The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Univeralism in the first 5 centuries

Evangelical Universalism
#1

Taken from J.W. Hanson’s: Universalism, The Prevailing Doctrine Of The Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years

Dr. Beecher says: “Two great facts stand out on the page of ecclesiastical history. One, that the first system of Christian theology was composed and issued by Origen in the year 230 after Christ, of which a fundamental and essential element was the doctrine of the universal restoration of all fallen beings to their original holiness and union with God. The second is, that after the lapse of a little more than three centuries, in the year 544, this doctrine was for the first time condemned and anathematized as heretical. * * * From and after this point (A.D. 553) the doctrine of eternal punishment reigned with undisputed sway during the Middle Ages that preceded the Reformation. * * * What, then, was the state of facts as to the leading theological schools of the Christian world, in the age of Origen, and some centuries after? It was in brief this: There were at least six theological schools in the church at large. Of these six schools, one, and only one, was decidedly and earnestly in favor of the doctrine of future eternal punishment. One was in favor of the annihilation of the wicked, two were in favor of the doctrine of universal restoration on the principles of Origen, and two in favor of universal restoration on the principles of Theodore of Mopsuestia. It is also true that the prominent defenders of the doctrine of universal restoration were decided believers in the divinity of Christ, in the Trinity, in the incarnation and atonement, and in the great Christian doctrine of regeneration; and were in piety, devotion, Christian activity, and missionary enterprise, as well as in learning and intellectual power and attainments, inferior to none in the best ages of the church, and were greatly superior to those by whom, in after ages, they were condemned and anathematized. From two theological schools there went forth an opposition to the doctrine of eternal punishment, which had its ground in a deeper Christian interest; inasmuch as the doctrine of a universal restoration was closely connected with the entire dogmatic systems of both of these schools, namely that of Origen (Alexandrian), and the school of Antioch.” “Three at least of the greatest of the ancient schools of Christian theology–the schools of Alexandria, Antioch and Cæsarea–leaned on this subject to the views of Origen, not in their details, but in their general hopefulness. * * * The fact that even these Origenistic fathers were able, with perfect honesty, to use the current phraseology, shows that such phraseology was at least capable of a different interpretation from that (now) commonly put upon it.” The school in Northern Africa favored the doctrine of endless punishment; that in Asia Minor annihilation. The two in Alexandria and Cæsarea were Universalistic of the school of Origen; those at Antioch and Edessa were Universalistic of the school of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus. “Decidedly the most powerful minds (300 to 400 A.D.) adopted the doctrine of universal restoration, and those who did not adopt it entered into no controversy about it with those who did. In the African school all this was reversed. From the very beginning they took strong ground in favor of the doctrine of eternal punishment, as an essential part of a great system of law of which God was the center.” 7

7=Hist. Doct. Fut. Ret.

Please read Parry and Talbot’s quotes in this article here: randyboswell.com/2011/05/16/anot … -part-one/

Also, Parry responds to the article himself at the bottom and says:

"Randy,

Indeed. I guess that, as you say, Paul was responding to what has been quite a common claim by universalists in the past. But some of us are trying to distance ourselves from it because it seems to be . . . a bit OTT (to say the least)."

OTT= over the top

I’m looking for clarification. Is Hanson and Beecher’s assertion here considered less than legitimate in 2013? Do Parry and Talbot agree with Beecher in his assertion here?

Who is Dr. Beecher?

I do not want to overstate the facts either! So…what exactly are they distancing themselves from? Random peoples’ assertions (<— would be my guess) or are they saying that Hanson and Beecher are wrong about their assertions that I have posted here??

It is one thing to say… “the majority of the early church fathers were universalists”. This would definitely seem OTT considering ALL the Church Fathers from 150ad - 1600ad and that ECT reigned during that time period.

It is a whole other thing to say what Beecher and Hanson are saying in the above excerpt is false. It seems rather obvious they are detailing ONLY the first 5 centuries and distinctly talking about the early christian schools and NOT counting up every church father from 150ad - 1600ad with a label of ECT or EU… and then saying the EU’s have it by a vast majority.

Respectfully submitted.

#2

I guess I should clarify… I’m not asking anyone to speak for Parry or Talbot. I’m asking if anyone who accepts EU has any evidence (or even just an informed opinion) that what Hanson and Beecher assert in The Prevailing Doctrine is out dated and can accurately be described as an overstatement given possible updated scholarship of 2013.

Thanks.

