
(Psalm 2:4)
43. Air
Tenor
Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.
(Psalm 2:9)
44. Chorus
Hallelujah:for the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth.
(Revelation 19:6)
The kingdom of this world is become the kingdom of our Lord,
and of His Christ; and He shall reign for ever and ever.
(Revelation 11:15)
King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.
(Revelation 19:16)
Hallelujah!
PART THREE
45. Air
Soprano
I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand
at the latter day upon the earth.
And though worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.
(Job 19:25-26)
For now is Christ risen from the dead, the first fruits of them that sleep.
(I Corinthians 15:20)
46. Chorus
Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
(I Corinthians 15:21-22)
47. Accompagnato
Bass
Behold, I tell you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.
(I Corinthians 15:51-52)
48. Air
Bass
The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
For this corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality.
The trumpet. . . da capo
(I Corinthians 15:52-53)
49. Recitative
Alto
Then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written:”Death is swallowed up in victory.”
(I Corinthians 15:54)
50. Duet
Alto & tenor
O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.
(I Corinthians 15:55-56)
51. Chorus
But thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
(I Corinthians 15:57)
52. Air
Soprano alto
If God be for us, who can be against us?
(Romans 8:31)
Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth, who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is at the right hand of God, who makes intercession for us.
(Romans 8:33-34)
53. Chorus
Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, and hath redeemed us to God by His blood, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom,
and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.
Blessing and honour, glory and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever.
Amen.
(Revelation 5:12-14)
Initially input by Pierre Degott (degott@zeus.univ-metz.fr); HTML conversion by Potharn Imre (pubi@altavista.net)
Notes for a sermon in Blovstrød kirke, november 2017.
”The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.” (Isaiah 9:2, ASV)
”For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end” (Isaiah 9,6-7, ASV)
We are approaching that time of year which in our parts of the world from pre-christian times has been called ’Yule’. Originally this was a festival celebrating midwinter and the return of the sun. The days have been getting shorter and darker, but soon the sun will be returning, the light is coming back.
We still celebrate that, of course, but with the Christian gospel we celebrate a much greater light, a light that is not forever cyclically fading and coming back just to fade away again, but a light that is lit for us eternally. At Christmas we celebrate the birth of Christ.
We celebrate that God has come to us in Jesus, that God became a human being for us. Jesus Christ, born in Bethlehem, was the child, the son “given unto us”, that would bring peace. This was the bright light, that would shine upon everyone living in the shadows of death. Jesus is the promised Messiah, Immanuel, God with us, the king that the ancient Jewish people waited for – the one who we in fact all waited for, the Heathen too. Knowingly or not.
The time before Christmas is called Advent. It means the ’coming’ or the ’arrival’. In advent time we remember how we waited for Christ. In advent time we are waiting for the King.
Now, when Christ came he didn’t come as an ordinary king. He came as a poor servant. He entered Jerusalem on a donkey, not on a horse: ”See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey” (Zechariah 9:9). He didn’t come with great power, not with tanks or guns. He wasn’t that kind of king.
He came as a servant, humble in peace. And with him he brought the Kingdom of God – a kingdom of peace, forgiveness, mercy and righteousness for all. With his sacrifice, with his death on the cross and his resurrection from the dead, he opened the narrow gates to his Kingdom so that everyone could now enter.
So where is this kingdom? Jesus said: You can’t see it. The Kingdom of God is among you (Luke 17:21). It’s near, it’s right here, but you can’t see it: “Days will come, when you will desire to see”, but it’s invisible.
Obviously. So much we see – we live in a world where there is still much injustice, war, violence and evil. We might see the Kingdom in flashes, when we experience love or when we hear the word of God. But we are still waiting to see the Kingdom of God.
Jesus said: I am the first and the last, the beginning and the ending, he who is, and was and is to come (Rev 1:8). This is the meaning of advent: ThatJesus is coming – the Kingdom of God is coming. Not just somewhere far off in the future, but every day, in all circumstances of your life. He is coming right now, and with him he brings peace and light to everyone who lives in darkness.
Let us pray, that God will give us the eyes to see His light.
Charles Spurgeon, a renowned nineteenth-century Baptist preacher, delivered a sermon entitled, “Adoption,” at Exeter Hall–a hall on the north side of The Strand, London, England; in the sermon, he makes critical remarks regarding the doctrine of adoption and justification. [1] His remarks show that he believed that justification from eternity–the teaching that justification is an internal, immanent, and eternal act in God–to be a legitimate reformed position on the doctrine of justification. He states the following:
But there are one or two acts of God which, while they certainly are decreed as much as other things, yet they bear such a special relation to God’s predestination that it is rather difficult to say whether they were done in eternity or whether they were done in time. Election is one of those things which were done absolutely in eternity; all who were elect, were elect as much in eternity as they are in time. But you may say, Does the like affirmation apply to adoption or justification? My late eminent and now glorified predecessor, Dr. Gill, diligently studying these doctrines, said that adoption was the act of God in eternity, and that as all believers were elect in eternity, so beyond a doubt they were adopted in eternity. He further than that to include the doctrine of justification and he said that inasmuch as Jesus Christ was before all worlds justified by his Father, and accepted by him as our representative, therefore all the elect must have been justified in Christ from before all worlds.
As seen above, Spurgeon correctly understands election to be an act “done absolutely in eternity.” Amongst those of the reformed tradition, this is pretty much a given; there is not anyone, to my knowledge, who would be considered reformed were they to deny the eternal election of the believer. In arguing for election being from eternity, Spurgeon does not mention the distinction between immanent and transient acts of God, which would have been immensely helpful to his case.
Understanding the distinction between immanent and transient acts of God are critical in understanding the debate over the “timing” of justification. Immanent acts are internal to God whereas transient acts are external to God; those internal acts are eternal whereas the external are done in time. John Gill, whom Spurgeon calls his “predecessor,” comments on the eternal nature of acts that are immanent to God, writing, “They are eternal; as God himself is eternal, so are they; for, as some divines express it, God’s decrees are himself decreeing, and therefore if he is from everlasting to everlasting, they are so likewise.” [2]
To put it in the most succinct manner, immanent acts reside within the divine mind whereas transient acts find their existence in the temporal sphere. Were Spurgeon to have drawn this distinction, between immanent and transient acts, he might have concluded, with Gill, that “as God’s will to elect, is the election of his people, so his will to justify them, is the justification of them; as it is an immanent act in God, it is an act of his grace towards them, is wholly without them, entirely resides in the divine mind, and lies in his estimating, accounting, and constituting them righteous, through the righteousness of his Son; and, as such, did not first commence in time, but from eternity.” [3]
Spurgeon mentions one of Gill’s arguments: “inasmuch as Jesus Christ was before all worlds justified by his Father, and accepted by him as our representative, therefore all the elect must have been justified in Christ from before all worlds.” This is a conclusive argument, indeed; if Christ be eternally justified before the Father, and if we are represented in Christ from eternity, then we are viewed just as Christ was from eternity–eternally justified. This argument revolves around the eternal suretyship of Christ, whereby he resolved in eternity to be our representative and to take upon himself our case; and as the moment a man becomes the surety for a wrongdoer, the wrongdoer, on account of the surety, is free to go, even so, we are as free from the charge of sin from eternity as the spotless lamb of God. Surely, none would dispute that the sacrifice of Christ was determined, decreed, and resolved upon from eternity; nevertheless, in a section of Gospel Glory worth reading, Edward Drapes demonstrates the doctrine of the eternal suretyship of Christ to be a most scriptural one.
Spurgeon continues his remarks:
Now, I believe there is a great deal of truth in what he said, though there was a considerable outcry raised against him at the time he first uttered it. However, that being a high and mysterious point, we would have you accept the doctrine that all those who are saved at last were elect in eternity when the means as well the end were determined. With regard to adoption, I believe we were predestined hereunto in eternity, but I do think there are some points with regard to adoption which will not allow me to consider the act of adoption to have been completed in eternity. For instance, the positive translation of my soul from a state of nature into a state of grace is a part of adoption or at least it is an effect at it, and so close an effect that it really seems to be a part of adoption itself: I believe that this was designed, and in fact that it was virtually carried out in God’s everlasting covenant; but I think that it was that actually then brought to pass in all its fullness.
Spurgeon makes it clear that the sense in which these acts were “virtually carried out” from eternity is that the process of adoption and justification start in eternity, yet are not “completed in eternity.” In his view, justification is resolved upon from eternity, made possible by the cross of Christ, and actually brought into being the moment a man believes; in that he makes justification a process, he declares it to be transient, though he did not use the word, rather than an instantaneous, internal, immanent, and eternal act occurring in God. Spurgeon’s system, ultimately, fails.
If “it is God that justifieth,” Rom. 8:33, and if the act of justification lies solely in God “estimating, accounting, and constituting” sinners as righteous, then Spurgeon must be wrong in asserting that justification is a transient act, for these are all terms that denote an action of the divine mind, and consequently an action that is immanent and eternal. Justification, in its proper sense, is for God to consider Christ’s righteousness as ours, and as consideration is an act residing within the divine mind, it does not first have it’s being in time but from eternity, being an immanent and internal act of God. This is a sure, concise, and irrefutable principle on which the doctrine of justification from eternity rests; that it is the eternal God which justifieth.
Spurgeon continues:
So with regard to justification, I must hold, that in the moment when Jesus Christ paid my debts, my debts were cancelled — in the hour when he worked out for me a perfect righteousness it was imputed to me, and therefore I may as a believer say I was complete in Christ before I was born, accepted in Jesus, even as Levi was blessed in the loins of Abraham by Melchisedec; but I know likewise that justification is described in the Scriptures as passing upon me at the time I believe. “Being justified by faith,” I am told “I have peace with God, through Jesus Christ.” I think, therefore that adoption and justification, while they have a very great alliance with eternity, and were virtually done then, yet have both of them such a near relation to us in time, and such a bearing upon our own personal standing and character that they have also a part and parcel of themselves actually carried out and performed in time in the heart of every believer.
Spurgeon states about himself, “I was complete in Christ before I was born, accepted in Jesus, even as Levi was blessed in the loins of Abraham by Melchisedec.” Were he to stop at this statement, we would have much reason to rejoice, but Spurgeon negates these wonderful words within the next few sentences. He states that though he knows this to be true, he also knows the equally contradictory proposition, that he is only truly and actually justified upon believing, to be true; thus affirming some sort of irreconcilable paradox on the issue.
Lastly, Spurgeon states:
I may be wrong in this exposition; it requires much more time to study this subject than I have been able yet to give to it, seeing that my years are not yet many; I shall no doubt by degrees come to the knowledge more fully of such high and mysterious points of gospel doctrine. But nevertheless, while I find the majority of sound divines holding that the works of justification and adoption are due in our lives I see, on the other hand, in Scripture much to lead me to believe that both of them were done in eternity; and I think the fairest view of the case is, that while they were virtually done in eternity, yet both adoption and justification are actually passed upon us, in our proper persons, consciences, and experiences, in time, — so that both the Westminster confession and the idea of Dr. Gill can be proved to be Scriptural, and we may hold them both without any prejudice the one to the other.
Humbling himself, Spurgeon admits that his doctrine on the timing of justification very well may be wrong and that those like Gill, who spent much time “diligently studying these doctrines” could be correct. While he saw that many sound divines hold justification, in its proper sense, to be a transient act, such as sanctification and regeneration, he sees much in scripture that leads him “to believe that both of them were done in eternity,” such as election.
To conclude, it is necessary to address one of the weightier claims against the doctrine of justification from eternity brought forth by Spurgeon. As seen in the third block quote from Spurgeon, the doctrine of justification by faith is often asserted to contradict the doctrine of justification from eternity. I would argue, alongside many others, that “justification by faith is no more but the manifestation to us of what was really and actually done before; or a being persuaded more or less of Christ’s love to us; and that when persons do believe, that which was hid before doth then only appear to them.” [4] Understood in this light, the doctrine of justification by faith poses no threat to the notion of justification from eternity; yet, this is not the only solution. Nevertheless, there are numerous books in our possession from the seventeenth century and forward which are written, in part, to address this very objection that Spurgeon raises; in the future, these works will be published and expounded upon to further refute this objection.
Endnotes: [1]The Complete Works of C. H. Spurgeon, Vol. 7: Sermon 360. [2]John Gill, “Of the Internal Acts and Works of God; And of His Decrees in General.” In A Body of Doctrinal Divinity, II.I. [3] John Gill, “Of Immanent and Transient acts of God, Particularly Adoption and Election.” In A Body of Doctrinal Divinity, II.V. [4]In John Flavel’s A Blow at the Root of Antinomianism he argues that this idea is false–unsucessfully. It is uncertain whether he invented this statement which he was trying to refute, or if he quoted it from elsewhere.
Michelangelo, Expulsion from Garden of Eden (1509-1510)
It’s a common idea in Patristic theology that death is not just a punishment but also in a way a gift, as it puts a limit to sin, and makes it possible for God to recreate fallen creature through the resurrection. Often there is also the idea that between death and the resurrection, there will be a time of purification and disciplining. Theophilus of Antioch (168 A.D.) explained:
”God showed great kindness to man in this, that He did not suffer him to remain in sin for ever; but, as it were, by a kind of banishment, cast him out of Paradise, in order that, having by punishment expiated, within an appointed time, the sin, and having been disciplined, he should afterwards be restored. Wherefore also, when man had been formed in this world, it is mystically written in Genesis, as if he had been twice placed in Paradise; so that the one was fulfilled when he was placed there, and the second will be fulfilled after the resurrection and judgment. For just as a vessel, when on being fashioned it has some flaw, is remoulded or remade, that it may become new and entire; so also it happens to man by death. For somehow or other [or: by force] he is broken up, that he may rise in the resurrection whole; I mean spotless, and righteous, and immortal.” (Theophilus of Antioch, ad Autolycum, ii, 26, thanks to Alex for this quote)
In a popular translation of this passage it is added that Adam was broken up ”by force”. As far as I can tell this must be the Greek ”δυνάμει” (meaning force, power or capability) which is here translated as ”somehow or other”. I like the emphasis of the alternative rendering, though, where death is said to be God’s way of breaking up humankind by force or power, as this makes it crystal clear, that this is not something that we can or even will do ourselves, but something that must be done against our will.
Screendump from PG Migne’s Patrologia Graecae vol. 6
Irenaeus of Lyons (182 A.D.) said something quite similar to Theophilus, when he argued that God took life from Adam in order to put an end to evil:
”Wherefore also he drove him out of paradise and removed him far from the tree of life, not because He envied him the tree of life, as some dare assert, but because He pitied him and desired that he should not be immortal and the evil interminable and irremediable.” (Irenaeus, Contr. Haer. iii. c. 23, § 6)
In other words: Death is the punishment or ”the wages” of sin (Paul), but the resurrection is the revelation of God’s ’yes’ in his ’no’, as Karl Barth would later put it. Christ’s death and resurrection is the principle that transforms our death into life. This notion is clearly present in Gregory of Nyssa in the fourth century:
”Nevertheless one who regards only the dissolution of the body is greatly disturbed, and makes it a hardship that this life of ours should be dissolved by death; it is, he says, the extremity of evil that our being should be quenched by this condition of mortality. Let him, then, observe through this gloomy prospect the excess of the Divine benevolence.” (The Great Catechism §VIII)
Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-395 AD)
Gregory then describes how human nature was ”enveloped” in the ”liability to death” in order to secure that we may part with evil and through the resurrection be reformed and created anew. Gregory later in his Catechism famously explains that the mystery of God’s plan was that, instead of preventing the dissolution of His body by death he decided to bring back life through the resurrection, so that Christ might become the ”meeting-ground” (or boundary, μεθόριον) of life and death, and thereby the originating principle (γενόμενος ἀρχὴ) for the resurrection (The Great Catechism §XVI, GNO III 16,79-86). In this way we are saved from evil by Christ through death and resurrection.
Like Theophilus in the above quote, Gregory clearly believed that there will be a process of purification after death before the resurrection (but possibly also after?). This idea, however, is not essential to the notion of death as not just a punishment but also a divine gift. I think it should be possible to ’demythologize’ the Patristic ideas of purification and disciplining, so that they are instead seen to be something this-worldly (as it so often is in both the Old and New Testament), pertaining to human history here and now. Even so, the main idea still holds true, that God’s judgment and mercy are not separate things. God’s mercy is always hidden in his judgment.
Hans Denck (c. 1500-1527) might have looked something like this.
Is the human will free or unfree? Is there a third option? While Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466-1536) defended the idea that human beings have a free will to choose the good, Martin Luther (1483-1546) defended the Augustinian idea that the human will is determined by God, and is thus unfree: God is ‘absolute’ and ‘necessary’, and thus determines human beings who are ‘relative’ and ‘contingent’ (On the Bondage of the Will).
There is a third option, however. According to Luther’s contemporary Anabaptist reformer Hans Denck (1500-1527), both determinism (Luther) and anti-determinism (Erasmus) are, in themselves, true. But they are both lies too, says Denck, and both claims are used as an excuse for boasting, and for not wanting God get his will (Divine Order §7, p. 258).
To get to a true conception of the human will, determinism and anti-determinism must be reconciled. Denck’s strategy rests on his dialectical methodology, as explained briefly in his ‘Paradoxa’:
“Two opposites must both be true. But one is contained in the other, as the lesser is in the greater, time in eternity, finitude in infinity. One who leaves antitheses without reconciling them lacks the ground of truth.” (Paradoxa, p. 29)
Denck explains that there is a radical distinction between God and human beings. This means that when human beings rely on their own will they will always sin, even when they try to do good:
“There are essentially two, God and humankind. Since they are two, each one does what is appropriate to his nature, good and evil (Is. 55).” (Divine Order §5, p. 254)
God lets human beings feel the consequences of sin (separation from God), in order to teach us that we cannot rest on our own will. God is not the cause of sin (this would follow from determinism), but he uses what is apparently evil, as a means of salvation (Divine Order §5, p. 254). Salvation begins, says Denck, “when the Lord places us in the remotest part of hell.” (Divine Order §4, p. 253).
“When we are deepest in damnation we allow ourselves and everything that relates to us to us to be torn asunder with unspeakable pain […] This is the eye of the needle through which the uncouth camels have to pass, yet cannot. Indeed, we cannot do it ourselves but must suffer God to do it for us[…]” (Divine Order §6, p. 256)
To allow ourselves to be torn asunder is not a matter of exercising will, free or unfree, but of yielding to God. It is in this ‘yieldedness’ (Gelassenheit) that determinism and non-determinism is reconciled. It is this yieldedness that allows human beings to make the required ‘leap of faith’, to borrow a term from Kierkegaard, which is not a matter of exercising free will, but of letting God do what he wills (Denck, Whether God is the Cause of Evil).
This is why Denck can say in his confession that:
“all believers were once unbelievers. Consequently, in becoming believers, they thus first had to die in order that they might thereafter no longer live for themselves, as unbelievers do, but for God through Christ” (Denck, Confession)
We are, in other words, not saved from spiritual death but through the spiritual death which creates yieldedness.
I like Denck’s dialectical way of thinking, as he is clearly aware that God’s judgment and mercy are not separate things, but two sides of the same coin. The problem with his spiritualistic idea of Christ’s death and resurrection as something in which the believer participates by subjective experience is, of course, that it leaves Christ’s actual death on the cross ineffectual for the believer before faith. Here I clearly prefer e.g. Relly’s idea of union as “of old”, meaning that we have actually died with Christ in his death even before we come to subjective faith. Faith is the apprehension of our death with Christ on the cross, the result of union with Christ, rather than the condition of union. This also means that we were justified and even in some sense saved before we even had the chance to make a choice of faith. Our choice – free or unfree – can only be a matter of how we relate to the fact that we have already been reconciled to God through Christ. This, it seems to me, is a fourth option which is more Christocentric than Erasmus, Luther and Denck who all rely on some degree of subjectivism. Perhaps we could talk of faith as yielding to the facts?
