The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Talbott in a Debate about the Eternal State of the Wicked!

Talbott has said he’s happy to visit this thread to discuss any questions regarding the debate and/or powerpoint!

Alex:
Shall we ask our questions here, or instead on a thread in Talbott’s designated section so to keep all his stuff in the same location??

Bobx3

We should probably move this thread to Tom’s category anyway; I hadn’t even noticed it wasn’t there already! :laughing:

(Edited to add: for guests or members reading this thread later, originally it was posted under “Studies” / “Film, Movie & Video Clips”. I just moved it to “Featured” / “Dr. Thomas Talbott” / “Tom’s Forums”, but left a shadow topic back in the other for people who are used to finding it there.)

In the question time, a young man asked Talbot something along the lines of:

If Revelation was written to John’s 1st century audience of persecuted believers, what kind of apologetic or ethic would you use to explain passages in Revelation that speak of a call for or promise of “Vengence”, like Rev. 6:10 - “judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood”, later in 19:2 – “avenged on her the blood of his servents”? If the 1st century audience is looking for “vengence” wouldn’t a belief in UR empty these passages of their power to satiate the desire for vengence?

Talbot answered it with a question of how the man deals with passages that affirm UR, thus not directly answering the question. My first thought though was:

  1. Revelation is apocalyptic literature and thus not necessarily meant to be taken “literally” or didactically, but to be interpreted like a parable or a movie, seen to affirm large overarching principles. And recall that Revelation is interpreted from at least 4 significantly different viewpoints – futuristically, historically, preteristically, and spiritually. Personally, I do not look to Revelation to “prove” any doctrine of scripture – but to illustrate what I believe scripture affirms elsewhere.

  2. Concerning the word “vengence”, as Christians God calls us to forgive our enemies, even love our enemies. The only thing that a person who loves another desires for those who are estranged is for them to be reconciled, not punished, but forgiven by God. “Forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.” Christian Martyrs die not only for their love for God but because of their love for others! Interpreting Revelation futuristically AND interpreting these passages as a call for vengeance on Individuals, such just doesn’t make sense in the light of who we are called to be as Christians. On the other hand, if one interprets the movie Revelation from either a preterist, historical, or spiritualist view, as a call for vengence, they makes sense. Preterist calls for the destruction of the State of Rome which opposed the church – and this happened. Historical – any State or organization opposed to the church, well, it is destroyed. And from a Spiritualist interpretation, all that is within us that is anti-Christ is ultimately destrotyed.

  3. Even “IF” one insists on these passages being interpreted from a Futuristic view, ekdikeo, interpreted as “avenge” does not necessarily mean one is looking for retribution for wrongs done, but one of its meanings is to vidicate one’s right, do one justice, to protect, defend one person from another. Thus it could be that what is being promised is that God will ultimately
    a. Make things right and
    b. Show that the believers were “right” to have followed Jesus though it resulted in their martydom.

Mainly though, I do not look to Revelation as a foundation for any doctrine that I do not see as clearly revealed in the remainder of scripture. And I do not see ECT a clearly revealed in scripture elsewhere. Anyone else have thoughts on this question?

I thought this was particularly interesting, Sherman:

So basically, if this is the case, it would be a call for judgment (which is usually a good and desired thing in scriptural context – though not ALWAYS a desired thing – depends whether you’re the good guy or the bad guy!) And to judge is to show (at least in one of the words I’ve studied – so it seems it would be to show the truth. Hence, “Show the world that we were right to follow You.” Cool! :smiley:

Yep, I thought that was pretty cool too. The main point though is that the concept of Christian martyrs crying out for the retributive judgement of others is just so outside of the gospel narrative that it doesn’t make sense to interpret these passages calling for “vengence” that way, as a call for retributive “justice”. I mean, I don’t care how badly a loved one hurts me, the last thing I want is for them to punished, much less forever, or annihilated. But I do have a tremendous desire for their blinders to be taken off and for them to see the light as I’ve seen it, and to see that, well, I was right! ha ha. But of course this is couched in the desire for reconciliation with those whom I’ve loved.

I believe it is much more a cry for God to “Make Things Right”!

Thanks for your reflections, Sherman. I think your answer to that first question I received was better than my own. When I watched the recording of the forum, I found myself wishing that I had explicitly made the same point that you make about Jesus commanding us to love our enemies as well as those who love us; it was simply not enough to refer vaguely to the Sermon on the Mount. When the questioner was prevented from asking a follow-up question, I also wish I had told him that I was interested in his further thoughts and had invited him to pursue the issue further by email.

A couple of additional points: First, the desire for vengeance or revenge in response to truly horrific acts of cruelty is indeed a natural human response, even among Christians. If John Couey had raped my own daughter when she was young and had buried her alive, as he did to poor little Jessica; and if I had an opportunity to do so, I might well have bludgeoned him to death (slowly) with a baseball bat. I’m not saying that this would have been right or the Christian thing to do. But even within a Christian context, there may be a place for giving butchers a taste of their own medicine—not because this satisfies the demands of justice, but because in some cases it may be the only sort of thing that might get their attention. Even so, however, nothing in the relevant texts about avenging persecution would equate such vengeance with unending torment.

