Universal Election?

Dr. Thomas Talbott now joins our discussion on election. If the discussion was a puddle, Talbott would be accused of jumping in with both feet.

"Christian universalists insist that election is neither limited in scope nor conditional in nature; election is, after all, an expression of God's love for the world, the whole world, and God's love is neither limited in scope nor conditional in nature" (Talbott, 207).

Dr. Talbott is quick to point out that universalists would not agree with limited atonement, while at the same time, refusing the idea of conditional election that an Arminian might believe. Talbott argues from the following premises:
1) God is love (1 John 4:8, 16)
2) God is merciful to all (Rom. 11:32)
3) Understanding Romans 9 is based on how one understands Romans 11
4) Paul teaches not for limited atonement but for unconditional election and irresistable grace.

Due to space here, we'll deal with numbers one and two. Next week, we'll discuss premises three and four respectively and the responses.

As for God is love, Talbott points out that John Calvin didn't have much to say about the Johannine statements (1 Jn 4:8, 16). In fact, only in his commentary of 1 John does Calvin mention the verses in passing (nothing in Institutes). Recently, Reformed theologian J.I. Packer has discussed the verses in Knowing God. However, Talbott maintains Packer speaks of God being love not to unbelievers, but to Christians only (211). "Packer has stumbled over a text that he finds difficult to incorporate into his overall theological perspective" (ibid.).

In regards to premise number two, Dr. Talbott maintains Augustine was the first to make a distinction between God's justice and God's mercy. According to Augustine, because all mankind are descendants of Adam, all deserve everlasting punishment. God is a righteous judge but is also a loving Father. Mankind's rebellion seemed to put God in a predicament. He must judge, while loving at the same time. However, Augustine maintains, God selects some to receive mercy, while leaving the others to receive the justice they deserve (222).

Augustine's understanding of limited atonement is hard to understand based on Romans 11:32. For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all. (NRSV) According to Talbott, Augustine was notorious for trying to argue that all didn't necessarily mean all in this passage or in 1 Timothy 2:4. Augustine held the view that all meant some of all people groups and nations but not the entirety of mankind. This argument doesn't seem to hold weight in Romans 5. Talbott maintains Paul meant the entirety of mankind when he mentioned all (231 ff).

Next week, we turn to premises three and four and hear responses from Bruce Ware, Jack Cottrell, Robert Reymond, and Clark Pinnock.

Any thoughts here?