Talbott's Presentation

[RICHinCHRIST]

In my recent post titled "Impartial Love" I tried to convey a logical problem I was encountering when analyzing Calvinism, Arminianism, and Christian Universalism.

I came across a debate on the three views of hell in which Thomas Talbott defended the universal reconciliation position. I was shocked to find him present the exact train of thought I was trying to enunciate in that original post. You can watch the debate at http://new.livestream.com/maloneuniversity/hell, but I will post his train of thought here on this thread so we can discuss it. I'm finding it very difficult to disagree with him on his presentation.

An Inconsistent Set of Three Propositions

Proposition #1: All human sinners are equal objects of God's redemptive love in the sense that God, being no respecter of persons, sincerely wills or desires to reconcile each one of them to himself and to prepare each one of them for the bliss of union with him.

Proposition #2: Almighty God will triumph in the end and successfully reconcile to Himself each person whose reconciliation He sincerely wills or desires.

Proposition #3: Some human sinners will never be reconciled to God and will therefore remain separated from him forever.

It is impossible to accept all three of these propositions. Most people accept two and reject a third. The difficult thing is that at first glance it appears that all three propositions are taught in Scripture. However, if we are honest, we must conclude that one of these propositions is false.

Calvinists accept propositions two and three and reject the first. Arminians accept propositions one and three and reject the second. Universalists accept propositions one and two and reject the third.

Here are the Scriptures which Talbott provided for each proposition.

Proposition 1: 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:4, Ezekiel 33:11, Lamentations 3:22, Lamentations 3:31-33, 1 John 2:2

Proposition 2: Ephesians 1:11, Job 42:2, Psalm 115:3, Isaiah 46:10-11,1 Corinthians 15:27-28, Colossians 1:20, Romans 5:18

Proposition 3: Matthew 25:46, 2 Thessalonians 1:9, Revelation 21:8

I would suspect that most here would accept proposition one. The big debate in my mind surrounds propositions two and three. I'm finding it more and more difficult to view God's redemptive plan ending as mostly a failure if proposition two is false. The Scriptures there seem to suggest that God's will will ultimately succeed and that His desire will be satisfied. Proposition three is beginning to be easier to let go of when I think of the fact that most scriptures in its defense are either in the context of parable, hyperbole, or extreme symbolism. Propositions one and two appear to be overwhelming themes of Paul and the Scriptures as a whole.

[darinhouston]

In my recent post titled "Impartial Love" I tried to convey a logical problem I was encountering when analyzing Calvinism, Arminianism, and Christian Universalism.

I came across a debate on the three views of hell in which Thomas Talbott defended the universal reconciliation position. I was shocked to find him present the exact train of thought I was trying to enunciate in that original post. You can watch the debate at http://new.livestream.com/maloneuniversity/hell, but I will post his train of thought here on this thread so we can discuss it. I'm finding it very difficult to disagree with him on his presentation.

An Inconsistent Set of Three Propositions

Proposition #1: All human sinners are equal objects of God's redemptive love in the sense that God, being no respecter of persons, sincerely wills or desires to reconcile each one of them to himself and to prepare each one of them for the bliss of union with him.

Proposition #2: Almighty God will triumph in the end and successfully reconcile to Himself each person whose reconciliation He sincerely wills or desires.

Proposition #3: Some human sinners will never be reconciled to God and will therefore remain separated from him forever.

It is impossible to accept all three of these propositions. Most people accept two and reject a third. The difficult thing is that at first glance it appears that all three propositions are taught in Scripture. However, if we are honest, we must conclude that one of these propositions is false.

Calvinists accept propositions two and three and reject the first. Arminians accept propositions one and three and reject the second. Universalists accept propositions one and two and reject the third.

Here are the Scriptures which Talbott provided for each proposition.

Proposition 1: 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:4, Ezekiel 33:11, Lamentations 3:22, Lamentations 3:31-33, 1 John 2:2

Proposition 2: Ephesians 1:11, Job 42:2, Psalm 115:3, Isaiah 46:10-11,1 Corinthians 15:27-28, Colossians 1:20, Romans 5:18

Proposition 3: Matthew 25:46, 2 Thessalonians 1:9, Revelation 21:8

I would suspect that most here would accept proposition one. The big debate in my mind surrounds propositions two and three. I'm finding it more and more difficult to view God's redemptive plan ending as mostly a failure if proposition two is false. The Scriptures there seem to suggest that God's will will ultimately succeed and that His desire will be satisfied. Proposition three is beginning to be easier to let go of when I think of the fact that most scriptures in its defense are either in the context of parable, hyperbole, or extreme symbolism. Propositions one and two appear to be overwhelming themes of Paul and the Scriptures as a whole.

