Let me just begin with this JS, I spent 2 hours trying to respond with something that anyone would wade through. I got so lost myself that I just wanted to give a brief summary of my opinion as to my position in a short response. So let me just preface my position by saying, while raising honest concerns, I still feel like nothing presented filled the requirement of
refuting Beecher which is my final opinion. I would like to just try to share some of my thoughts though.
There are three problems I see with this. First, however revered a particular teacher was, this does not mean their "school" in general agreed with every point of doctrine. Not counting the writers of the Bible itself, Augustine was perhaps the single most influential theologian on the Catholic Church (the only other contender for that title is Aquinas), but not all of his ideas were fully accepted by it.
Beecher himself admits and points to several in those schools influenced by Theodore that rejected universalism. And I should note that John Chrysostom, who I will return to again later, was no believer in the doctrine and exerted considerable influence on Eastern churches. So this argument of "this highly esteemed teacher believed this, so the schools they were part of or influenced believed it" comes up wanting for me.
The second is that such individuals can only be counted as representative of their own time. What about before them? What about after them? Irenaeus (who we'll get to), for example, wrote in the last second century. What about Ephesus at other times?
We've never maintained it was the prevailing position of everyone. So quoting reputable contemporary pro/con historic figures really only confirms a major point to me. That being that the universalist position was co existing with those who disagreed. A state which is really biblical as they were thereby "
maintaining the unity of the Spirit" in the contemporary church of that day. And 'that' was a good position, unlike the combative 'kill all the heretics' position of the apostate filled church that was to come. IMO I know.
But none of these three "
problems" for you, meets any real deathblow to Beecher's book for me.
I want to comment on another a large bite of your post which just has to much "
this is weak" to respond to. I did try, but got so lost in all the embedded URLs which had equally "
weak" positions, I felt. But there were also pro UNI things in them too. In the end I really got lost trying to keep up with how to 'find/copy' then 'cut/paste' back in the right place of response to your original post, which was too just big for me to deal with. I'm not blaming you, I'm just admitting my struggle, which I can only hope isn't perceived as an attempt to side step dealing with 'the truth'.
In
Chapter 30, he begins with John Chrysostom. He says Chrysostom mentions universalism a few times without criticizing it, and therefore believed in it. For example, he cites Chrysostom's commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:38 (I assume he means 15:28, as a different posting of the work has) and says that Chrysostom "simply says that the doctrine of universal restoration has been inferred from that passage, makes a striking statement of the result, and says nothing to refute the opinion." But having examined Chrysostom's exposition of it
here (Homily #39), I do not see what it is talking about. Granted, Chrysostom writes a bunch about that verse in dry language so I could have missed it in all of the text, but I didn't see it.
But the bigger problem is that Beecher completely skips over a writing of Chrysostom that proves, no doubt, that he was
not a universalist. Please examine
Homily #9 of the same epistle. Chrysostom is as blunt as can be: "This is no small subject of enquiry which we propose, but rather about things which are of the first necessity and which all men enquire about; namely, whether hell fire have any end. For that it has no end Christ indeed declared when he said, “Their fire shall not be quenched, and their worm shall not die.”" His statements immediately after that one reinforce his rejection of universalism further. This therefore leaves me with a question: If Beecher is this astoundingly inaccurate regarding Chrysostom, who was as clear as could be considering his rejection of universalism, how accurate am I to trust him in representing others?
As for your comments concerning John Chrysostom I reached out to a friend who has been Eastern Orthodox for many years. On this very subject I've gone around with him a number of times. Most often they'd end with him ultimately saying that he has read enough of, or about John Chrysostom, to know that he believed in universalism. I reached out to him, the other day, for a response with resources he's told me several times he would send. After going through two of them all I can say is there's too much non indexed information to go 'looking' for the references which have convinced him concerning John's position.
I spent a fair amount of time reading in the below URL you sent. I found several things I should have copied and cut at the time but didn't. Now I'm kind of overwhelmed and really not interested in wading through it all again to give a good response. I do know it sounds like a broken record
History of Opinions on the Scriptural Doctrine of Retribution : Edward Beecher : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
As for the 'specific quote' from the above URL from you on John Chrysostom, I can only wonder if this quote source, if legitimate, may have been from a time before he himself may have changed his position. But that's a supposition I'm not going to try to pursue. Of course the same argument could be made, from you, for the opposite conclusion. I am content to rest in my well read Eastern Orthodox friend and his unsettled opinion. He repeatedly has admitted that what he has read of John has made him wrestle with universalism to the point he is 'on the fence'...a little. Of course I say, "
The devil owns the fence" God wants hot or cold 'both of which are good', but not lukewarm.
Although I personally was just 'hoping it was true, for the 10 years that I was seeking the truth. That was back in the 'hard to research' non computer days. But I still found enough make me take a positional stand in about 1982.
All that said, while I believe Beecher overstates his case regarding how much universalism was believed in (at least in regards to his "six schools" argument), his arguments that belief in universalism did not seem to be considered a problem (and something reasonable people could disagree about) in the early church were much stronger. One explanation for this could be, however, that universalism was far down the ladder on things to have disputes about. Things like Marcionism and Arianism were much bigger fish to fry, and compared to them, universalism vs. annihilationism vs. damnation was an intellectual curiosity. Only once these much more critical doctrines were settled did something like universalism become something to be critically examined.
Unlike you, I don't think he overstates anything. But he obviously didn't adequately prove that position to you. According to the below URL, Beecher's work actually follows on the heels of an even better written source which Beecher's work gives credit to.
https://www.amazon.com/Universalism-Prevailing-Doctrine-Christian-Hundred/dp/B008NOMYCW
The intro of this 1899 book, which can be read online in the above URL, talks about this universalism subject and gives credit to a work preceding Beecher's 1878 work. It was a book by a man named Dr. Hosea Ballau in 1828 who wrote what appears to have been a very well accepted work called "Ancient History of Universalism" with many more of the requirements you might appreciate. But I'm not willing to spend money to prove Beecher, I'm still going to look for a better discredit for the quote. Sorry.
THEREFORE, the conclusion of this long, rambling post is that, if Beecher is the source for the argument regarding the different schools, I have to confess I believe he comes up short in his argument. It simply relies too much on claiming a particular influential person believed in the doctrine and that therefore it must have been thought of highly in the areas they influenced (assuming the instances of claimed influence are as grand as was claimed by Beecher), plus a bunch of speculation on his part. One can take his points and put forward an argument that in the early centuries universalism wasn't looked down upon, but as an argument of the predominance of universalism, I feel it--at least in the form of the six schools argument--comes up short.
Ultimately you "
believe he comes up short"
I am a peace allowing you to feel Beecher comes up short. I still think there's so much material online, even on many threads here on CF over the years to say it's not true.
I might just finish (after 3 hours) by saying this. I know there's way more information available today, than it took for me to make what I still feel was a 'well informed' AND 'Holy Spirit confirmed' positional change for me personally. And I'm still going to have to say I'm comfortable with the 'truth' of Beecher's quote even if that confidence has to rely on so much else that I've learned over the years.
I hope you continue to seek the truth, no matter where it leads you JS. You've already demonstrated enough of what I believe to be a good studious and therefore teachable attitude. And that is essential to hearing "
the still small voice" today that fights the ROAR of so many doctrinal disagreements in the church today.
