No, silly, J.A.T. Robinson isn’t really Rob Bell’s “Grandpa,” I used that to provoke a little hook in order to grab some readers for this post. Yet, there is “some” truth to it; theologically. Robinson offers a more robust version of Bell’s apparent “hopeful universalism” before Bell was ever born [by the way, this post isn’t primarily about Bell, it’s more about presenting Robinson’s view of Christian universalism — but of course this will affect how someone might think of the apparent “novelty” of Bell’s points on this subject in his recent book]. I am just beginning to read a volume entitled: Universalism And The Doctrine Of Hell: Papers Presented at the Fourth Edinburgh Conference on Christian Dogmatics, 1991. I was actually hoping to be able to pick up Greg MacDonald’s Evangelical Universalist, but was unable to secure a copy until a later date; in lieu of that I am reading this compiliation, and while it is a bit dated (1991), I think it should prove to be a helpful piece in working through the contours of this particularly lively topic nowadays (plus, it has a chapter from T.F. Torrance, how could we go wrong then?). Alright, now that that’s cleared; let me get right to it and present J.A.T. Robinson’s ‘Christian Universalism,’ summarized by Trevor Hart (then I’ll follow with a brief parting comment):
The essence of Robinson’s universalism consists in fact in the confident assertion that ultimately all will be saved because all will in time come to choose the salvation offered through Christ’s atoning death and resurrection. Thus there is no suggestion that any will be saved other than through faith in Christ, since salvation itself consists precisely in the free choice of life through the death of Christ and the rejection of that hell which is the deserved fate of human beings. Thus, he contends, ‘there could be no greater calumny than to suggest that the universalist either does not preach hell or does so with his tongue in his cheek’. On the contrary, both hell and judgement must be preached with integrity as existentially real alternatives to salvation. ‘Only the man who has genuinely been confronted by both alternatives can be saved. To preach heaven alone . . . is to deny men the possibility of salvation. For salvation is a state of having chosen; and in the moment of choice . . . , both alternatives are existentially as real.’ It is thus that Robinson is able to make sense of the biblical dualism between the saved and the lost. This is, as it were, a perfectly true and necessary account for the person facing the choice between salvation and its alternative. ‘From below’ hell and judgement are indeed realities, since no person can reject Christ and face anything other than eternal death. Thus we must not be too dismissive of Robinson’s ‘kerygmatic hell’ as it has been called. It is kerygmatic not in the sense that it belongs only to the kerygma and not to the real world (a view which would rob the kerygma of its integrity, turning its dark side into an empty threat), but rather in the sense that it is absolutely necessary that the kerygma should present what is the only real alternative to choosing life in Christ. Being saved involves rejecting this dark alternative to life in all its fulness; and that which is rejected is indeed real enough. It is because Robinson is equally convinced that all will in fact make this choice under the compulsion of divine love that he speaks of universalism as the ‘truth as it is for God’ (i.e. from above), and biblical dualism as the all too real scenario facing human beings in their existential viewpoint prior to this decision of faith. All will choose life: but the choice is only a real and significant one precisely because neither the reality of hell nor the urgency of choice is in any way lessened. Thus Robinson concludes that the divine love ‘will take no man’s choice from him; for it is precisely his choice that it wants. But its will to lordship is inexhaustible and ultimately unendurable: the sinner must yield.’ [Trevor Hart, “Chapter 1, Universalism: Two Distinct Types,” in, Universalism And The Doctrine Of Hell, edited by Nigel M. de. S. Cameron (UK: The Guernsey Press Co. Ltd., 1991), 21-2.]
So for Robinson, God’s love in Christ is going to win! It’s important to note, that this indeed is an “Evangelical” and “Christian” form of ‘universalism’; faith in Christ is still required, it’s just that his love is so compelling that all “eventually” will respond (and in their response, their true human freedom is finally realized — pace Robinson). This is in contrast to John Hick’s ‘Pluralist Universalism’ — the other kind that Hart is sketching — that avers that all will be “saved” with no need for Christ (it will just be based upon, basically their habituation in the “light” their particular “tradition” provided for them). There are, Scriptural and Dogmatic problems for Robinson’s proposal; I may try to work through Hart’s work on those (in response to Robinson’s view) in the next post (we’ll see). Anyway, I think, at least, it’s important to note that Bell is not presenting something novel with his recent and dramatic book; Robinson, at least (if not others like Origen, Maximus et al) beat him to the punch — and in much more rigorous ways (and then of course there are more recent proposals like that of Greg MacDonald’s which I hope to get to in the next month or so).
Wow are we on the same wave length lately or what! Oddly enough I copied the chapters I’m interested in from the same book this weekend and I’m almost finished with Robinson’s little book “In The End, God…” I have the “special edition” with an intro essay by Trevor Hart and a foreword by Gregory MacDonald. Robinson’s proposal is interesting for sure, but I still see MacDonald’s as the more cogent. Both take hell into account and the utter seriousness of the cross and sin, Robinson has some interesting views on the eschatological passages in Scripture and seemingly collapses them into the present..sounds alot like Bell! In fairness, Bell keeps the distinction a little better. I’d be surprised if Bell hadn’t read this book and simply didn’t footnote it; the proposals have too many explicit similarities.
Anyways, this is one of those cases of taking the good with the bad and he has some awesome passages that point out how the doctrine of God is where we start and the point from which our eschatology derives: “Every truth about eschatology is ipso facto a truth about God…Simply because the divine nature is essentially one of personal purpose, the ultimate character of God must be expressed by the final state of history (29).” And of course, he starts with Jesus Christ as the ultimate revelation of God, so you as a TFT go can predict where he is going with this thought.
Bobby,
The late John A.T. (Albert Thomas) Robinson, Anglican, one time Bishop of Woolwich, Dean of Trinity College, and just NT scholar, was almost a household name in England and the UK in the mid 60’s with his book: Honest to God. Later I read many of his books, as “In The End, God”. But my favorite were his books: ‘Redating The NT’, and ‘The Priority of John’, the latter was published (1985) after his death (died 1983). In the main, I follow his dating of the NT, written all before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Simply a profound and solid argument! And also followed by the likes of James Moffatt, and too, C.F.D. Moule.
Indeed he had a great mind, and was like a Sherlock Holmes always eager after the hunt for biblical truth to some degree. Also for those interested, perhaps reading his book: The Body: a study in Pauline theology (1952), will be of some use over the Bell issues? And his book: The Human Face Of God (1973), was an interesting read, certainly theologically subjective and liberal, but I still have my copy. π
@Randy,
Yeah, I’m only really motivated to study a bit more on this because universalism is in the “air” right now; so I thought it only wise to read up a bit more on it. I really would prefer to go to the best arguments for Christian universalism straightaway. So I’m going to order MacDonald’s book, right now, and hopefully have that in soon! Robinson seems to have some good impulses, but then he founders, it appears, according to Hart, as he engages his ‘omnipotent love’ of God mode. Meaning that we end up, ultimately with a logico-causal, necessitarian god once again (really no different than our “classic Calv” brethren). We can even see that in Hart’s quoting of Robinson at the end of the quote above ‘for it is precisely his choice that it wants. But its will to lordship is inexhaustible and ultimately unendurable: the sinner must yield.β Which really, is no good π . But I do like the idea of God’s life as eschatological, and Christ as creation’s telos.
@Fr Rob,
Yep, I realized that Robinson is that celebrated NT scholar (I’ve even referenced him before for some of my exegetical work while in school). Maybe he should’ve just stuck with NT exegesis, and avoided the dogmatic stuff π .
Bobby: I met him once, I was with a theological friend, who had been his student. I was in my RMC uniform as I remember..late 70’s? He also had his brother there as I also remember. Just a grand fellow!
I’m sure he was!
Btw Bobby,
Have you read Robinson’s book: Redating the N.T.? It is available now from WIPF and Stock Pub. Such an awesome book! If correct, it simply shatters so much ink and theology! π
I actually don’t recall what I read of his. I think it was his “Word Pictures” or some such thing. Someday I’ll have to read the book you mention here.
Bobby,
That’s another Robinson I would think.
You know what, you’re right; I’m thinking of A.T. Robertson.
But I do know that I have referenced Robinson for some past work π .
John A. T. Robinson is one of those guys somewhat like Barth, that makes you think, both biblically and theologically. His book: The Priority of John is also back in print. Robinson’s supposition is that John (the Gospel) was actually written first. I read it years back in ’85, as I remember. Good stuff really! Though he is certainly theologically liberal, but still a good thinker (or was). He was somewhat just like E.W. Bullinger, in that he was always an independent thinker also.
I wonder about the perhaps naive view of the will/freedom that lurks behind JAT Robinson’s assertion. Are we free in the sense that he implies? And if not, what does that do to his universalism?
Brooks,
Well, though I like some of Robinson’s historical Biblical works, I know that he was personally a liberal in many places theological and biblical. I am myself a more classic type Calvinist. So I certainly reject his universalism, and free will ideas.
Thanks Fr. Robert. I like the blog by the way!
Thanks mate! π
@Brooks,
Welcome to the blog. I’m not totally sure what Robinson’s view was, but I do know that his “universalism” could not be considered “Evangelical”.
Btw, just to be clear, this is my blog, not Fr Roberts. Not sure if that was clear. I am not a “classic Calvinist,” but an “Evangelical Calvinist;” there’s a pretty substantial difference π .
Bobby,
I thought he was refering to my own wee blog, somehow? But, yes Brooks, I am the more classic Calvinist. This is Bobby’s “Evangelical” Calvinist blog.
Fr Rob,
Yeah, I wasn’t sure (I thought he could’ve been too); I thought I would just make it clear π .