Talbott's Election (Continued)

Before we move to universalism, my friend Ted has posted an interesing post on predestination and election. You can find it here. I'm sure he would enjoy some feedback. Now on to Talbott's view of universalism.

First of all, Talbott bases his opinion of universalism largely on Romans 8:38-39. According to Dr. Talbott, Romans 5:12-21 is clear that all mankind will eventually be saved, because of God's mercy and due to mankind being created in God's image. God will annihilate all evil short of those created in His image (248). Talbott is clear that Christ will be victorious. "As some Arminians might contend, he brought to all people something less than full justification and life - an offer of salvation, perhaps, or a possibility of some kind that each individual remains free to reject - then the possibility of an ultimate defeat remains" (ibid). Of course, this view would hold that Paul's thoughts in Romans 5 (especially vv.15-18) would carry the possibility of Adam (or the affects thereof) being victorious as opposed to Christ Jesus.

Talbott goes on to point out 1 Cor 15:20-28. According to Dr. Talbott, when verse 27 states "For he has put everything under his feet...", it implies man's will corresponding with the will of God. Because Christ will eventually be victorious, all of mankind will eventually volunteer their will to God's purposes (252-253).

Arminians believe (although available to all) only some of mankind will accept the love of God and therefore be reconciled to Him. Talbott again maintains the view as defeatist on behalf of a loving God (254). In other words, if God wills all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4) then that is the only thing that will happen.

Finally, Dr. Talbott turns to the question: If salvation is the destiny for all, what causes one to live with any morality? Talbott then turns to Romans 11:22 and argues that salvation is not an issue. In other words, because all mankind will eventually be saved, the passage is about consequences for man's actions. Mankind's decisions lead to a life of turmoil or a life of peace (258). "Our free choices, then, have real consequences in our lives and they determine how we will encounter God's grace in the future; but whichever way we choose, God's perfecting love will meet our true spiritual needs perfectly" (ibid).

In conclusion, Talbott returns to the themes of God's victory in the end through Jesus Christ and the unmatchless love of God. "...neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 8:39 NIV).

Any thoughts?

Talbott's Election (Continued)

I'd planned to post regarding Dr. Thomas Talbott's view of Romans 9-11 and his idea of Paul's theology today. Unfortunately, it's taken me more time to get my head around what Talbott is saying. I apologize for the delay. Hopefully, next week...

I really want to understand, prior to posting. Although I know that's not fully possible with some things (one's view of election might be a good example), I don't believe I can honestly do Dr. Talbott justice here. In other words, what good would a shallow post on election do if the "meaty" parts of Dr. Talbott's theology were left out?

We've all wanted to sit with some intellectual at some point and "pick their brain." I'd love to do that with all of these guys regarding election. But I'm not as familiar as I should be about Universal Election (Talbott's view). For that reason, I've chosen to err on the side of safety. I'll do my best next week.

For those of you sitting on pins and needles about the post :), I appreciate your understanding. And if anyone can fill me in on what they know about Universal Election, I would be grateful.

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?