Two Wills comes to mind. Not in the sense of the Calvinist but in the sense of Desire vs. intention -- I will for my kids to grow up fulfilled and honoring God vs. I will for my kids to get out of the street right now (I'll carry them if I have to).

[RICHinCHRIST]

It appears the biggest issue is how we reconcile libertarian freedom in light of God's victory. Talbott brought up a good point in that the sinners in hell are experiencing refining punishment which destroys the sin within them. God ordained for the consequences of sin to bring about a point of surrender of the will. God is therefore working on the sinner in hell and drawing him to Himself. At some point the sinner must surrender because God has created the scenario in order to bring about His desired end. One could object that it's theoretically possible to continue to reject God forever, but as Paidion has often suggested, it seems improbable that that could occur. I also think that a sinner must be beyond insane to continue to willfully reject God after learning who He is or what He is like. Is man's will really so strong that it overrides God's? Would God create a scenario in which He utterly fails to triumph in His redemptive purpose (which is the theme of the Bible)?

[mattrose]

It is not that man's will is so strong that it can override God's will... it is that God's will IS that man's will has a part to play

Anything more than "hopeful universal reconciliation" is, in my opinion, ultimately a form of determinism.

I take no issue with the "hopeful" position. Frankly, I hope it is true.

[Paidion]

Anything more than "hopeful universal reconciliation" is, in my opinion, ultimately a form of determinism.

Hi Matt,

1. I, Paidion, believe in libertarian free will—even to the extent of open theism.
2. I, Paidion, believe in the ultimate reconcilation of all things (including all people) to God.

In order to hold the opinion you expressed above, you must see a contradiction between 1 and 2. Would you please explain wherein the contradiction lies?

[RICHinCHRIST]

I agree that man's will has a part to play but I'm not sure if man would continue to sin and reject God if God were to give the sinner an unlimited amount of chances to repent in hell. Also, if the fires of hell purge sin out of the individual, it would appear that the sinner would have more of a propensity toward repentance that he did not previously have. Although it's theoretically possible for one to continue to choose to dishonor God, I have to admit that if God gave man unlimited opportunity for repentance in hell, that it seems improbable that rebellion would go on forever if the sinner became aware of why he is in the predicament he finds himself in. If restoration toward God is offered to him, he must be thoroughly insane and unable to comprehend that the only possible way out is through the refining presence of God through the atonement of Christ. Man's will has a part to play, but I think we are exalting it to a point which is beyond reason within the circumstance of unlimited postmortem attempts of God trying to convince the sinner that he is at rock bottom until he decides to look heavenward. Is God unable to persuade a sinner in hell? We may not be able to persuade someone toward salvation, but surely God could, especially if the scenario He created ensures that man's will will inevitably surrender. With Satan's blinders removed, and the reaping of the fruit they have sown in their sin finally revealed, could one really go on in rebellion? Only if they are clinically insane or incapable of mentally assessing their circumstance.

[steve]

Most people who exercise their free will in rebellion against God also have an inadequate conception of what kind of God He is. Even Adam and Eve had to become deceived about God's character in order to be led to rebel. If everyone saw God clearly, after death, it is difficult to see what would remain for the unbeliever to dislike.

[mattrose]

Most people who exercise their free will in rebellion against God also have an inadequate conception of what kind of God He is. Even Adam and Eve had to become deceived about God's character in order to be led to rebel. If everyone saw God clearly, after death, it is difficult to see what would remain for the unbeliever to dislike.

It is difficult, but not impossible. Of course, there could be nothing that they SHOULD dislike. But it is at least theoretically possible that they would continue to dislike God even when they understand His nature most clearly. For those who believe the traditional doctrine of Satan, this wouldn't be a difficult concept to fathom (seeing as how Satan understood God quite well, but chose to rebel anyways). But even for those who don't, you could just watch the show Hoarders and get a glimpse of someone, confronted by reality, yet still clinging to their misery and selfishness. Jerry Walls argues that such clinging is, indeed, a form of deception... but may be self-inflicted deception. We certainly know of cases where people prefer the lie. He states, "It seems to me the ability to deceive ourselves may be an essential component of moral freedom" (The Logic of Damnation, 130).

