Talbott's universalism, divine justice, and the Atonement

Religious Studies

Volumn 40, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 249-268

  Kronen, John ^a   Reitan, Eric ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ST THOMAS   (United States)

^b OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34347297371     PISSN: 00344125     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0034412504007048     Document Type: Review

References (71)

1. Book-length treatments of the doctrine include Jerry L. Walls Hell: The Logic of Damnation (Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992)
2. Jonathan L. Kvanvig The Problem of Hell (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993)
3. Thomas Talbott The Inescapable Love of God (Boca Raton FL: Universal Publishers, 1999)
4. and Charles Seymour A Theodicy of Hell (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000)
5. Philosophical articles include: Richard Swinburne 'A theodicy of heaven and hell', in Alfred J. Freddoso (ed.) The Existence and Nature of God (Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983), 37-54
6. Eleanor Stump 'Dante's hell, Aquinas's moral theory, and the love of God', Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 16 (1986), 181-198
7. William Lane Craig, '"No other name": a middle knowledge perspective on the exclusivity of salvation through Christ', Faith and Philosophy, 6 (1989), 172-178
8. Marilyn McCord Adams 'The problem of hell: a problem of evil for Christians', in Eleanor Stump (ed.) Reasoned Faith (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 1993)
9. and various articles by Thomas Talbott, including 'Providence, freedom, and human destiny', Religious Studies, 26 (1990), 227-245
10. 'The doctrine of everlasting punishment', Faith and Philosophy, 7 (1990), 19-42
11. and 'Three pictures of God in Western theology', Faith and Philosophy, 12 (1995), 79-94
12. See Talbott 'Three pictures of God in Western theology', and idem The Inescapable Love of God, 43-52
13. Church historians commonly acknowledge that Lutheran Orthodoxy was heavily influenced by Anselm's theory of the Atonement; vide Jaroslav Pelikan The Christian Tradition, vol. 4, Reformation of Church and Dogma, 1300-1700 (Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press, 1984), 359
14. See G. W. Leibniz Theodicy, E. M. Huggard (tr.) (La Salle IL: Open Court, 1985), 291
15. Most contemporary defenders of DLS base their argument, not on God's justice, but on God's inability - for metaphysical or moral reasons - to overcome the libertarian freedom of those who reject Him
16. Talbott challenges efforts to defend DLS by appeal to libertarian freedom in 'Providence, freedom, and human destiny'; 'The doctrine of everlasting punishment'; 'Craig on the possibility of eternal damnation', Religious Studies, 28 (1992): 495-510
17. and 'Freedom, damnation, and the power to sin with impunity', Religious Studies, 37 (2001), 417-434
18. Eric Reitan also raises some important challenges in 'Universalism and autonomy: towards a comparative defense of universalism', Faith and Philosophy, 18 (2001), 222-246
19. 'Sympathy for the damned: Schleiermacher's critique of the doctrine of limited salvation', Southwest Philosophy Review, 18 (2002), 201-212
20. and 'Eternal damnation and blessed ignorance: is the damnation of some incompatible with the salvation of any?', Religious Studies, 38 (2002), 429-450
21. Michael Murray goes so far as to call the view 'completely defensible'; See Michael J. Murray 'Heaven and hell', in idem (ed.) Reason for the Hope Within (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 295
22. J. Gerhard Loci Theologici [hereafter LT], Preuss (ed.) (Berlin: Gustav Schlawitz, 1863), vol. 1, 1. 2, cap. 8, sect. 12, 346-347
23. D. Hollaz Examen Theologicum Acroamaticum, Volumen Prius [hereafter ETA] (Stargard: Ernest & Jenish, 1707
24. repr. Darmstadt: Wissenshafliche Buchgesellschaft, 1971), pt 1, cap. 1, q. 44, 380-386
25. A. Calov Systema Locorum Theologicorum; Tomus Secundus (Wittenberg: Andre Hartmann, 1555). vol. 2, cap. 11, 565ff
26. See J. Baier Compendium Theologiae Positivae [hereafter CTP], C. F. W. Walther (ed.) (St Louis MO: Concordia, 1879), pt 1, cap. 1, §23, b. 40
27. Philip Melanchthon Loci Communes (Wittenberg: Ionahhes Crato, 1555), tr. Clyde Manschreck as On Christian Doctrine (New York NY: Oxford University Press, 1965), l. 8, 84-85
28. J. A. Quenstedt Theologia Didactico Polemica [hereafter TDP] (Wittenberg: Johann Ludolph, 1701) pt 1, vol. 1, c. 87, sect. 1, th. 35. 292
