Assessing the Eschatological Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg (3)

When the idea of a universal Kingdom is presented as the basis of a theology, the question is raised concerning “Jesus’ claim that the verdict to be passed on men in the final judgment is already determined by the attitude they adopt to himself in the present age. ‘Every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven’ (Matt. 10:32 cf. Lk. 12:8).” (B. Klappert, “King, Kingdom in C. Brown (editor), The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, (1976), Vol. 2, p. 383). “(T)he presence of the Kingdom of God in the presence of Jesus faces the individual with a clear-cut decision” (p. 385). This must not be obscured by language which points in the direction of universal reconciliation.

It must be observed that Pannenberg, in his attempt to avoid the charge that his view represents “merely a formalistic idea about God’s ruling over everybody and everything” (Theology and the Kingdom of God, (1975), p. 78) , has “consistently refused to espouse universalism unequivocally” (E. F. Tupper, The Theology of Wolfhart Pannenbertg, (1973), p. 246).

Pannenberg’s hesitation with respect to a priori universalism is especially notable in his exposition of Christ’s descent into hell.

“(T)he increasingly mythological conception of Jesus’ preaching in the realm of the dead or in hell … (is) … the expression of the universal significance of Jesus’ vicarious death … The concept of Jesus’ descent into hell … asserts that men outside the visible church are not automatically excluded from salvation. Who participates in salvation and who does not remains, to be sure, open” (Jesus – God and Man, (1968), p. 272).

“What took place in Jesus also applies to the people who either never came into contact with Jesus and the message about him, or who have never really caught sight of the truth of his person and his story … (although it is) … no guarantee of their salvation. Salvation is only guaranteed to the man who has definite communication with Jesus … But all other men, too, even those who died before Jesus’ ministry, can achieve the salvation which appeared in him – even if in ways which are beyond our comprehension” (The Apostles’ Creed in the Light of Today’s Questions, (1972), pp. 94-95).

This position, presented by Pannenberg in Jesus – God and Man and The Apostles’ Creed , retains the kind of humility which recognizes the sovereignty of God in His salvation.

The possibility of universal reconciliation is allowed for, as it would appear to be in certain Biblical passages (Rather than embarking on a detailed discussion of such passages here, I am posting a separate article – “Discussion of Bible verses which appear to teach universalism”).

This possibility is not, however, presumed upon, in the face of other Biblical passages which speak sternly of divine judgment (In my post – “Discussion of Bible verses which appear to teach universalism”, I have also highlighted Bible verses which lead our thoughts in a different direction … “).

In view of these conflicting emphases in Scripture, it is unwise to take a bold stand on the question of universalism, either affirming its actuality or rejecting its possibility.

—–

Here’s a preview of my next post in this series: “The problem with Pannenberg’s thought becomes more acute when he attempts to expound the doctrine of election in terms of the Christian Church’s election to be a witness to God’s “imminent rule over all creation and all mankind”, as a “universal communion of renewed humankind in the Kingdom of God” (Human Nature, Election and History, (1977), pp. 101, 107).