Of course, Walls is defending the logical possibility of someone choosing eternal misery. I would only aim to defend the logical possibility of someone resisting the purifying purpose of the fire long enough to secure their own extinction. If you read Walls closely, I think you would conclude that he doesn't think very many people will, in actuality, choose to remain in hell forever... he just sees it as logically possible.

Rich, you should probably check out "Hell: the Logic of Damnation" because the chapter on human freedom specifically deals with this question and, specifically, Talbott's argument. It's a chapter written, in other words, just for your thread There's a copy of it at the Houghton Library if you make it to our camp this summer!

[mattrose]

Anything more than "hopeful universal reconciliation" is, in my opinion, ultimately a form of determinism.

Hi Matt,

1. I, Paidion, believe in libertarian free will—even to the extent of open theism.
2. I, Paidion, believe in the ultimate reconcilation of all things (including all people) to God.

In order to hold the opinion you expressed above, you must see a contradiction between 1 and 2. Would you please explain wherein the contradiction lies?

Sure, I would find it at best confusing and at worst contradictory how an open theist could guarantee that free agents will ultimately make the right decision.

Doesn't your belief #1 insist that, since the future does not yet exist, not even God knows the future decisions of all people? If you believe, then, position #2 dogmatically, it would seem (to me anyways), that the only way to assure the outcome is if God makes it happen (Which is a form of determinism).

What am I missing?

[Paidion]

1. I, Paidion, believe in libertarian free will—even to the extent of open theism.

Doesn't your belief #1 insist that, since the future does not yet exist, not even God knows the future decisions of all people?

Yes.

2. I, Paidion, believe in the ultimate reconcilation of all things (including all people) to God.

If you believe, then, position #2 dogmatically, it would seem (to me anyways), that the only way to assure the outcome is if God makes it happen (Which is a form of determinism).

What if God doesn't "make" it happen, but rather exerts a strong influence on non-disciples?

In this life, a parent sometimes exerts a strong influence on his/her teenager. If the teenager persists in a certain activity, the parent grounds him/her. But this influence doesn't make the teenager cease the activity. In other words, parents' strong influence do not cause their teenager to behave as desired. But what if the parents have the power to ground their teenager for a day, two days, a week, a month, etc. With time, the teenager is more likely to concur with his/her parents' wishes. They are not caused to concur, of course. They simply want to avoid the grounding. Theoretically they could continue the activity of which the parents disapprove for an indefinite time. But the longer they are grounded regularly, the more likely the teens are to comply.

Similarly, God may exert a strong influence on people to be reconciled to Him. He influences people to do so even in this life. Those who rebel against God can hold out for a long time, and many hold out until death. I believe that post-mortem, God will continue to influence people to repent and come under His authority. Perhaps some will resist and hold out for a long time. But can they hold out forever, that is, for an infinite amount of time? If so, they would have to be infinite like God. Sooner or later, the influence will get to them. But it will never CAUSE them to submit. They will choose to do it. Theoretically, they could hold out forever, but not practically.

One could compare this to tossing up, within a box, 100 cardboard disks which have glue on one side only. The other side of the disks contain a material which does not allow the glue side of other disks to stick to them. When they land, some of the disks are likely to land on the side with the glue and stick to bottom of the box. But they don't have to. It is possible that no disk will land on the glued side. It is probable that half will and the others won't. If one keeps tossing the disks within the box which haven't stuck to the bottom, it is likely that more of them will land on the glue side and stick. If one continues to toss the remaining ones, it is likely that eventually all disks will be stuck to the bottom. Theoretically, it is possible that one could continue tossing the disks forever, and some would always land on the non-glue side. But practically, all will eventually land on the glue side and stick to the bottom of the box.

Now of course, people are not cardboard disks. Unlike the disks, people have free will. But the principle is the same. There was an influence on the disks, and there will be an influence, God's influence, on the lost. It is impractical that any will hold out forever, and thus I am convinced that, sooner or later, all will be reconciled to God.