29. Melanchthon On Christian Doctrine, l. 7, 102; Baier CTP, pt 1, cap. 1, §23, 39-40
30. Melanchthon On Christian Doctrine, l. 7, 86, 99
31. Baier CTP, pt 3, cap. 7, §6,344
32. Quenstedt TDP, pt 3, vol. 2, 228 as quoted in H. Schmid The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Charles Hay and Henry Jacobs (tr.) (repr. Minneapolis MI: Augsburg, 1961), 351
33. Jean Hampton and Jeffrey G. Murphy Forgiveness and Mercy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 122-143
34. For a defence of the view that the Lutheran Orthodox ascribed to this understanding of vindicatory justice, see I. A. Dorner A System of Christian Doctrine, pt 2, vol. 4, 1. S. Banks (tr.) (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1885), 22-24
35. L. Hutter Loci Communis Theologici [hereafter LCT] (Wittenberg, 1619), 406
36. , as quoted in Schmid The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, 347-348
37. cf. Baier CTP, pt 3, cap. 1, §5, 12
38. Thus, Baier remarks: 'For since the justice of God, having been injured (laesa) by sin, demands punishment or satisfaction from man, the grace or goodness of God does not make up the complete basis of our salvation'; CTP, prolegomena, vol. 1, §22b, 41
39. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, pt 1, q. 25, a. 3
40. See, for example, Gerhard, LT, vol. 1, l. 2, cap. 8, sect. 9, §200, 336
41. Hollaz ETA, pt 1, cap. 1, q. 46, 386-387
42. Baier CTP, pt 1, vol. 1, cap. 1, §25, 41
43. For an acute criticism of the retributivism of the older Orthodoxy by a Lutheran theologian, see A. Ritschl The Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation, vol. 3: The Positive Development of Doctrine, H. R. Mackintosh et al. (trs) (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1900), 40-53
44. On this, see Michael S. Moore 'The moral worth of retribution', in Jeffrie G. Murphy (ed.) Punishment and Rehabilitation (Belmont CA: Wadsworth, 1995), 94-131
45. See Immanuel Kant Lectures on Philosophical Theology, Allen Wood and Gertrude Clark (tr.) (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 1978), 111-114
46. Presumably, then, mercy can be legitimately expressed only when justice warrants but does not require punishment. In all such cases, perfect love would presumably show mercy
47. We agree with James Cain's argument that endless punishment might nevertheless be finite in severity, but this possibility does not undermine our argument. If God's conditional intention is to save all assuming the demands of justice can be met, and if justice demands merely finite punishment, then God would surely opt to impose punishment in a temporally finite form so that He could save all creatures and meet the demands of justice. See James Cain 'On the problem of hell', Religious Studies, 38 (2002), 355-362
48. See A. Ritschl A Critical History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation, John Black (tr.) (Edinburgh: Edmonston & Douglas, 1872), 242-243
49. see also Dorner A System of Christian Doctrine, 22-24
50. See J. Gerhard Disputationum Theologicarum (Jena: Tobias Steinman, 1625), pt 1, 54, as quoted in Walther's edn of CTP, pt 3, vol. 2, 13
51. For an excellent discussion of the inadequacies of claiming that endless punishment is infinitely severe, see Seymour A Theodicy of Hell, 53
52. This second response is one Seymour fails to note. It provides, we think, a better answer to the Kantian view Seymour considers - namely, the view that an infinite succession of moments of suffering will be viewed by God, from his atemporal perspective, as a completed whole, and hence as infinite suffering
53. See Gerhard LT, l. 2, cap. 7, sect. 10, §208, 338-339 in vol. 1 of the Preuss edn; Hollaz ETA, pt 1, q. 43, 379-380
54. 'Quia attributa Dei non sunt aliquod accidens mutabile in Deo, sed ipsa ejus essentia, ideo amorem et dilectionem ejus, qua pios complectitur, opportet esse quiddam longe ardentius, quam nos cogitatione complecti possumus.'; Ecclesiastes 2.23: 'Quantus est Deus, tanta misericordia ejus.' At ipse infinitus, immensus, invariabilis, aeternus. Ergo etiam talis est ipsius misericordia, 'praevaluit super nos in aeternum.' Psalms 117.2. 'Ipsa non variatur nee mutatur, nisi nos mutemur, sicut sol manet idem, sed homines ab ejus luce et calore se avertentes beneficiis solis se ipsos privant.' Gerhard, LT, vol. 1, l. 2, cap. 7, §112, 298 in Preuss LT. Translation ours
55. See M. Chemniz Loci Theologici, J. A. O. Preus (tr.) (St Louis MO: Concordia, 1989), vol. 2, l. 8, cap. 3, 336-342
56. See Ritschl A Critical History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation, 249-250
57. On this, see Richard Muller Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids MI: Baker, 1985), 272-273
58. For a detailed account of how the doctrine of Christ's active and passive obedience was worked out by older Lutheran and Reformed divines, see Ritschl A Critical History of the Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation and Justification, 248-263
59. Not all Lutheran theologians agree that Lutheran Orthodoxy actually taught the doctrine of objective justification. Gottfried Fritschel (1833-1900) argued that the old Norwegian Synod and the Missouri Synod had departed from Luther and the Orthodox Lutheran divines in teaching this doctrine (see his 'Concerning objective and subjective atonement', in Theodore Tappert (ed.) Lutheran Confessional Theology in America (New York NY: Oxford University Press, 1972), 141-165)
60. A complete response to Fritschel is impossible here, except to note that the eminent Lutheran scholar, Gerhard Forde, contends that views such as Fritschel's betray the influence of pietistic 'subjectivism' in opposition to orthodox 'objectivism'; Gerhard Forde The Law-Gospel Debate: An Interpretation of its Historical Development (Minneapolis MI: Augsburg, 1969), 8
61. Quoted in Fritschel 'Concerning objective and subjective atonement', 149, n. 9
62. See A. Hunnius Epitome Credendorum (1625), Paul E. Gottheil (tr.) as A Concise and Popular View of the Doctrines of the Lutheran Church (Nuremberg: Sebald, 1847), ch. 19, §522
63. Charles Seymour would here object that eternal damnation can be explained by an infinite number of finite human sins. We take up this line of objection in the next section
64. This was the position taken by Fritschel 'Concerning objective and subjective atonement', 150-160. For a powerful critique of this way of understanding the doctrine of justification by grace through faith, see Dorner A System of Christian Doctrine, pt 2, vol. 4, 209-217
65. Calov makes this point in his commentary on Romans 5, quoted by Walther in The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, W. H. T. Dau (tr.) (St Louis MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1929), 274
66. It is probably because they saw this difficulty that most eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Lutheran theologians, who wished to be true to their Lutheran heritage, increasingly appealed to a strong doctrine of creaturely freedom as a way of reconciling (1) with (3), thereby denying (2). Cf. I. A. Dorner A System of Christian Doctrine, pt 2, vol. 4, 416-428
67. Defenders of DLS might deny this conclusion by arguing that while all sin is finite in severity, the fitting punishment is nevertheless infinite in duration (if not in severity). But it seems that for any sin deserving a finite punishment there exists a proportionate punishment that is temporally delimited, and a God who wills the salvation of all would choose such a punishment over endless punishment so as to leave room for His salvific aim. To say otherwise would require one to defend two things: first, that of two proportional punishments (and hence two punishments that both meet the demands of justice) one can be more 'fitting' than another; second, that God prefers the more fitting punishment even at the cost of His salvific aim. While the former might be defended, it is hard to see how a God who could save the sinner without doing anything unjust but who favours the 'fittingness 'of punishment over the salvation of the sinner could rightly be called perfectly loving in any plausible sense
68. Seymour fully develops his defence of DLS in A Theodicy of Hell, and lays it out more succinctly in 'Hell, justice, and freedom', International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 43 (1998), 69-86
69. 'Efficacious grace' is the theological term for grace that necessarily moves the will to cling to God. The central element of efficacious grace is that it alone is sufficient to achieve the end of creaturely union with God. No independent choice of the creature is needed in addition. Such grace is consistent with the freedom of the creature in a compatibilist sense, since it moves the will of the creature to voluntarily cling to God, but it might not be consistent with libertarian freedom, depending on how such freedom is conceived
70. For a list of representative challenges of this sort, see n. 6
71. Melanchthon On Christian Doctrine, l. 15, 188. We are indebted to Sean Hughes and Jeremiah Reedy for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper