V. Woolwich’s Bishop Robinson-Fundamental Fallacies of Immortal-Soulism

Bishop JOHN A. T. ROBINSON ^{3030) JOHN A. T. ROBINSON, Bishop of Woolwich, was trained at Cambridge, then served in a British parish, and taught and was chaplain at Wells Theological College. He next became dean of Clare College, Cambridge, and is now bishop of Woolwich. He is author of several books.} bares the basic fallacies of certain modern Eastern “Mystery cults,” declaring them to be hangovers of Platonic and Neo-Platonic Immortal-Soulism, and showing their undeniable kinship to Hinduism and Buddhism. Here is his indictment, appearing in In the End, God... (1958), wherein he points out that they actually involve the principle of reabsorption and the ultimate disappearance of personality:CFF2 849.3

“The starting point of all their doctrines is that the spirit of man is a part of the eternal, universal, Divine Spirit, and is therefore by nature immortal. There is a ‘spark of divinity’ in every man, to be identified with the highest, rational, cultural part of him-the spirit or nous or soul. The soul (which is here quite different from the ‘breath’ or ‘ghost’ of a man, which is what animism meant by the term) is temporarily imprisoned in matter, in the body which is its tomb. At the dissolution of the flesh, the soul returns intact, ‘as the sparks fly upwards,’ to be reunited to the Absolute, the Brahma, the World-Soul.” ^{3131) John A. T. Robinson, In the End, God..., p. 78. (Italics supplied.)}CFF2 849.4

1. INVOLVES ULTIMATE LOSS OF PERSONALITY

Bishop Robinson believes that such teachings are actually “pantheistic“:
“Because its fundamental theological presupposition is pantheistic (the real, immortal part of a man is a ‘bit’ of divinity), this doctrine never really succeeds in establishing a personal immortality. The end of man is always reabsorption, the overcoming of individuality, which is generally viewed as evil. When pressed to its limits in the religions of the East, the doctrine promises a state of bliss for the individual which is indistinguishable from his annihilation.” ^{3232) Ibid. (Italics supplied.)}CFF2 849.5

The parallelism to the traditional thesis of Christian Immortal-Soulism is obvious. (Photo on page 846.)CFF2 850.1

2. WHOLE MAN DIES; WHOLE MAN RAISED

Robinson points out another fatal omission in such “theories of survival”—the fact of the “judgment.” Such theories imply that immortality is in itself salvation. Robinson places the theory of the Innate Immortality of the soul in direct contrast with the Biblical provision of the “resurrection of the body.” Thus:CFF2 850.2

“Neither the doctrine of the immortality of the soul nor theories of survival (whether primitive or modern) have any place for an element of judgment. For, ultimately, their conception is not of life with God, but of life with self and other selves. Indeed, such doctrines can be, and have been, argued apart from any belief in God. But, for the Bible, life eternal is essentially and ineluctably to know God and to be with Him. The exponent of [innate] immortality assumes too simply that immortality is in itself salvation. But that is to reckon without God and without sin. To be raised to live with God, without any possibility of surcease, may be the most unendurable torment.CFF2 850.3

“But God wills nevertheless to have it so. For resurrection is His destiny for.every man, whether he is worthy of it or not, whether he likes it or not. For it depends on God’s unconditional love.... There is a further great point of difference between the doctrine of immortality arid that of resurrection which requires a more extended treatment. As, for the latter, the whole man dies, and not only the material part of him, so likewise the whole man will be raised and not merely the ‘spiritual’ in him. The Bible opposes the immortality of the soul with the resurrection of the body.” ^{3333) Ibid., p. 82.}CFF2 850.4

3. RESURRECTION DOES NOT TAKE PLACE AT DEATH

In another work, The Body, Bishop Robinson also warns against the misconception that the resurrection takes place at the “moment of death“:CFF2 850.5

“It is a mistake to approach Paul’s writings with the modern idea that the resurrection of the body has to do with the moment of death.” ^{3434) John A. T. Robinson, The Body, p. 78.}CFF2 850.6

“Nowhere in the New Testament has the resurrection of the body anything specifically to do with the moment of death. The key ‘moments’ for this are baptism and the Parousia. Death is significant, not for the entry into the new solidarity, but for the dissolution of the old.” ^{3535) Ibid., p. 79.}CFF2 851.1

So speaks the bishop of Woolwich.CFF2 851.2