Btw: Denck’s idea of yieldedness is not unique. Something similar can be found, e.g. in the Quaker theologian Robert Barclay a century later. The opposition between Erasmus and Luther is more or less similar to that between Calvinism (determinism) and Arminianism (anti-determinism), which Barclay sought to overcome in his thinking.
Central to James Relly, John and Judith Murray, was the idea, that it is not our faith that makes Jesus our savior, but rather that our faith is a recognition of the fact that he is our savior even (in some sense) before we believe. If he wasn’t, our unbelief would not make him a liar (1 John 5:10).
In his memoirs John Murray tells the story of how he was first presented to this argument when he met a young lady in George Whitefield’s congregation, of which he was a member. The young lady was clearly influenced by Relly.
“I recollect one instance in particular, which pierced me to the soul. A young lady, of irreproachable life, remarkable for piety, and highly respected by the tabernacle congregation and church, of which I was a devout member, had been ensnared; […] she was become a believer, a firm, and unwavering believer of universal redemption! […] The young lady received us with much kindness and condescension; while, as I glanced my eye upon her fine countenance, beaming with intelligence, mingled pity and contempt grew in my bosom. After the first ceremonies, we sat for some time silent; at length I drew up a heavy sigh, and uttered a pathetic sentiment, relative to the deplorable condition of those, who live, and die in unbelief; and I concluded a violent declamation, by pronouncing, with great earnestness, He that believeth not, shall be damned.
“And pray, Sir,” said the young lady, with great sweetness, “Pray, Sir, what is the unbeliever damned for not believing?”
What is he damned for not believing, Why, he is damned for not believing.
“But, my dear Sir, I asked what was that he did not believe, for which he was damned?”
Why, for not believing in Jesus Christ, to be sure.
“Do you mean to say, that unbelievers are damned for not believing there was such a person as Jesus Christ?”
No, I do not; a man may believe there was such a person, and yet be damned.
“What then, Sir, must he believe, in order to avoid damnation?”
Why he must believe that Jesus Christ is a complete Savior.
“Well, suppose he were to believe that Jesus Christ was the complete Savor of others, would this belief save him?”
No, he must believe that Christ is his complete Savior.”
“Why, Sir, is Jesus Christ the Savior of any unbelievers?”
No, madam.
“Why, then, should any unbeliever believe that Jesus Christ is his Savior, if he be not his Savior?”
I say, he is not the Savior of any one, until he believes.
“Then, if Jesus be not the Savior of the unbeliever until he believes, the unbeliever is called upon to believe a lie. It appears to me, Sir, that Jesus is the complete Savior of unbelievers; and the unbelievers are called upon to believe the truth; and that, by believing, they are saved, in their own apprehension, from all those dreadful fears, which are consequent upon a state of conscious condemnation.”
No, madam; you are dreadfully, I trust not fatally misled. Jesus never was, nor never will be, the Savior of any unbeliever.
“Do you think Jesus is you Savior, Sir?”
I hope he is.
“Were you always a believer, Sir?”
No, madam.
“Then you were once an unbeliever; that is, you once believed that Jesus Christ was not your Savior. Now, as you say, he never was, nor ever will be, the Saviour of any unbeliever; as you were once an unbeliever, he never can be your Savior.”
He never was my Savior till I believed.
“Did he never die for you till you believed, Sir?”
Here I was extremely embarrased, and most devoutly wished myself out of her habitation; I sighed bitterly, expressed deep commiseration for those deluded souls, who had nothing but head-knowledge; drew out my watch, discovered it was late; and, recollecting an engagement, observed it was time to take leave.
I was extremely mortified; the young lady observed my confusion, but was too generous to pursue her triumph. I arose to depart; the company arose; she urged us to tarry; addressed each of us in the language of kindness. Her countenance seemed to wear a resemblance of the Heaven which she contemplated; it was stamped by benignity; and when we bade her adieue, she enriched us by her good wishes.” (John Murray, The Life of Rev. John Murray (1833), p. 100ff)
The argument, which the young lady had most likely got from James Relly, reappears in Judith Sargent Murray’s catechism (written when her name was still Judith Sargent Stevens) from 1782. Here we find the same argument in the answer to the question “Yet is there not a condemnation spoken of to those who believe not the efficacy of this great redemption?”
The text says, he that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned. Again, he that believeth not is condemned already. Thus is damnation and condemnation synonymous in scripture: now it is evident, that if I believe not that Jesus died for my sins, I am condemned, in that I make God a lyar! in not believing his record; which record declares, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his son. Moreover, if I look to myself, I must feel the sentence of death; nor can I be saved therefrom, ’till I look unto the Lamb of God, who taketh away my sin. Those who assert that this damnation consequent upon unbelief is eternal, forget that every believer was once an unbeliever: and further, that in that day when they shall be all caught up to meet the Lord in the Heavens, they shall all see, and seeing, they shall with Thomas, believe; nor shall a son or daughter of Adam, be then left in ignorance.”
The phrase that “every believer was once an unbeliever” can also be found in the 16th century anabaptist Hans Denck. I’ll have to look further into possible connections.
In the Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth’s famous doctrine of election, Jesus is the one elect of God, elected to bear our rejection in a way that all human beings are elected in him (Church Dogmatics II.2). This also means that all human beings have been reconciled to God in Christ alone before coming to faith.
In the first volume of the fourth part of his Church Dogmatics – on the doctrine of reconciliation – Karl Barth argued that the atonement was true and real for all human beings as a result of the work of Jesus Christ. Being truly God and truly human Christ is united to humankind in such a way, that all human beings have kept the covenant with him. The purpose of the atonement was the conversion of the world to God through Christ as the representative of the world.
Barth argues that the atonement is true for all and does not need to be “realized” or “applied” in order to be effectual. The difference between Christians and non-Christians, is that Christians are those who have heard the Gospel, and as a result know that the atonement is real for them also. This is the work of the Holy Spirit.
“The hand of God the Reconciler is over all men. Jesus Christ was born and died and rose again for all. The work of atonement, the conversion of man to God, was done for all. The Word of God is spoken to all. God’s verdict and direction and promise have been pronounced over all. To that extent, objectively, all are justified, sanctified and called. But the hand of God has not touched all in such a way that they can see and hear, perceive and accept and receive all that God is for all and therefore for them, how therefore they can exist and think and live. To those who have not been touched in this way by the hand of God the axiom that Jesus Christ is the Victor is as such unknown. It is a Christian and not a general axiom; valid generally, but not generally observed and acknowledged. Similarly, they do not know their sin or even what sin is, since it can be known only in the light of that axiom. And naturally they do not know their justification, sanctification and calling as they have already taken place in Jesus Christ. But the hand of God has touched and seized Christians in this way – which means the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit. In this special sense Christians and only Christians are converted to Him. This is without any merit or co-operating on their part, just as the reconciliation of the whole world in Jesus Christ is without its merit or co-operation. But they are really converted to God in the special sense. The free grace of the sovereign God has in relation to them the special form that they themselves can reach after it. They can understand it as the grace directed to the world and therefore to them. They can live in the light and power of it – under its judgment, but all in all, under the Word, and readily and willingly under the Word, under the divine sentence and direction and promise. Therefore the being and work of Jesus Christ, the One and All of His achievement and the relevance of it has also this – shall we call it for the sake of clarity subjective? – dimension, in which the same One and All is now in the eyes and ears and hearts, in the existence of these men, Christian, who are specially taken and determined by His Holy Spirit. They have over the rest of the world the one inestimable advantage that God the Reconciler and the event of reconciliation can be to them a matter of recognition and confession, until the day when He and it will be the subject of His revelation to all eyes and ears and hearts, and therefore of the recognition and confession of all men.” (Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics VI.1, §58. p. 149)
Notice that Barth is not here dealing with a general, but merely outward and ineffectual calling, as opposed to an inner and effectual, but particular calling that only the few ‘elect’ will hear for some mysterious reason. In Christ all are elect and called, but the effects of this calling only becomes real subjectively and existentially for each particular person through the work of the Holy Spirit.
There are obvious similarities between Karl Barth’s theology and James Relly’s doctrine of union. Relly similarly confirmed that Christ is the elect one who are united to humankind in such a way that he partakes in the judgment against our sin on the cross in order that we may partake in his righteousness in the resurrection. Being saved by faith means coming to know that one already partakes in the death and resurrection of Christ through our eternal union with him. But where Relly finally took the consequences of this idea and argued that this must also mean that all will finally be saved, Barth was more cautious, as he saw the final salvation of all as something we can only hope for. The above passage at least suggests, however, that the Rellyan conclusion is – should we say – rather plausible from the Barthian perspective as well.
James Relly’s theology revolved around the idea of the eternal union between Christ and his church. Christ is united to His Church to such a degree that Christians have already died with him on the cross. Everything which can be said about Christ can be said of those who are united with him.
In this way the sin of sinners are rightly punished in Christ. God does not judge and punish Christ instead of sinners (in the sense that sinners are not subject to judgment), but he judges sinners in Christ. Through their union with Christ sinners are simultaneously judged and counted righteous as they also participate in Christ’s perfect righteousness. This is union is eternal as a result of election, and realized in the incarnation.
“[U]nion of Christ, and his Church, hath been of old, before faith, before time: and remains to be indissolvable , and unchangeable.” (Relly, Union, p. 117)
Faith is not the condition of this union, but a knowledge of the fruits of the union with Christ. Faith is a knowledge of the identity the believer already has in Christ before coming to know this through faith. No inner, spiritual rebirth or conversion need to take place to create this union with Christ, which is true even before conversion. It is the faith of Christ that justifies sinners, not their own faith, which is always unstable and weak.
Relly developed the core aspects of this idea in his Union: or, a Treatise of the Consanguinity and Affinity between Christ and his Church from 1759. The doctrine of union later became pivotal in the development of Relly’s universal soteriology, as he came to believe that the whole humankind was united to Christ in this way. The unsaved who do not yet have faith are those who do not yet know, that they are already united with Christ and thus also participate in his death and resurrection whereby they are made righteous before God.
Btw.: If Relly’s doctrine of union sounds like Karl Barth’s doctrines of election and justification, it’s because they are virtually similar, as far as I can tell. Barth similarly emphasizes the death that humankind dies with Christ on the cross in whom all are simultaneously rejected and elected. In Christ we are what we are not. More on this later.
Below are some excerpts from Relly’s book.
“What is impossible with Man, is possible with God. If we read the Scriptures out of Christ, they require impossibilities of us: hence it is, that some who are aware of this, and yet ignorant of the power of God, are obliged to have recourse unto new Laws; Laws of their own making, where, by a sincere intention, and all possible Obedience, they would evade the force of the scripture perfection, and put a foil upon the sword of the spirit: But truth needs no artifice, unto this sword, unfoiled, sharp, and two-edged as it is, piercing through the soul and spirit, joints, and marrow, discerning the thoughts, and intents of the heart, Jesus bared his Bosom: and sheathing it in his own Heart’s Blood, the divine, glutinating power thereof, hath rendered it impossible to draw it again to another execution; God is Just, and true, and will not; Men or Devils cannot.” (Union, p. 150)
“When we read the Scriptures in Christ, we determine according to the possibility of things with God, unto him who believeth, all things are possible. The impossibilities, and Jarrings, with which the Letter abounds: such as the demands of perfect obedience, of satisfaction for sin, of salvation by Grace, by Works, of the forgiveness of Sin by Christ, and yet Judged according to the Deeds done in the Body, and giving an account at that day for every idle word, &c. all this, I say hath its harmony and perfection in Jesus […] in him, as the representative of Man as having the people in himself, and he in them, the preceptive part is fulfilled perfectly;- And all the threatenings executed upon the Sinner, in him: in Him saved by Grace, in Him Justified by works, accepted in Him, having redemption in His Blood the forgivenness of sin. Our account for the idle word, is, that in ourselves we are carnal, sold under sin, and have no good thing; but, that in Christ we are fulled, in him sanctified, in him accepted, and therefore appeal from the first Adam, unto the second.” (Union, p. 150-152)
“Again, from the Grace and truth of Union, the Christian hath a right to reckon of Himself, of his state, and condition towards God, according to Christ; according to the state and Condition which He is in: hence saith the Apostle, reckon ye yourselves to be Dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom. 6:11). And O (what grace is this!) that we helpless worms, whose every word, work, and thought is unholy, yea, in whom according to the strongest testimony of our senses, and reason, there is yet found the motions, life, and love of sin; should have a right to reckon ourselves dead unto sin: dead unto what we yet feel the life of, dead unto what we yet feel the love of, dead unto what is yet stronger than we, and against which, our utmost efforts when compared with its strength, are feebleness itself; it esteems all our Iron as straw, and our Brass as rotten wood; and, yet to reckon ourselves dead unto this, what an amazing reckoning it is! Yea, not only dead unto sin, whereby we are exempted from its filfth, guilt, and condemnation:- But we are to reckon ourselves positively Holy, Righteous, and fruitful, Alive unto God! and that in Opposition to all we see, feel, or understand of ourselves, according to sense. What are we then to reckon of ourselves by? by Jesus Christ our Lord;” (Union, p. 153)
Jürgen Moltmann (1926-) is a German Reformed theologian and Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology at the University of Tübingen. In his book The Coming of God Moltmann deals extensively with Christian eschatology:
“True hope must be universal, because its healing future embraces every individual and the whole universe. If we were to surrender hope for as much as one single creature, for us God would not be God.”
“The Lausanne Covenant of evangelical theologians says: “Those who reject Christ repudiate the joy of salvation and condemn themselves to eternal separation from God.” They will therefore not only be damned by God. They also damn themselves. Is this theologically conceivable? Can some people damn themselves, and others redeem themselves by accepting Christ? If this were so, God’s decisions would be dependent on the will of human beings. God would become the auxiliary who executes the wishes of people who decide their fate for themselves. If I can damn myself, I am my own God and judge. Taken to a logical conclusion this is atheistic. There is a more modern evangelical idea about a conditional immortality, according to which no one finds a life after death without believing and unless God confers eternal life; all the rest simply remain dead. But I do not find this very helpful either, because it excludes God’s judgment. Mass murderers might possibly welcome this solution, because they would then not have to answer before God’s judgment for what they had done. The annihilationists think that unbelievers do not go to hell eternally but are simply destroyed and fall into an eternal nothingness; but this too does not seem to me compatible with the coming omnipresence of God and his faithfulness to what he has created. For the lost to ‘disappear’ conforms to the terrible experiences with the murder squads in military dictatorships, but it does not accord with God. The God of the Bible is the Creator, not simultaneously the Destroyer, like the Indian god Shiva.
Jürgen Moltmann: The Coming of God (Augsburg Books 2004)
Christian tradition occasionally introduced a distinction here between the first resurrection (Rev 20:6) and the second. Believers will appear with Christ at his parousia (Col. 3:4) and will reign with him in his kingdom. But all human beings will be raised later for God’s eternal judgment. The first resurrection is therefore called ‘blessed’ but not the second. The raising of believers for the kingdom of Christ is a resurrection from the dead; it is only the second that will be the resurrection of the dead. This distinction presupposes an intermediate, millenarian kingdom of Christ before the universal end of the world. But it leaves unchanged the universal resurrection of the dead ‘for judgment’ in the legalistic form of Daniel 12:2, so that the gospel of Christ is for believers only, while the law of God applies universally to everyone. This is a profoundly unsatisfactory solution, because on the one hand it shakes the certainty of the hope of Christians (who know whether he or she really belongs?) and on the other hand it surrenders not only the rest of the human race but everyone who lived before Christ to the divine judgment, without hope. But the distinction can also be seen as meaning that ‘the first resurrection’ is the beginning of the general resurrection of the dead, and that the second is the goal of the first.
Because cosmically the personal resurrection of the dead means the annihilation of death – that it will be ‘swallowed up’ in the victory of life – death’s subjugation begins with the eternal life already lived with Christ here and now; it is experienced in the Spirit of life here by those who are his, and in the life given to their bodies there. This is how Paul described it in 1 Cor. 15:23-26, unfolding it as the ‘order’ of the resurrection process: Christ ‘the first fruits’ – then at his coming those who belong to him – afterwards the end … the last enemy to be destroyed will be death. If we follow this processual thinking, the hope of Christians is not exclusive, and not particularist either. It is an inclusive and universal hope for the life which overcomes death. It is true not only for Christians but for everything living that wants to live and has to die.” (Jürgen Moltmann: The Coming of God, pp. 109-110)
“Who makes the decision about the salvation of lost men and women, and where is the decision made? Every Christian theologian is bound to answer: God decides for a person and for his or her salvation, for otherwise there is no assurance of salvation at all. ‘If God is for us, who can be against us…’ (Rom. 8:31) – we may add: not even ourselves! God is ‘for us’: that has been decided once and for all in the self-surrender and raising of Christ. It is not just a few of the elect who have been reconciled with God, but the whole cosmos (2 Cor. 5:19). It is not just believers whom God loved, but the world (John 3:16). The great turning point from disaster to salvation took place on Golgotha; it does not just happen for the first time at the hour when we decide for faith, or are converted. Faith means experiencing and receiving this turning point personally, but faith is not the turning point itself. It is not my faith that creates salvation for me; salvation creates for me faith. If salvation and damnation were the results of human faith or unfaith, God would be dispensable. The connection between act and destiny, and the law of karma, would suffice to create the causal link. If, even where eternity is at stake, everyone were to forge their own happiness and dig their own graves, human beings would be their own God. It is only if a qualitative difference is made between God and human beings that God’s decision and human decision can be valued and respected. God’s decision ‘for us’, and our decisions for faith or disbelief no more belong on the same level than do eternity and time.” (Jürgen Moltmann: The Coming of God, p. 245)
“The true Christian foundation for the hope of universal salvation is the theology of the cross, and the realistic consequence of the theology of the cross can only be the restoration of all things.” (Jürgen Moltmann: The Coming of God, p. 251)
This summer I have enjoyed studying James Relly’s Epistles, or the Great Salvation Contemplated from 1776. James Relly (1722–1778) was a Methodist minister, but his theology differed much from fellow Methodists. The central doctrine in Relly’s theology was the belief that the atonement and justification must be understood in terms of union with Christ. Humankind is united to Christ in such a way that all human beings are considered as one person with Him. This is a well-known idea in classical and modern theology (compare Relly’s thought with, e.g., Athanasius and Barth), but Relly takes the consequences against the widespread over-emphasis on faith as the condition for justification in much ‘evangelical’ theology:
”When Christ was made a curse for us, all the threatenings wherewith the sinner and the ungodly are threatened, were executed on them in him: the authority and equity of which transaction have their rise, 1. from the will of God; 2. from Christ’s voluntary undertaking; and, 3. from the kindred oneness subsisting between him and the people. According to which, through the whole of his obedience and death, He and they were considered in the eye of justice, as one person: and sinners without distinction, were chastised in him. This is what is called in the Old Testament, “the day of the Lord, a day of darkness, gloominess, and of the shadow of death. The day of Christ’s sufferings, is the day of which the prophet spake: the day which should burn as an oven, and the character of the sinner cease from man, as presented unto God in Christ.” (Relly 1776, pp.72f)
Just as all human beings became sinners with Adam, all became righteous with Christ. As all human beings died with Christ at the cross, all have received the due punishment for sin already. There can hardly be said to be a ’transaction’ of righteousness from Christ to believers through faith, but all human beings suffered the just punishments for sin as they all died with Christ on the cross. Faith is not the condition for union with Christ, but the knowledge, that one has already died with Christ. The only distinction between ’saved’ believers and ’unsaved’ unbelievers is that believers enjoy the comfort of this knowledge here and now, while unbelievers are still unaware that they are already saved in principle. On the words of Psalm 65:2, ”Unto thee shall all flesh come”, Relly argues that this promise is already fulfilled, in the person of Christ:
”Jesus hath, in himself, brought up, all flesh to God; unto whom he hath presented them holy and irreprovable: nor will he cease to rule, until what is true in him, shall be true in them also: until all flesh shall come to the knowledge and enjoyment of his salvation.” (Relly 1776, p. 40)
All human beings have been crucified with Christ, and are thus in principle dead from their sins. This is what Paul meant when he said that he was ”crucified with Christ” in Gal. 2:20:
”Mankind were so comprehended in the person of Christ, through all that he did and suffered, that the soul that sinned died, and every man suffered for his own sin. This is a doctrine familiar to an apostolic christian, who can say as the apostle said, “I am crucified with Christ.”” (Relly 1776, p. 110)
But not only did all human beings die with Christ on the cross. As Christ has fulfilled ”all righteousness”, so have human beings who were united with him.
”Our obligation to obey the law, in order to life eternal; our sins, and penalties due to them, were all made Christ’s in his doings and sufferings; and his resurrection state, in all its success, power, and purity, is ours: “he being made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” Upon this view and faith of the gospel, the judgment which we form of ourselves, is according to Christ. Has he fulfilled all righteousness? So have we. Is he justified? So are we. Is he accepted of God? So are we. Does he live for ever? So do we: for he hath said, “Because I live, ye shall live also:” hence, we are taught to reckon ourselves dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God by Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Relly 1776, pp. 125f)
Jesus Christ has kept the commandments for us, so that we are considered righteous in him. This might sound like the traditional (protestant) doctrine of Christ’s passive and active vicarious obedience, but notice that Relly is not saying, that Jesus has kept the commandment in our place, but rather that we in some indirect sense have actually kept the commandments through our union with him.
”Therefore, the perfect character of loving God, and keeping his commandments, belongs to Jesus Christ our Lord, and to him only: but as we are made the righteousness of God in Christ, as Christ occupied our nature and persons, in all his doings, sufferings, and obtainments, he has cloathed us with his own garment of salvation, and robe of righteousness; nor is he ashamed to call us brethren. Hence, we are of him who loved God and kept his commandments, and therefore we obtain mercy.” (Relly 1776, p. 111)
A central argument in Relly’s thought is that unbelief in the Gospel can only really be termed unbelief, if the Gospel is true independently on belief. Only if a person is actually saved by Christ can it be said to be an instance of unbelief, if that person does not believe that he or she is saved. To deny the gospel is to deny the fact, that one is already saved, but this denial does not change that fact, which is why it can be said that unbelief makes God ”a liar” (1 John 5:10). To die in ”one’s sins” (John 8:24) means to die while holding the mistaken belief, that one has not been forgiven:
”And thus I would understand the text: “If you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sins.” But this has no allusion to the final state of man: for, from the text, it is manifest, that their being and dying in their sins, is wholly owing to their ubelief: but unbelief is a lye against the truth; the truth is, that Jesus is their Saviour, who hath saved them from their sins: that he is their wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption: but unbelief influencing the mind to reject the truth, the conscience formed on the principle, retains, in its sense, and guilt, and fear, the very iniquity which the blood of Jesus has expiated; and which God remembers no more. Unbelief in its term, supposes a resistance of truth, yea of revealed truth, yea, of permanent unchangeable truth. For on that moment, the matter which unbelief opposes, ceases to answer to the characters of truth; the opposition ceaseth to be, unbelief is no longer unbelief: it is no longer criminal, but praise worthy.” (Relly 1776, p. 127)
That the gospel is true even before it is believed means that faith is not a condition of participation in Christ, but rather a result of coming to know, that one has already died with Christ as a result of the union between Christ and humankind:
”What is not true, until it is believed, affords no foundation to build upon: it is drawing the line, or plummet, over chaos; and laying the foundation upon space. And yet, that God loves us, and laid the iniquities of us all upon Jesus, that Jesus died for our sins, and put them away by the sacrifice of himself; though preached in the gospel, is not (according to modern systems) true until it is believed. Thus man’s faith is made to give virtue and dignity to the blood of Jesus, and what renders it propitiatory for sin. Yea, Christ himself is formed by faith, if we are to believe, that “an unapplied Christ is no Christ at all.”” (Relly 1776, p. 234)
As was the case with many primitive Particular Baptists such as Samuel Richardson and later John Gill, this meant for Relly, that human beings were made righteous by Christ before coming to faith (though, of course, for the Particular Baptists this was only true in respect of the few ’elect’). Faith is not a means of or a condition for righteousness, but only the revelation of a righteousness which is already there. On 1 Tim. 2:6, where Jesus Christ is said to be ”a ransom for all, to be testified in due time”, Relly says:
”If Jesus gave himself a ransom for all, then are all ransomed: the prey is taken from the mighty, and the lawful captives are delivered: they are ransomed from the dominion of sin, from the curse of the law, and from everlasting death. Thus stands the case with all the children of Adam, as ransomed by Jesus Christ, who, in consequence thereof, are spotless before God. But this is to be testified in due time, i.e. to be made appear or known — which intends, that there is a time with God called the due time, when this truth, that all mankind are ransomed from sin, and from all its consequences, by Jesus Christ, shall be published on the housetop, shall be made manifest to all; not in the report only; but in the blessed, full, and eternal enjoyment thereof.” (Relly 1776, p. 60f)
Perseverance to eternal life is not due to faith, but to Christ (Relly 1776, p. 231). The fact that some do not have faith yet, does not mean that they are not already ”saved” in an eternal sense, but only that those without faith are not aware of their salvation.
”All the children of Adam do not at present know, that judgment came upon them to condemnation by his offence; nay, there are thousands who deny it. But does it follow from thence, that it is not true? Quite the reverse. Their ignorance and opposition confirm the proposition, that all are dead in him. Neither does man’s ignorance of it, nor even his opposition to it, indicate, that the free gift is not come upon him to jusitification of life. It is rather a proof of the free gift.” (Relly 1776, pp. 45f)
Jesus Christ is, says Relly, simultaneously reprobate and the elect, who is predestinated to eternal life, and in him are human beings elected and predestinated to life. Thus Relly’s doctrine of election and atonement is similar to Karl Barth’s in many aspects.
”Jesus, as our fore-runner, is the elect, precious, the predestinated to eternal life; and such are the people in him: He took not on him angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham: This is their election. Christ also sustained the reprobate character, when made sin for us, and when encompassed with the sorrows of death, and the pains of hell.” (Relly 1776, p. 10f)
In other words, ”When the scriptures speak of the blessed man, Christ is intended: and when they speak of the miserable man, they still mean Christ.” (Relly 1776, p. 227ff). Those who we call ’the elect’, i.e. the church of believers, are not elected at the expense of the non-elect, but are simply those to whom the truth of the gospel is revealed here and now:
”Hence, I propose, that the elect are not a people chosen to be the objects of God’s love and salvation, to the final exclusion of others: but a people chosen to believe the truth, and to rejoice in the salvation of Jesus in time; while others yet remain in a state of ignorance, of what they are equally entitled to with the elect.” (Relly 1776, pp. 27f)
Faith results from God’s choice, i.e. election, not the other way around. Against the erroneous belief in conditional salvation, e.g. Arminianism, Relly argues in traditional Calvinist manner, that God is sovereign and that grace is irresistible:
”The will of God our Saviour is absolute, immutable, and irresistible. The scriptures teach this. After many trials, possibly experience corroborates it. Is it then a mark of humility, self-denial, or lowliness of heart, to submit to his will, the fixed unalterable will of God, which neither men nor angels can resist? Nay, there is no virtue in submitting to what we cannot avoid.” (Relly 1776, p. 56)
In his interpretation of Jesus’ eschatological parables Relly turns out to suggest a preterist reading, i.e., that the judgments of God are not future, but past events:
”I am not persuaded, that the separation of the sheep and the goats, spoken of by our Saviour, is yet future. It was so indeed to the time of our Lord’s speaking it; because he was not then glorified. But why may it not be supposed, that he was then speaking of matters to be effected by his decease, which he was to accomplish at Jerusalem? I can easily conceive his cross to be the throne of his gloty; and that all nations were gathered there before him, and that he there made the separation between the sheep and the goats, i.e. between mankind and their sins, as a shepherd divideth the sheep from the goats:” (Relly 1776, p. 77)
This does not mean, however, that there will be no distinction after death between those who ”die in their sins” and those who have faith. Those who die without knowing the gospel, will be in a state of fear of future torments. God does not inflict punishments, but the mere belief that one will be punished, even if mistaken, is in itself a kind of torment. But, again, this distinction between those who believe and those who do not is merely a matter of knowledge, as all human beings have been made righteous through their union with Christ:
”[…]at the general resurrection, some will arise in a perfect consciousness of righteousness and salvation; and are therefore said to come forth to the resurrection of life; while such whose conscience retain their iniquities, will, under that consciousness, arise to the resurrection of damnation. Thus I take the text to mean the different apprehensions, under which mankind will arise at the last day: some in full assurance of a resurrection to life, and others under an apprehension of a resurrection to damnation. But it does not follow they must suffer what they fear.” (Relly 1776, p. 93)
It should be noticed, that even if he defends the belief, that all human beings will eventually be saved, Relly does not state this belief dogmatically. We can only hope, that all human beings will eventually know that they were already saved, as Christ finally reveals himself to all, when all knees will bow, etc.
As is also the case with Elhanan Winchester and others, Relly believed that true experiental knowledge of God’s grace leads to a belief in the infinite scope of grace. Only when limited by human reasoning and systems of thought, is grace believed to be limited to a few:
”Who, that has tasted that God is gracious; who, that has considered his loving-kindness, can yet hesitate to believe, that God is good and gracious unto every man; yea, that his great good will extends to the children of men universally, without respect of persons?” (Relly 1776, p. 35)
When theologians have tried to limit the scope or efficiency of grace, this is only due to their natural dispositions to impose their own limited ideas of goodness and love to God:
”It is customary among men, yea, it is natural to them, to consider their own frames, dispositions, feelings, and opinions, as picturesque of sacred Deity-Hence they aim at setting bounds to the goodness of God, and to the riches of his love: to the freeness, fulness, and extent of his salvation, they constantly object, ‘it is too good to be true;’ as if the human mind had a capacity to conceive of goodness, beyond the power, the love, or will of God, to exercise towards his creature!” (Relly 1776, p. 159)
But rather than trying to impose our systems to Scripture we should be aware, that the Scripture sometimes take the perspective of limited human beings:
”The scriptures speak of things, sometimes as they are with God, and at other times, as the ignorance, unbelief, and fears of man represent them; […] where they speak of the resurrection of the just, and of the unjust; and of some arising to the resurrection of life, and others to the resurrection of damnation; they respect the different consciousness under which mankind are in their death, and at their resurrection: […] But it does not follow, that they stand thus distinguished in the eye and purpose of God; who having loved mankind, and given them grace in Christ, he beholds them only in that grace and person.” (Relly 1776, p. 173f)
Quoted from What I Believe (1989) by French theologian and professor of law, Jacques Ellul (1912-1994).