#3

Dr. J. W. Hanson (in 1899) is quoting from Dr. Edward Beecher’s History of Opinions On the Scriptural Doctrine of Retribution, published 1878. Dr. Beecher, at the time he wrote (and if I recall correctly Hanson thought this was still the case at the time of his composition), was not a Christian universalist, but had been a proponent of eternal conscious torment–albeit rather more doubtfully than when he began the research for his book. Beecher had long previously come to a conclusion that a doctrine of ECT, which after publishing History of Retribution he still believed most likely correct, could only be validly held along with a belief in a pre-existent fall of mankind, i.e. we are embodied spirits being punished for a rebellion which we do not now recall but which our current state nevertheless gives us an opportunity to repent of and be saved through Christ.

I own pdf copies of both Beecher’s History and Hanson’s First Five Centuries of Universalism, and read the latter before the former. While I have slept too many times since then to go into details for why, my solid impression is that Hanson frequently overreaches trying to prove his point on which he is partisan (i.e. that, per his title, universalism was the prevailing doctrine during the first 500 years of the Church), while Beecher is far more careful in regard to his sources and cautious conclusions thereby.

As a comparison of approach off the top of my head, both men were aware that some early Christian universalists advocated the “doctrine of reserve”, on which ground they would preach eternal conscious torment to people who weren’t spiritually mature. Beecher cautions careful agnosticism on the question of whether other contemporary teachers from whom we have no surviving explicit evidence of accepting universalism, were not secretly universalists practicing the doctrine of reserve; Hanson deploys the doctrine of reserve and some connections between these men and noted universalists to argue that they were definitely universalists, which naturally increases the numbers of such teachers for his theory that this soteriology “prevailed”. A good test case here is Athanasius: both men know he often argued in such a way as the implications would add up to Christian universalism; both men are aware that at least once he affirmed very clearly in favor of eternal conscious torment; both men are aware of his succession to and admiration of Origen; and both men are aware that Athanasius was a man who did not lightly suffer heresy. Hanson treats Athanasius as being definitely a Christian universalist practicing the doctrine of reserve; Beecher is far more agnostic about it. (Various relatives of Gregory Nyssus are treated in parallel fashions.)

Both works still have much merit, and Hanson’s is available for download here on the forum somewhere (I think). I have attached both works as pdfs to this thread, so that readers can read and compare for themselves.

Dr. Ilaria Ramelli, co-author of Terms for Eternity (a recent compilation and study of how classical and early Christian Greeks used {aiônios} and {aidios}), has been hard at work composing what amounts to an extensive update to Hanson’s F5Cs, but I don’t know how close she is to finishing. From what I have heard (via Dr. Konstan, her co-author for ToE), it’ll be a massive tome, and I’m much looking forward to it. :slight_smile:

Incidentally, in the 19th century, and throughout the early 20th century, the standard Protestant English source for Patristic literature was Dr. Schaff, whose vast libraries on the topic were one of Dr. Beecher’s sources for primary texts. Dr. Schaff, as I learned earlier this year, was himself a Christian universalist.

#4

Universalism the Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years (with Authorities and Extracts) by J. W. Hanson, D.D., 1899.
1899 First Five Centuries of Universalism.pdf (9.54 MB)

#5

History of Opinions on the Scriptural Doctrine of Retribution by Edward Beecher, D. D., 1878.
1878 Beecher’s History of Retribution.pdf (5.89 MB)

#6

Thanks Jason! Very helpful post. I too am now looking forward to Dr. Ramelli’s update of F5C.

It would be nice to know exactly what doesn’t jive between Hanson and those who don’t buy his assertions. I would assume that a lot of personal study and research has gone into a different view than Hanson and spelling it all out isn’t very desirable.

In other words, it doesn’t seem to be a one paragraph answer fit for a forum.

#7

Jason,

Do you have a source on Philip Schaff being a universalist? That’s very interesting.

#8

Caleb,

I know I read that last year, but I can’t recall where. I remember it being a reasonably reliable source…

{poking around}

Okay, I learned that from our member [tag]Sobornost[/tag], who by all evidence tends to research things thoroughly. I’ve tagged him in hope that he’ll be able to remember where he got his information from.

Some further research here on the forum indicates that Hanson (and maybe Beecher, I don’t recall his own text on this offhand) got the “Six Catechetical School” soteriological division from a religious encyclopedia Schaff helped compile with Herzog. (Although George T. Night was who wrote the entry being cited, not Schaff.)

See here: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc12/Page_96.html (Thanks to James Goetz for the citation in an earlier thread back in 2011.)

CCEL is also where I downloaded as many of Schaff’s works as I cared to do: their collection is huge, and I may have left off some. :wink: