Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:35:33.113Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thomas F. Torrance and the problem of universalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2015

Paul D. Molnar
Paul D. Molnar*
Affiliation:
St John's University, Queens, New York 11439, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While Karl Barth and Thomas F. Torrance both believed in the possibility of universal salvation, they also rejected the idea that we could make a final determination about this possibility prior to the second coming of Jesus Christ. Hence, both theologians rejected what may be called a doctrine of universal salvation in the interest of respecting God's freedom to determine the outcome of salvation history in accordance with the love which was revealed in and through the death and resurrection of Jesus himself. This article explores Torrance's reasons for holding that ‘the voice of the Catholic Church . . . throughout all ages has consistently judged universalism a heresy for faith and a menace to the Gospel’. Torrance expressly believed in the ‘universality of Christ's saving work’ but rejected ‘universalism’ and any idea of ‘limited atonement’. He considered both of these views to be rationalistic approaches which ignore the need for eschatological reserve when thinking about what happens at the end when Christ comes again and consequently tend to read back logical necessities into the gospel of free grace. Whenever this happens, Torrance held that the true meaning of election as the basis for Christian hope is lost and some version of limited atonement or determinism invariably follows. The ultimate problem with universalism then, from Torrance's perspective, can be traced to a form of Nestorian thinking with respect to christology and to a theoretical and practical separation of the person of Christ from his atoning work for us. What I hope to show in this article is that those who advance a ‘doctrine of universalism’ as opposed to its possibility also have an inadequate understanding of the Trinity. Interestingly, Torrance objected to the thinking of John A. T. Robinson and Rudolf Bultmann because both theologians, in their own way, separated knowledge of God for us from knowledge of who God is ‘in himself’. Any such thinking transfers our knowledge of God and of salvation from the objective knowledge of God given in revelation to a type of symbolic, mythological or existential knowledge projected from one's experience of faith and this once again opens the door to both limited atonement and to universalism. Against this Torrance insisted that we cannot speak objectively about what God is doing for us unless we can speak analogically about who God is in himself.

Keywords

atonement/limited atonementdeterminism/free willelection (predestination)salvation by grace/conditional salvationtrinitarian theologyuniversalism
Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 68 , Issue 2 , May 2015 , pp. 164 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For an excellent summary of four ancient and modern views of hell and damnation see Hunsinger, George, ‘Hellfire and Damnation: Four Ancient and Modern Views’, Scottish Journal of Theology, 51/4, pp. 406–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; reprinted in his Disruptive Grace: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), ch. 10Google Scholar. Hunsinger offers an insightful, accurate and helpful understanding of Barth's view of universal redemption, concluding that for Barth, ‘Although universal salvation cannot be deduced as a necessity, it cannot be excluded as a possibility’ since these alternatives (logical deduction and definite exclusion) would not respect God's freedom (p. 429). For a very interesting discussion of how the second coming (parousia) of Jesus shapes and should shape our view of Christian action and of the church in light of Christ's resurrection, ascension and impending return, see Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics, III/2, The Doctrine of Creation, trans. Harold Knight, G. W.Bromiley, J. K. S. Reid and Fuller, R. H. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1968), pp. 506–11Google Scholar.

2 Moltmann, Jürgen, Sun of Righteousness, Arise! God's Future for Humanity and the Earth, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2010), p. 142Google Scholar.

3 MacDonald, Gregory (ed.), ‘All Shall Be Well’: Explorations in Universalism and Christian Theology, from Origen to Moltmann (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011), pp. 4, 11Google Scholar.

4 Ibid., p. 11.

5 Ibid., p. 12.

6 Ibid., p. 13.

7 Ibid., and p. 24.

8 Torrance, T. F., ‘Universalism or Election?’, Scottish Journal of Theology 2 (1949), pp. 310–18, at p. 310Google Scholar.

9 Ibid., p. 313. Torrance held that ‘At the very best universalism could only be concerned with a hope, with a possibility, and could only be expressed apocalyptically’, so that if it is made into a ‘dogmatic statement, which is what the doctrine of universalism does’, then that destroys ‘the possibility in the necessity’.

10 Unpublished typescript of notes from an address dated 31 Oct. 1994 taken from the Princeton Seminary archives, p. 1. For Torrance's defence of Barth against the charge of universalism or ‘universal salvation’, see Torrance, Thomas F., Karl Barth: Biblical and Evangelical Theologian (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1990), pp. 236–40Google Scholar.

11 Robinson, J. A. T., ‘Universalism: Is it Heretical?’, Scottish Journal of Theology 2 (1949), pp. 139–55, at p. 139CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Robinson, John A. T., In the End, God . . . A Study of the Christian Doctrine of the Last Things, ed. Parry, Robin, foreword by Gregory MacDonald, intro. by Trevor Hart (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011), p. 125Google Scholar.

12 Robinson, ‘Universalism’, p. 139. Also, In the End, God, pp. 125–6.

13 Bultmann, Rudolf, Jesus Christ and Mythology (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958), p. 73Google Scholar.

14 Torrance, Thomas F., Incarnation: The Person and Life of Christ, ed. Walker, Robert T. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008), p. 288Google Scholar.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid., p. 287.

17 Ibid., p. 289.

18 See Torrance, T. F., Theology in Reconstruction (London: SCM Press, 1965), p. 277Google Scholar.

19 Robinson, ‘Universalism’, pp. 139–40, and In the End, God, p. 126.

20 Robinson, ‘Universalism’, p. 139.

21 For Robinson's understanding of myth see In the End, God, pp. 26–8, 55–63, 83–92. Since myth for Robinson is ‘not free speculation’ but ‘a picture designed to bring out the true depths of the present awareness’ (p. 56), his very understanding suffers from the same existentialising difficulty that Torrance objected to in Bultmann's thinking. One can offer a mythological view of the resurrection, for example, without actually allowing the risen Lord himself to dictate the meaning of what is said; not a word about Christ's bodily resurrection determines Robinson's analysis of what bodily resurrection means for us because for him ‘The doctrine of bodily resurrection is not forecast but myth’ (p. 84).

22 Robinson, ‘Universalism’, p. 147 and In the End, God, p. 134.

23 Torrance, ‘Universalism or Election?’, p. 311, and Robinson, In the End, God, p. 144.

24 Torrance, ‘Universalism or Election?’, p. 311.

25 Torrance, Thomas F., ‘The Atonement, the Singularity of Christ and the Finality of the Cross: The Atonement and the Moral Order’, in Cameron, Nigel M. de S. (ed.), Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell: Papers Presented at the Fourth Edinburgh Conference in Christian Dogmatics, 1991 (Carlisle: Paternoster PressGoogle Scholar; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), pp. 225–56, at p. 246.

26 Ibid.

27 Torrance, Thomas F., Atonement: The Person and Work of Christ, ed. Walker, Robert T. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009), p. 184Google Scholar.

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid., p. 185. Torrance reiterates this point frequently and never wavers from this position. See e.g. The Trinitarian Faith: The Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic Church (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988), p. 185Google Scholar, and The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Persons (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996), p. 249Google Scholar.

31 Torrance, Atonement, p. 185.

32 Ibid. See also Torrance, ‘The Singularity of Christ’, p. 245.

33 For a concise presentation of this see Torrance, Karl Barth, pp. 239–40.

34 Torrance, Atonement, pp. 186–7. Torrance traces the fatuous idea that ‘while the death of Christ was sufficient for all people it was efficient only for some’ to Alexander of Hales: ‘The Singularity of Christ’, p. 245.

35 Torrance, Atonement, p. 186.

36 Ibid.

37 Ibid., pp. 186–7.

38 Ibid., p. 187.

39 Ibid.

40 Ibid.

41 Ibid.

42 Ibid.

43 Torrance, ‘The Singularity of Christ’, p. 242.

44 Ibid.

45 Torrance, Atonement, p. 188.

46 Ibid.

47 Ibid., p. 189.

48 Torrance, ‘The Singularity of Christ’, p. 243.

49 Ibid.

50 Ibid., p. 244.

51 Torrance, ‘Universalism or Election?’, pp. 313–14, and Robinson, In the End, God, pp. 147–8. See also Torrance, Thomas F., Kingdom and Church: A Study in the Theology of the Reformation (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1996), pp. 104–8Google Scholar where Torrance insists on the need to hold predestination and eschatology together, as Calvin did.

52 Torrance, Thomas F., ‘Predestination in Christ’, Evangelical Quarterly 13 (1941), pp. 108–41, at p. 114Google Scholar.

53 Ibid.

54 Ibid., 109.

55 Ibid., p. 115.

56 Ibid.

57 Ibid.

58 Ibid.

59 Ibid., p. 116.

60 Ibid.

61 Ibid.

62 Ibid., p. 117.

63 Ibid.

64 Ibid.

65 Ibid.

66 Ibid., p. 118.

67 Ibid.

68 See the Torrance typescript on ‘Barth and Universalism’, p. 1. Thus he could say that ‘the Trinity is a whole with differentiations such that while remaining distinct each Person is whole God, while whole God is three distinct Persons’ (p. 1).

69 Ibid., p. 2.

70 Torrance, Thomas F., The Ground and Grammar of Theology (Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1980), p. 66Google Scholar.

71 Torrance typescript on ‘Barth and Universalism’, p. 2.

72 Ibid. See also The Christian Doctrine of God, p. 242.

73 For how Torrance understands God's time and ours see Molnar, Paul D., Thomas F. Torrance: Theologian of the Trinity (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2009), pp. 253–9Google Scholar. See also Torrance, Preaching Christ Today: The Gospel and Scientific Thinking (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 69–71Google Scholar, where he speaks of a ‘before’ and ‘after’ in God's life because in some sense, without being limited as we are, God's uncreated life is marked by time inasmuch as for God there is a before and after creation and incarnation. Cf. also The Christian Doctrine of God, pp. 241–2.

74 Torrance, ‘Predestination in Christ’, p. 120. See also Torrance, Thomas F., A Passion for Christ: The Vision that Ignites Ministry, ed. Dawson, Gerrit and Stein, Jock (Edinburgh: Handsel Press, 1999), pp. 30–2Google Scholar.

75 Torrance, ‘Predestination in Christ’, p. 120.

76 Ibid., and p. 136, n. 45. Torrance here is quoting from Luther.

77 Ibid., p. 121.

78 Ibid., p. 122.

79 Ibid.

80 Ibid.

81 Torrance, Incarnation, p. 247.

82 Ibid.

83 Ibid.

84 Ibid., p. 249.

85 Ibid., p. 250.

86 Ibid., p. 245.

87 See e.g. ibid., pp. 150–6, 246–56 and 323.

88 Ibid., p. 246.

89 Ibid.

90 Ibid., pp. 247–8.

91 Torrance, Atonement, p. 118.

92 Torrance, ‘The Singularity of Christ’, p. 252.

93 Torrance, Atonement, p. 118.

94 Ibid.

95 Torrance, ‘The Singularity of Christ’, p. 253.

96 Torrance, Atonement, p. 112.

97 Ibid., pp. 112–13. Torrance here refers to Gen 3:5.

98 Ibid., p. 112.

99 Ibid. Torrance is here thinking of Kant's universal moral imperative.

100 Ibid., p. 113.

101 Ibid., p. 114.

102 Ibid., p. 117, referring to Rom 8:1.

103 Torrance, Incarnation, p. 250.

104 Ibid., p. 251. This is the meaning of sheol in the Old Testament, i.e. ‘existence in man's self-chosen perversity and blindness. That curse lies upon all sinners as their destiny in their sin and it already casts its shadow over them . . . sheol is, however, a sort of suspended darkness, a suspended existence behind the back of God’, awaiting God's final act of judgement as justification for those who cast themselves upon God's judgement and ‘banishment for those who choose to remain in their alienation’.

105 Torrance, Atonement, p. 117.

106 Ibid.

107 Torrance, Incarnation, p. 253.

108 Ibid., p. 255.

109 Ibid.

110 Torrance, Atonement, pp. 154–5. Here satisfaction means that ‘God has fulfilled the will of his love in taking our judgement on himself and in bearing it in our stead’.

111 Ibid., p. 156.

112 Ibid., pp. 156–7.

113 Ibid., p. 157.

114 Ibid. Interestingly, Pope John Paul II says something quite similar in his reflections on hell: ‘“Eternal damnation”, therefore, is not attributed to God's initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire salvation . . . it is the creature who closes himself to this love’, http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2heavn.htm, p. 5.

115 See Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God, p. 154, and Atonement, pp. 189–90, 326–9.

116 Torrance, Thomas F., The Doctrine of Jesus Christ (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002), p. 95Google Scholar.

117 Ibid., p. 96.

118 See esp. Torrance, Atonement, pp. 437–47.

119 Torrance, Doctrine of Jesus Christ, pp. 163–4.

120 Hunsinger, ‘Hellfire and Damnation’, p. 407. This is taken from Cold Comfort Farm, a comic novel by Stella Gibbons, first published in 1932.

121 Torrance, Theology in Reconstruction, pp. 117–18. Torrance notes that these words were those of Psalm 22, which Jesus made his own.

122 Torrance, Thomas F., Space, Time and Resurrection (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998), p. 54Google Scholar.

123 Torrance, Thomas F., The School of Faith: The Catechisms of the Reformed Church, (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1996), pp. cxiv–cxvGoogle Scholar.

124 Hunsinger, ‘Hellfire and Damnation’, p. 413.

125 Torrance, Doctrine of Jesus Christ, p. 171.

126 Ibid., pp. 171–2.

127 Torrance, ‘Karl Barth and the Latin Heresy’, in Karl Barth, pp. 228–9.

128 Ibid., p. 229.

129 Ibid.

130 Ibid., p. 230.

131 Ibid.

132 Ibid.

133 See ‘Universalism or Election?’, p. 314. Torrance writes: ‘True dogmatic procedure at this point is to suspend judgment . . . for here that is the most rational thing reason can do. Whether all men will as a matter of fact be saved or not, in the nature of the case, cannot be known’.

134 Torrance, ‘Karl Barth and the Latin Heresy’, in Karl Barth, p. 239.