Jacques Ellul, What I Believe (Eerdmans 1989)
I am taking up here a basic theme that I have dealt with elsewhere but which is so essential that I have no hesitation in repeating myself. It is the recognition that all people from the beginning of time are saved by God in Jesus Christ, that they have all been recipients of his grace no matter what they have done.
This is a scandalous proposition. It shocks our spontaneous sense of justice. The guilty ought to be punished. How can Hitler and Stalin be among the saved? The just ought to be recognized as such and the wicked condemned.
But in my view this is purely human logic which simply shows that there is no understanding of salvation by grace or of the meaning of the death of Jesus Christ. The proposition also runs counter to the almost unanimous view of theology. Some early theologians proclaimed universal salvation but almost all the rest finally rejected it. Great debates have taken place about foreknowledge and predestination, but in all of them it has been taken for granted that reprobation is normal.
A third and the most serious objection to the thesis is posed by the biblical texts themselves. Many of these talk about condemnation, hell, banishment into outer darkness, and the punishment of robbers, fornicators, idolaters, etc. As we proceed we must overcome these obstacles and examine the theological reasons which lead me to believe in universal salvation, the texts that seem to be against it, and a possible solution.
But I want to stress that I am speaking about belief in universal salvation. This is for me a matter of faith. I am not making a dogma or a principle of it. I can say only what I believe, not pretending to teach it doctrinally as the truth.
My first simple thesis is that if God is God, the Almighty, the Creator of all things, the Omnipresent, then we can think of no place or being whatever outside him. If there were a place out side him, God would not be all in all, the Creator of all things. How can we think of him creating a place or being where he is not present? What, then, about hell? Either it is in God, in which case he is not universally good, or it is outside him, hell having often been defined as the place where God is not. But the latter is completely unthinkable. One might simply say that hell is merely nothingness. The damned are those who are annihilated. But there is a difficulty here too. Nothingness does not exist in the Bible. It is a philosophical and mathematical concept. We can represent it only by a mathematical sign. God did not create ex nihilo, out of nothing. Genesis 1:2 speaks of tohu wabohu (“desert and wasteland” RSV “formless and void’) or of tehom (“the deep’). This is not nothing.
Furthermore, the closest thing to nothingness seems to be death. But the Bible speaks about enemies, that is, the great serpent, death, and the abyss, which are aggressors against God’s creation and are seeking to destroy it. These are enemies against which God protects his creation. He cannot allow that which he has created and called good to be destroyed, disorganized, swallowed up, and slain. This creation of God cannot revert to nothing. Death cannot issue in nothingness. This would be a negation of God himself, and this is why the first aspect seems to me to be decisive. Creation is under constant threat and is constantly upheld.
How could God himself surrender to nothingness and to the enemy that which he upholds in face and in spite of everything? How could he allow a power of destruction and annihilation in his creation? If he cannot withstand the force of nothingness, then we have to resort to dualism (a good God and a bad God in conflict and equal), to Zoroastrianism. Many are tempted to dualism today. But if God is unique, if he alone has life in himself, he cannot permit this threat to the object of his love.
But it is necessary that “the times be accomplished,” the times when we are driven into a corner and have to serve either the impotence of the God of love or the power of the forces of destruction and annihilation. We have to wait until humanity has completed its history and creation, and every possibility has been explored. This does not merely imply, however, that at the end of time the powers of destruction, death, the great serpent, Satan, the devil, will be annihilated, but much more. How can we talk about nothingness when we receive the revelation of this God who will be all in all? When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself also will be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28).
If God is, he is all in all. There is no more place for nothingness. The word is an empty one. For Christians it is just as empty as what it is supposed to denote. Philosophers speak in vain about something that they can only imagine or use as a building block, but which has no reality of any kind.
The second and equally essential factor is that after Jesus Christ we know that God is love. This is the central revelation. How can we conceive of him who is love ceasing to love one of his creatures? How can we think that God can cease to love the creation that he has made in his own image? This would be a contradiction in terms. God cannot cease to be love.
If we combine the two theses we see at once that nothing can exist outside God’s love, for God is all in all. It is unthinkable that there should exist a place of suffering, of torment, of the domination of evil, of beings that merely hate since their only function is to torture. It is astounding that Christian theology should not have seen at a glance how impossible this idea is. Being love, God cannot send to hell the creation which he so loved that he gave his only Son for it. He cannot reject it because it is his creation. This would be to cut off himself.
A whole theological trend advances the convenient solution that God is love but also justice. He saves the elect to manifest his love and condemns the reprobate to manifest his justice. My immediate fear is that this solution does not even correspond to our idea of justice and that we are merely satisfying our desire that people we regard as terrible should be punished in the next world. This view is part of the mistaken theology which declares that the good are unhappy on earth but will be happy in heaven, whereas the wicked are successful on earth but will be punished in the next world. Unbelievers have every reason to denounce this explanation as a subterfuge designed to make people accept what happens on earth. The kingdom of God is not compensation for this world.
Another difficulty is that we are asked to see God with two faces as though he were a kind of Janus facing two ways. Such a God could not be the God of Jesus Christ, who has only one face. Crucial texts strongly condemn two-faced people who go two different ways. These are the ones that Jesus Christ calls hypocrites. If God is double-minded, there is duplicity in him. He is a hypocrite. We have to choose: He is either love or he is justice. He is not both. If he is the just judge, the pitiless Justiciar, he is not the God that Jesus Christ has taught us to love. Furthermore, this conception is a pure and simple denial of Jesus Christ. For the doctrine is firm that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died and was willing to die for human sin to redeem us all: I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself (John 12:32), satisfying divine justice. All the evil done on earth from Adam’s break with God undoubtedly has to be judged and punished. But all our teaching about Jesus is there to remind us that the wrath of God fell entirely on him, on God in the person of the Son. God directs his justice upon himself; he has taken upon himself the condemnation of our wickedness. What would be the point, then, of a second condemnation of individuals?
Was the judgment passed on Jesus insufficient? Was the price that was paid-the punishment of the Son of God-too low to meet the demands of God’s justice? This justice is satisfied in God and by God for us. From this point on, then, we know only the face of the love of God.
This love is not sentimental acquiescence. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb. 10:31). God’s love is demanding, “jealous,” total, and indivisible. Love has a stern face, not a soft one. Nevertheless, it is love. And in any case this love excludes double predestination, some to salvation and others to perdition. It is inconceivable that the God of Jesus Christ, who gives himself in his Son to save us, should have created some people ordained to evil and damnation.
There is indeed a predestination, but it can be only the one predestination to salvation. In and through Jesus Christ all people are predestined to be saved. Our free choice is ruled out in this regard. We have often said that God wants free people. He undoubtedly does, except in relation to this last and definitive decision. We are not free to decide and choose to be damned. To say that God presents us with the good news of the gospel and then leaves the final issue to our free choice either to accept it and be saved or to reject it and be lost is foolish. To take this point of view is to make us arbiters of the situation. In this case it is we who finally decide our own salvation.
This view reverses a well-known thesis and would have it that God proposes and man disposes. Without question we all know of innumerable cases in which people reject revelation. Swarms are doing so today. But have they any real knowledge of revelation? If I look at countless presentations of the Word of God by the churches, I can say that the churches have presented many ideas and commandments that have nothing whatever to do with God’s revelation. Rejecting these things, human commandments, is not the same as rejecting the truth. And even if the declaration or proclamation of the gospel is faithful, it does not itself force a choice upon us.
If people are to recognize the truth, they must also have the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. These two things are indispensable, the faithful declaration of the gospel, the good news, by a human being and the inner witness in the hearer of the Holy Spirit, who conveys the assurance that it is the truth of God. The one does not suffice without the other. Thus when those who hear refuse our message, we can never say that they have chosen to disobey God.
The human and divine acts are one and the same only in the Word of Jesus. When he told his hearers not to be unbelieving but to believe, if they refused then they were rejected. In our case, however, we cannot say that there is an act of the Holy Spirit simultaneously with our proclamation. This may well be the point of the well-known text about the one sin that cannot be pardoned, the sin against the Holy Spirit (cf. Matt. 12:31-32). But we can never know whether anyone has committed it. However that may be, it is certain that being saved or lost does not depend on our own free decision.
I believe that all people are included in the grace of God. I believe that all the theologies that have made a large place for damnation and hell are unfaithful to a theology of grace. For if there is predestination to perdition, there is no salvation by grace. Salvation by grace is granted precisely to those who without grace would have been lost. Jesus did not come to seek the righteous and the saints, but sinners. He came to seek those who in strict justice ought to have been condemned.
A theology of grace implies universal salvation. What could grace mean if it were granted only to some sinners and not to others according to an arbitrary decree that is totally contrary to the nature of our God? If grace is granted according to the greater or lesser number of sins, it is no longer grace-it is just the opposite because of this accountancy. Paul is the very one who reminds us that the enormity of the sin is no obstacle to grace: Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more (Rom. 5:20). This is the key statement. The greater the sin, the more God’s love reveals itself to be far beyond any judgment or evaluation of ours. This grace covers all things. It is thus effectively universal.
I do not think that in regard to this grace we can make the Scholastic distinctions between prevenient grace, expectant grace, conditional grace, etc. Such adjectives weaken the thrust of the free grace of the absolute sovereign, and they result only from our great difficulty in believing that God has done everything. But this means that nothing in his creation is excluded or lost.
Jacques Ellul, What I Believe (Eerdmans 1989), pp. 188-192.
Christoph Friedrich Blumhardt (1842-1919) was born at Möttlingen in 1842. Christoph Blumhardt, as his father, Johann Christoph Blumhardt, became known as a mass evangelist and faith healer. The preaching of the Blumhardt’s was radically oriented toward the coming kingdom of God.
For a time Christoph Blumhardt was involved with politics as a Social Democrat, but came disillusioned with politics. He gradually developed the idea, that the most radical and active involvement in the world is in fact in waiting upon God.
Christoph Blumhardt’s theology, preaching and ministry influenced important theologians of the 20th century, such as Karl Barth and Jürgen Moltmann. According to Blumhardt the purpose of God’s judgments was the conversion of the sinner aiming at the final salvation of all.
“I am frequently saddened to hear and see how so many people who call themselves Christians, and often even real Christians, cannot bring themselves to wish good to all people as they wish it for themselves. How few are filled with God’s gift of forgiveness! Instead most set themselves apart by setting themselves above others. But if we are awaiting the Savior, then we are awaiting the forgiveness of the world’s sins, not just our own (1 John 2:2).” (Christoph Blumhardt 1842-1919)
“There can be no question of God’s giving up anything or anyone in the whole world, either today or in all eternity. The end has to be: Behold, everything is God’s! Jesus comes as the one who has borne the sins of the world. Jesus can judge but not condemn. My desire is to have preached this as far as the deepest depths of hell, and I shall never be confounded.” — Christoph Blumhardt (1842-1919)
“One may ask what kind of judging the disciples were supposed to do while sitting on their thrones. Here we must remember that according to Paul at the end all of Israel will be saved (Rom. 11:26). And, Romans 11:32: ‘For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.’ Thus this judgment by the disciples is no judgment toward damnation; rather it is a preparation for submission and for acceptance of salvation […] Even in the Old Testament the word ‘judging’ is sometimes used in the sense of ‘setting right’, as for instance when it says ‘Zion must be judged by right and justice.’ […] The ‘judgment’ shall be a means to brings as many as possible back into the fold. Finally, all knees shall be bent and all tongues confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. In order to make this possible there will have to be a lot of judgment-work done.” (Blumhardt quoted from Christian T. Collins Winn, “Jesus Is Victor!”: The Significance of the Blumhardts for the Theology of Karl Barth)
“Jesus sees every person as abnormal but gives up no one as lost. If people were not as they are, they would have no need of Salvation. So, in the next place, Jesus allows all to come to him as they are: sinners and righteous, poor and rich, healthy and sick. Jesus gives himself to each person as he is; and people ought not play up their own piety and put down that of others.”
It might come as a surprise to some, that the doctrine of universal restitution or “apokatastasis”, let alone the belief that all human beings will be saved eventually, has never as such been condemned by any of the ancient ecumical church councils. Sometimes, however, it is claimed that the doctrine was condemned at the fifth ecumenical council at Constantinople in 553.
In this book Roman Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar defended what is sometimes called hopeful universalism, i.e. the belief that Christian orthodoxy allows us to hope that all persons will eventually be saved. Balthasar does not teach universal restoration as a dogmatic necessity, but defends what may be termed a conditional, but hopeful universalism: It is at least possible that all human beings will eventually accept the salvation of Christ.
“The Church’s teaching on Hell has been generally neglected by theologians, with the notable exception of Fr. von Balthasar. However, what he has said has stirred controversy both in Europe and in the United States. Here he responds in a clear and concise way, grounding his reflections clearly in Scripture. Revelation gives us neither the assurance that all will be saved, nor the certitude that any are condemned. What it does require of us is the “hope that all men be saved” rooted in a love of Christ that reaches even into the depths of Hell.”
Thomas Talbott: The Inescapable Love of God (Universal Pub. 1999)
“The real mystery is why so many have failed to appreciate the universalism of the New Testament and why so many have tried to explain it away. Paul, for example, speaks eloquently of the triumph of God’s sovereign love; again and again, we find in his letters explicit statements to the effect that God will eventually bring all things into subjection to Christ and reconcile all things in Christ and bring life to all persons through Christ. As we shall see, these statements are neither obscure nor incidental; indeed, the lengths to which some have gone to explain them away is itself a testimony to their clarity and power.”
– Thomas Talbott.
Talbott is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Willamette University. Read more on Thomas Talbott’s book here or find it at amazon.com.
Three chapters from the first edition are available as PDF:
“Christian universalism has been explored in its biblical, philosophical, and historical dimensions. For the first time, The God Who Saves explores it in systematic theological perspective. In doing so it also offers a fresh take on universal salvation, one that is postmetaphysical, existential, and hermeneutically critical. The result is a constructive account of soteriology that does justice to both the universal scope of divine grace and the historicity of human existence. In The God Who Saves David W. Congdon orients theology systematically around the New Testament witness to the apocalyptic inbreaking of God’s reign. The result is a consistently soteriocentric theology. Building on the insights of Rudolf Bultmann, Ernst Käsemann, Eberhard Jüngel, and J. Louis Martyn, he interprets the saving act of God as the eschatological event that crucifies the old cosmos in Christ. Human beings participate in salvation through their unconscious, existential cocrucifixion, in which each person is interrupted by God and placed outside of himself or herself. Both academically rigorous and pastorally sensitive, The God Who Saves opens up new possibilities for understanding not only what salvation is but also who the God who brings about our salvation is. Here is an interdisciplinary exercise in dogmatic theology for the twenty-first century.” (from the book description)
1. God is the Creator of all men. “He hath made of one blood, all nations of men, to dwell on all the face of the earth.” (Acts 17:26) He would not have created intelligent beings, had he known they were to be forever miserable. To suppose that God would bring beings into existence who he knew would be infinite losers by that existence, is to charge him with the utmost malignity. The existence itself would not be a blessing, but a curse; the greatness of which cannot be described. As God is infinite in knowledge, and as he sees the end from the beginning, he must have known before the creation, the result of the existence he was about to confer, and whether, upon the whole, it would be a blessing; and , as he was not under any necessity to create man, being also infinitely benevolent, he could not have conferred an existence that he knew would end in the worst possible consequences to his creatures.
In this article, based on a lecture at the Centre for Baptist History and Heritage at Regent Park College in Oxford in 2011, Robin Parry in detail describes the life and theology of the important Universal Baptist preacher and abolitionist Elhanan Winchester.
From the introduction:
“Baptists are not known for their universalism. With a few notable exceptions it is fair to say that Baptists have maintained the traditional mainstream rejection of universalism. And it has always been thus; or, perhaps more accurately, it has mostly been thus. When we look back to the eighteenth century we find that, in fact, universalism became quite a dividing issue within the Baptist movement, both in Britain and in America. We discover several Baptist ministers embracing universalism and several Baptist churches becoming overtly universalist in sentiment. The movement towards universalism was eventually diverted out of the Baptist mainstream. In America the universalist congregations moved to set up their own independent denomination and thus effectively flushed themselves out of the Baptist movement—although, to be more precise, the move was a combination both of jumping after being pushed. In Britain universalist congregations were almost all associated with the General Assembly, a prominent part of eighteenth-century Baptist life, but during the nineteenth century it faded in significance and the future Baptist movement was to flow from the New Connexion of General Baptists and the Particulars, both streams of which explicitly resisted universalism. Thus the Baptists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were, with only a few exceptions, non-universalists. And the exceptions that we do find, such as Rev. Samuel Cox (1826–93) 2 —author of Salvator Mundi; Or Is Christ the Saviour of All Men? (1877) and The Larger Hope (1883)—do not appear to have drawn inspiration from their universalist Baptist predecessors. Thus it was that the universalist stirrings within the eighteenth-century Baptist movement ceased to trouble the waters of subsequent Baptist life. But the story is interesting and worth being told. This paper does not aim to tell it but rather to offer a window on it through the story of one of its most significant figures, Elhanan Winchester (1751–97). Winchester served as a universalist preacher in Baptist contexts in both America and Britain. As such he provides an interesting case study through which we can gain some insight into this transatlantic controversy.”
“They will be punished with eternal destruction (olethron aionion), forever separated from the Lord and from his glorious power.” (2 Thes. 1:9, NLT)
“who shall suffer justice — destruction age-during (olethron aionion) — from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his strength” (2 Thes. 1:9, YLT)
From Word Studies in the New Testament by Marvin R. Vincent. Marvin Richardson Vincent (1834-1922) was a Presbyterian minister, professor of New Testament exegesis at Union Theological Seminary in New York City. In his Word Studies in the New Testament Vincent explains the meaning of the words often translated ‘eternity’ and ‘eternal’ in the Bible, though these words in most (if not all) cases denote limited durations.
‘Aion, transliterated aeon, is a period of longer or shorter duration, having a beginning and an end, and complete in itself. Aristotle (peri ouravou, i. 9,15) says: “The period which includes the whole time of one’s life is called the aeon of each one.” Hence it often means the life of a man, as in Homer, where one’s life (aion) is said to leave him or to consume away (Iliad v. 685; Odyssey v. 160). It is not, however, limited to human life; it signifies any period in the course of events, as the period or age before Christ; the period of the millenium; the mythological period before the beginnings of history. The word has not “a stationary and mechanical value” (De Quincey). It does not mean a period of a fixed length for all cases. There are as many aeons as entities, the respective durations of which are fixed by the normal conditions of the several entities. There is one aeon of a human life, another of the life of a nation, another of a crow’s life, another of an oak’s life. The length of the aeon depends on the subject to which it is attached.
It is sometimes translated world; world represents a period or a series of periods of time. See Matt 12:32; 13:40,49; Luke 1:70; 1 Cor 1:20; 2:6; Eph 1:21. Similarly oi aiones, the worlds, the universe, the aggregate of the ages or periods, and their contents which are included in the duration of the world. 1 Cor 2:7; 10:11; Heb 1:2; 9:26; 11:3. The word always carries the notion of time, and not of eternity. It always means a period of time. Otherwise it would be impossible to account for the plural, or for such qualifying expressions as this age, or the age to come. It does not mean something endless or everlasting. To deduce that meaning from its relation to aei is absurd; for, apart from the fact that the meaning of a word is not definitely fixed by its derivation, aei does not signify endless duration. When the writer of the Pastoral Epistles quotes the saying that the Cretans are always (aei) liars (Tit. 1:12), he surely does not mean that the Cretans will go on lying to all eternity. See also Acts 7:51; 2 Cor. 4:11; 6:10; Heb 3:10; 1 Pet. 3:15. Aei means habitually or continually within the limit of the subject’s life. In our colloquial dialect everlastingly is used in the same way. “The boy is everlastingly tormenting me to buy him a drum.”
In the New Testament the history of the world is conceived as developed through a succession of aeons. A series of such aeons precedes the introduction of a new series inaugurated by the Christian dispensation, and the end of the world and the second coming of Christ are to mark the beginning of another series. Eph. 1:21; 2:7; 3:9,21; 1 Cor 10:11; compare Heb. 9:26. He includes the series of aeons in one great aeon, ‘o aion ton aionon, the aeon of the aeons (Eph. 3:21); and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews describe the throne of God as enduring unto the aeon of the aeons (Heb 1:8). The plural is also used, aeons of the aeons, signifying all the successive periods which make up the sum total of the ages collectively. Rom. 16:27; Gal. 1:5; Philip. 4:20, etc. This plural phrase is applied by Paul to God only.
The adjective aionios in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective, in themselves, carry the sense of endless or everlasting. They may acquire that sense by their connotation, as, on the other hand, aidios, which means everlasting, has its meaning limited to a given point of time in Jude 6. Aionios means enduring through or pertaining to a period of time. Both the noun and the adjective are applied to limited periods. Thus the phrase eis ton aiona, habitually rendered forever, is often used of duration which is limited in the very nature of the case. See, for a few out of many instances, LXX, Exod 21:6; 29:9; 32:13; Josh. 14:9 1 Sam 8:13; Lev. 25:46; Deut. 15:17; 1 Chron. 28:4;. See also Matt. 21:19; John 13:8 1 Cor. 8:13. The same is true of aionios. Out of 150 instances in LXX, four-fifths imply limited duration. For a few instances see Gen. 48:4; Num. 10:8; 15:15; Prov. 22:28; Jonah 2:6; Hab. 3:6; Isa. 61:17.
Words which are habitually applied to things temporal or material cannot carry in themselves the sense of endlessness. Even when applied to God, we are not forced to render aionioseverlasting. Of course the life of God is endless; but the question is whether, in describing God as aionios, it was intended to describe the duration of his being, or whether some different and larger idea was not contemplated. That God lives longer then men, and lives on everlastingly, and has lived everlastingly, are, no doubt, great and significant facts; yet they are not the dominant or the most impressive facts in God’s relations to time. God’s eternity does not stand merely or chiefly for a scale of length. It is not primarily a mathematical but a moral fact. The relations of God to time include and imply far more than the bare fact of endless continuance. They carry with them the fact that God transcends time; works on different principles and on a vaster scale than the wisdom of time provides; oversteps the conditions and the motives of time; marshals the successive aeons from a point outside of time, on lines which run out into his own measureless cycles, and for sublime moral ends which the creature of threescore and ten years cannot grasp and does not even suspect.
There is a word for everlasting if that idea is demanded. That aiodios occurs rarely in the New Testament and in LXX does not prove that its place was taken by aionios. It rather goes to show that less importance was attached to the bare idea of everlastingness than later theological thought has given it. Paul uses the word once, in Rom. 1:20, where he speaks of “the everlasting power and divinity of God.” In Rom. 16:26 he speaks of the eternal God (tou aioniou theou); but that he does not mean the everlasting God is perfectly clear from the context. He has said that “the mystery” has been kept in silence in times eternal (chronois aioniois), by which he does not mean everlasting times, but the successive aeons which elapsed before Christ was proclaimed. God therefore is described as the God of the aeons, the God who pervaded and controlled those periods before the incarnation. To the same effect is the title ‘o basileus ton aionon, the King of the aeons, applied to God in 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 15:3; compare Tob. 13:6, 10. The phrase pro chronon aionion, before eternal times (2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2), cannot mean before everlasting times. To say that God bestowed grace on men, or promised them eternal life before endless times, would be absurd. The meaning is of old, as Luke 1:70. The grace and the promise were given in time, but far back in the ages, before the times of reckoning the aeons.
Zoe aionioseternal life, which occurs 42 times in N. T., but not in LXX, is not endless life, but life pertaining to a certain age or aeon, or continuing during that aeon. I repeat, life may be endless. The life in union with Christ is endless, but the fact is not expressed by aionios. Kolasis aionios, rendered everlasting punishment (Matt. 25:46), is the punishment peculiar to an aeon other then that in which Christ is speaking. In some cases zoe aionios does not refer specifically to the life beyond time, but rather to the aeon or dispensation of Messiah which succeeds the legal dispensation. See Matt. 19:16; John 5:39. John says that zoe aionios is the present possession of those who believe on the Son of God, John 3:36; 5:24; 6:47,54. The Father’s commandment is zoe aionios, John 1250; to know the only true God and Jesus Christ is zoe aionios. John 17:3.
Bishop Westcott very justly says, commenting upon the terms used by John to describe life under different aspects: “In considering these phrases it is necessary to premise that in spiritual things we must guard against all conclusions which rest upon the notions of succession and duration. ‘Eternal life’ is that which St. Paul speaks of as ‘e outos Zoethe life which is life indeed, and ‘e zoe tou theou, the life of God. It is not an endless duration of being in time, but being of which time is not a measure. We have indeed no powers to grasp the idea except through forms and images of sense. These must be used, but we must not transfer them as realities to another order.”
Thus, while aionios carries the idea of time, though not of endlessness, there belongs to it also, more or less, a sense of quality. Its character is ethical rather than mathematical. The deepest significance of the life beyond time lies, not in endlessness, but in the moral quality of the aeon into which the life passes. It is comparatively unimportant whether or not the rich fool, when his soul was required of him (Luke 12:20), entered upon a state that was endless. The principal, the tremendous fact, as Christ unmistakably puts it, was that, in the new aeon, the motives, the aims, the conditions, the successes and awards of time counted for nothing. In time, his barns and their contents were everything; the soul was nothing. In the new life the soul was first and everything, and the barns and storehouses nothing. The bliss of the sanctified does not consist primarily in its endlessness, but in the nobler moral conditions of the new aeon, the years of the holy and eternal God. Duration is a secondary idea. When it enters it enters as an accompaniment and outgrowth of moral conditions.
In the present passage it is urged that olethron destruction points to an unchangeable, irremediable, and endless condition. If this be true, if olethros is extinction, then the passage teaches the annihilation of the wicked, in which case the adjective aionios is superfluous, since extinction is final, and excludes the idea of duration. But olethros does not always mean destruction or extinction. Take the kindred verb apollumito destroy, put an end to, or in the middle voice, to be lost, to perish. Peter says “the world being deluged with water, perished (apoleto, 2 Pet. 3:6); but the world did not become extinct, it was renewed. In Heb. 1:11,12, quoted from Ps. 102, we read concerning the heavens and the earth as compared with the eternity of God, “they shall perish” (apolountai). But the perishing is only preparatory to change and renewal. “They shall be changed” (allagesontai). Compare Isa. 51:6,16; 65:22; 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1. Similarly, “the Son of man came to save that which was lost” (apololos), Luke 19:10. Jesus charged his apostles to go to the lost (apololota) sheep of the house of Israel, Matt. 10:6, compare 15:24, “He that shall lose (apolese) his life for my sake shall find it,” Matt. 16:25. Compare Luke 15:6,9,32.
In this passage, the word destruction is qualified. It is “destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power,” at his second coming, in the new aeon. In other words, it is the severance, at a given point of time, of those who obey not the gospel from the presence and the glory of Christ. Aionios may therefore describe this severance as continuing during the millenial aeon between Christ’s coming and the final judgment; as being for the wicked prolonged throughout that aeon and characteristic of it, or it may describe the severance as characterising or enduring through a period or aeon succeeding the final judgment, the extent of which period is not defined. In neither case is aionios, to be interpreted as everlasting or endless.
It is debated whether or not Basil of Caesarea (Gregory of Nyssa’s older brother) believed in a final restoration of all things in the Origenian sense. 
For those who does not have the time or cannot afford Dr. Ilaria Ramelli’s massive work 
The church owes its life to the Lord and its fellowship to his supper, not the other way around. Its invitation goes out to all whom he is sent to invite. If a church were to limit the openness of his invitation of its own accord, it would be turning the Lord’s supper into the church’s supper and putting its own fellowship at the centre, not fellowship with him. […] The Lord’s supper takes place on the basis of an invitation which is as open as the outstretched arms of Christ on the cross. Because he died for the reconciliation of ‘the world’, the world is invited to reconciliation in the supper. It is not the openness of this invitation, it is the restrictive measures of the churches which have to be justified before the face of the crucified Jesus. But which of us can justify them in his sight? The openness of the crucified Lord’s invitation to his supper and his fellowship reaches beyond the frontiers of Christianity; for it is addressed to ‘all nations’ and to ‘tax-collectors and sinners’ first of all. Consequently we understand Christ’s invitation as being open, not merely to the churches but to the whole world. (Jürgen Moltmann, 
Melito of Sardis (d. c. 180) was bishop of Sardis in Asia minor. In his Easter sermon (On the Passover) Melito explained, among other things, how the Old Testament prefigured the coming and suffering of Christ, the “Passover lamb” who was fully God and fully man. The mystery of Passover, explains Melito, is both new and old, eternal and temporal.
As seen above, Spurgeon correctly understands election to be an act “done absolutely in eternity.” Amongst those of the reformed tradition, this is pretty much a given; there is not anyone, to my knowledge, who would be considered reformed were they to deny the eternal election of the believer. In arguing for election being from eternity, Spurgeon does not mention the distinction between immanent and transient acts of God, which would have been immensely helpful to his case.
In the Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth’s famous doctrine of election, Jesus is the one elect of God, elected to bear our rejection in a way that all human beings are elected in him (Church Dogmatics II.2). This also means that all human beings have been reconciled to God in Christ alone before coming to faith.
Christoph Friedrich Blumhardt (1842-1919) was born at Möttlingen in 1842. Christoph Blumhardt, as his father, Johann Christoph Blumhardt, became known as a mass evangelist and faith healer. The preaching of the Blumhardt’s was radically oriented toward the coming kingdom of God.
