UNCLE JOE AND THE SECRET BASEMENT CHAMBER OF BAD BOB

Post by **_Paidion** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:15 am

Michelle, I invite you, in your search for the truth in the matter of universal reconciliation to God, to consider Thomas Talbott's book The Inescapable Love of God. Tom was a philosophy professor at Williamette University; he retired just last year. This book can be purchased directly from Tom, or from Amazon, and probably from Ebay.

The good news is that you can download four chapters from this book for free. You can download chapters 1, 3, 5, and 11.

Some of Tom's strongest arguments are made in chapter 5, entitled, St. Paul's Universalism.

I'm going to give you the longer route to do this, because there are some articles and links you may wish to check out also.

Please follow these steps:

1. Google "Thomas Talbott"
2. Select "Tom Talbott's Page"
3. Select "Religion and Theology Page"
4. Scroll to the bottom of the page, and under "The Inescapable Love of God", click on "here".
5. You will find the chapters you can click on to download.

Post by **_TK** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:47 am

I forwarded the link to my pastor ( a traditionalist). here is his response:

It isn't just bernice's disrespect for Uncle Bob, or her constant ignoring of UB, but bernice has a very disturbing disease, it's eating away at her nerve endings even tho she feels just fine right now. little by little she will lose feelings in her finger tips and toes, then it will work up her feet and legs and down her hands and arms until it begins to affect her organs; Her liver will begin to shut down, then her gall bladder, eventually her large and small intestines will slowly fail, soon she will have no control of her bowels. crazy thing is, UB spent his entire fortune on an elixir that will cure her. all his other children have taken it and believe they will live long healthy lives. they are very greatful to UB for his love and can hardly believe that he cared more about their health than his money, but bernice just won't swallow it. So there she sits, feeling fine for now but sitting in her own dung, miserable and in continual pain, for if she refuses to take the elixir much longer her condition will be irreversible.

i honestly dont know what to think on this issue. the problem, i guess, is the slippery slope. if God would not allow ETERNAL torment, then why would He allow TEMPORARY torment? some of you will say for the purpose of correction. fine. but only an evil God would torture someone until they beg for mercy. right? very slippery. it goes on and on. why would a good God hurt anybody, for anything?

TK

Post by **_Mort_Coyle** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:41 pm

Hey Paidion, you've changed your hair!

Here's a link to an article by Tom Talbott. I've posted the idea contained in this article on these forums, albeit in a very simplified form:

http://www.sigler.org/slagle/tom_talbot.htm

Here's Talbott's home page:

http://www.willamette.edu/~ttalbott/index.html

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 1:28 pm

if God would not allow ETERNAL torment, then why would He allow TEMPORARY torment? some of you will say for the purpose of correction

Perhaps so the punishment should fit the crime. Eye for eye/reap what you sow?
I suspect this "torment" is more mental and has an edification process more then punishment , although there may very well be punishment, but what does eternal torment accomplish?
Evil is never destroyed, Satan wins, folks in heaven have to live knowing loved ones are eternally in hell suffering.
Yet in heaven there will be no more pain and suffering or tears yet we will know loved ones are suffering eternally? How does that reconcile with no more tears?

Post by **_Mort_Coyle** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 2:01 pm

Hi TK,

The elixer response has a lot of problems. What if Bernice never heard about the elixer? What if the elixer was presented to Bernice in such a distorted fashion that she completely misunderstood what it was? What if the elixer was mixed with all kinds of other distasteful ingredients or watered down to the point of being ineffective? Or, what if Bernice was just dumb and stubborn and didn't really consider the ramifications? Is Uncle Bob's response to all of these, "Oh well. Too bad kiddo, you had your chance."

Here's one possible scenario:

Perhaps their is no "Hell", per se, in the sense of a place of eternal or temporary torment. Everyone winds up in the presence of God at the judgment. What if the judgment, though, is less about crime and punishment and more about restoration?

If so:

For those who have already been learning about Him and being in His presence in the course of their lives, it will be a great consummation.

For those who didn't know about Him during their lives but were sensitive enough to suspect that there was a "higher power" and tried to live a moral and caring life, being in His presence will be an astonishing revelation. To quote John Denver (something which I generally try to avoid doing), it will be like "coming home to a place they've never been before". Likewise for those who worshipped God, but in the only form they had been given; be it Allah, Buddha, etc. The astonishing revelation will be that Christ is the Lord and Savior of all.

For those who rejected Christ and/or remained ambivilent about Him during their lives because of the warped image they had received of Him through those who claimed to represent Him, it will be an overwhelmingly joyful surprise to see Him as He really is and realize that He was right there with them all along.

For those who were damaged and brutalized and victimized and, as a result, became hardened and warped, it will be painful as the layers are stripped away but, ultimately, they will be healed and restored.

For those who intentionally chose to be evil; those who opposed life; those who took pleasure in the suffering of others; those who claimed to represent God (or be God) and intentionally did evil in His name; for those it will be nearly unbearable to be in the presence of God's pure light and love. When the evil is stripped away by the loving, restorative action of God's judgment, will there be anything left of the person that can be restored? I don't know, but history is full of examples of evil men whom God redeemed. I think of John Newton, the former slave trader who wrote Amazing Grace. So, perhaps there is hope, in Christ, even for the worst.

That's one possible scenario, but of course we cannot know for sure until that day. What causes me to lean in the direction of universal reconciliation is the character and intent of God that I see revealed in Jesus Christ through the scriptures. I think most people who do believe in eternal torment don't like the idea. They believe it because they think they're supposed to because they believe scripture teaches it and they want to be faithful to scripture. But others say that a hermeneutic which takes things like cultural context into consideration and eschews subsequent Church tradition reveals a much more hopeful afterlife for the masses. This latter group sees Jesus' warnings about "Hell" to have had much more of a national and historical focus and to have been quite imminent to the original hearers. His goal was to get them to turn away from destruction (a la 70 A.D.) and embrace the restoration found in the Kingdom of God.

why would a good God hurt anybody, for anything?

Indeed. Unless it were necessary to save them.

Post by **_Derek** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:16 pm

Quote:
why would a good God hurt anybody, for anything?

Indeed. Unless it were necessary to save them.

Is that what God was doing in 70ad? Do you think that He did that to save them...or to judge them?

To say that universalism is more in line with the "character and intent of God that I see revealed in Jesus Christ through the scriptures", doesn't seem to take into account God's anger and wrath toward sin, which are expressed pretty clearly throughout the bible, and by Jesus Himself. And merely taking all of the things you don't like about God figuratively (not that you are, but some attempt to do) doesn't solve the problem, in my opinnion.

That God gets angry and judges (in sometimes very harsh ways) is biblical.

I don't hold the traditional view, and I certainly wouldn't mind if Universalism were true, but I don't see it.

I think one problem with the essay, is that it portrays God as just wanting people to love Him so badly, and when they don't He punishes them forever. I don't think that that is the whole picture, and makes God out to be a bit silly. I think that God punishes people because He is angry with them, for their hatred and disobedience to Him. Because they "provoke Him to anger".

He wants to love people and be with them, but when they don't, and instead rebel against Him, He punishes them, not because they don't want to be freinds, but becuase He is God, and really is worthy of worship and obedieance. It really is an injustice when we sin against Him. He is not a mere human who has a temper tantrum when the other kids don't want to play with Him. He is our owner; our creator.

Cornelius Van Til puts it this way:

"You have as it were entered upon God's estate and have had your picnics and hunting parties there without asking His permission. You have taken the grapes of God's vinyard without paying Him any rent and you have insulted His representatives who asked you for it."

To this it may be said, "what of those that don't know they are on His estate?....Well, I would say good question. I don't really know. But if Romans 1 is about general revelation, (as opposed to Steve's interpretation that it is about the Jews), then what can be known about Him is clear, and all are without exuse before Him. How this plays out in eternity I don't know.

God bless,

Post by **_Paidion** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:39 pm

why would a good God hurt anybody, for anything?

Why does a good and loving earthly father sometimes spank his younger children? Why does he sometimes ground his older children or take away their privileges?

All of this hurts, but it is meant to correct.

Is that what God was doing in 70ad? Do you think that He did that to save them...or to judge them?

There is no difference. All of God's judgments are remedial! If a person or family or nation suffers greatly, and they are not corrected or influenced to be corrected by it, then it was not God's judgment.

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:59 pm

To say that universalism is more in line with the "character and intent of God that I see revealed in Jesus Christ through the scriptures", doesn't seem to take into account God's anger and wrath toward sin, which are expressed pretty clearly throughout the bible, and by Jesus Himself. And merely taking all of the things you don't like about God figuratively (not that you are, but some attempt to do) doesn't solve the problem, in my opinnion.

Universalism is such a non specific term it can easily be misleading. My understanding is that God's wrath will be satisfied but His wrath is not so boundless that it needs eternal damnation to be content.

Post by **_Michelle** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 6:18 pm

Thank you, Paidion and Mort, for the links to Thomas Talbott's writings. I've bookmarked them to read more carefully this week (spring break woohoo!) I read the first chapter of the book, but I've had a killer headache and can't concentrate all that well.

Post by **_Mort_Coyle** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 7:08 pm

TK: why would a good God hurt anybody, for anything?

Mort: Indeed. Unless it were necessary to save them.

Derek: Is that what God was doing in 70ad? Do you think that He did that to save them...or to judge them?

The topic being discussed here was eternal punishment, not temporal judgment. 70 A.D. was certainly viewed as God’s judgment upon Israel’s political and religious leadership, but it was also the predictable outcome of their actions; which Jesus tried to warn them about and steer them away from.

To say that universalism is more in line with the "character and intent of God that I see revealed in Jesus Christ through the scriptures", doesn't seem to take into account God's anger and wrath toward sin, which are expressed pretty clearly throughout the bible, and by Jesus Himself.

Clearly God hates sin because it defaces and destroys His beloved creation. Sin leads to estrangement, destruction and death (I’m speaking in the temporal sense). But sin is much more complicated than simple willful rebellion. What I see, for example in God’s interaction with Cain on the topic of sin, or in Jesus’ interaction with various sinners, is concern, compassion, mercy, grace and a desire to redeem and restore.

I think that God punishes people because He is angry with them, for their hatred and disobedience to Him. Because they "provoke Him to anger".

Are you speaking in the temporal sense or the eternal sense? My son used to sometimes make me angry and sometimes I punished him when he disobeyed. My reason for doing so, however, was concern for his safety or the development of his character, etc. In other words, there was a productive intent behind my anger and punishment. Likewise and more so with God. The problem with eternal torment is that there appears to be no productive intent to it.

I’ve known plenty of people who aren’t followers of Jesus, including many atheists and agnostics, but I’ve met very few people who actually hate God. Many hate the image of God that has been portrayed to them (and many of us would hate that same distorted image). Jesus seemed to hate the distorted image of God that the Pharisees promoted in order to further their own agenda.

Cornelius Van Til, is really just re-stating Anselm’s “Satisfaction View” of the Atonement - "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_ ... tion_view)" - which has its basis in a medieval feudalistic worldview. This is a great example of us inheriting a doctrine which is based more on Church tradition than on biblical hermeneutics.