Second, the language of retribution and that of correction often get mixed up in our ordinary ways of speaking, and the Bible is no different in this regard. In a context of vengeance and revenge, for example, a man might use the language of correction: e.g., “I’ll teach him a lesson he’ll never forget!” And in a context of correction, loving parents might use retributive-sounding language: e.g., “If you hit your little sister again, you’ll wish you hadn’t!” So you cannot infer the absence of a loving purpose from harsh language alone. For as Paul points out in the eleventh chapter of Romans, even God’s severest acts, including the hardening and blinding that came upon part of Israel, is an expression of his boundless mercy.

Anyway, thanks again for your reflections.

-Tom

Hi Tom, thanks for your reply. I thought you did an excellent job presenting UR in the debate and representing the values of grace and love that we so cherish. I wish they would have had more time, even another session or two, for further discussion.

How is your wife and family doing? Well, I pray.

Blessings,
Sherman

Incidentally, having now listened to Tom’s and Jerry’s presentation (working through Duane’s), I’m pretty sure their presentation is practically identical (even in regard to particular major and minor points and quirks) to their presentations earlier this year in Nashville. So even though I wasn’t able to post up notes on that debate yet, if you watch this video you won’t be missing anything. :slight_smile:

That includes Jerry’s rather bizarre insistence that Tom claims the scriptures are utterly clear in their testimony about universalism being true. Tom wasn’t claiming that before Nashville, didn’t claim that at Nashville, and wasn’t claiming it here. As Tom notes at the start of his presentation, he claims no more than Jerry does, namely that some portions of scripture clearly indicate his position while other portions appear to indicate other portions.

Either Jerry or Tom isn’t paying enough attention to something that ought to be very obvious about Tom’s presentation. :unamused: (Edited to add: Jerry tries to claim Tom is “reversing himself” or “going back” at the start of Jerry’s question for Tom, and Tom objects to that.)

Hi Tom

I just wanted to wish you and your family well, and say thank you for The Inescapable Love of God. It is a wonderful book, and it has helped me more than I can say.

With love and blessings

Johnny

Having just finished the whole thing (and so providing a timestamp map in the initial threadpost now :slight_smile: ), I think the most astonishing answer was Duane’s final answer to the final question.

After leaning so hard on how immortal life is conditional on God and especially on loyalty to God (per the usual anni approach), Duane is asked why the beast and the prophet and Satan do not die if other sinners are annihilated: why does their torment continue “forever and ever”? (Worth noting that RevJohn says this, in the same mode of translation, about human followers, too. Duane appealed to RevJohn frequently for scriptural evidence in favor of his position, so he himself opened RevJohn for comments; I don’t recall if he skipped around that particular saying about human sinners.)

I had expected him to answer the obvious anni fashion with, “Duh, they’re annihilated, too,” (but if they’re being tormented forever they haven’t been annihilated forever), or “Duh, they aren’t real persons just typological personalizations of systems” (but then how could they be “tormented” in any way), or “Duh, they’re tormented for an indistinctly long period of time which is what the phrase means, eons of the eons, before being annihilated.” Which I’d be willing to buy, other things being equal.

His actual answer amounted to, “Duh, because that’s Satan. He’s super-evil so deserves more punishment.” Which got a smattering round of happy applause.

And Duane’s position wasn’t that Satan and other super-evil persons deserve more punishment before being annihilated. The questioner followed up with something like, “But they don’t ever die”, AND DUANE AGREED WITH THAT! His explanation? Satan is inherently immortal.

:open_mouth: :open_mouth: :open_mouth:

In case I don’t get another chance, like JohnnyParker I just want to say thank you for your book The Inescapable Love of God. It was, along with this website and few other books, instrumental in my coming to a universalist position. Your logical argument in particular I see as very strong, and I also like your thoughts on free will. Thanks for taking the time and effort to study and write.

I would absolutely love to ask you a question, Tom, but between you and Robin and Gerry, I just can’t think of any more questions to ask. I guess my only question would be, how can a thinking person not see that God will never discard any part of His good creation?

Thank you so very, very much for your absolutely gorgeous book!

Love in Jesus, Cindy

First of all Tom, very enjoyable to have you back here with us discussing these things. Some number of us have been praying for you in your personal/family issues of recent years, so it’s great to see you back. Please consider us here your soul mates and fellow travelers; lifting you up in your family suffering… And we all love your book.

Second, it’s both exhilarating and normalizing to hear your “real” voice (instead of your measured written voice). You suffer “senior moments”… and are overcome by some sort of nasal drainage issues – right there in public. Wow Tom! I wanted you to be some sort of invincible and perfect voice, totally and completely in control! Perfect! – You are not that, which is quite the relief in reality. Makes me love you even more actually… (For you are far more human this way…)

To the discussion…
This seems like a rather big step forward for the truth of Universal Reconciliation it seems to me. Walls (he is far more the opponent here than the annihilation dude Watson - nice as he is… Having been raised with annihilationism, I’d imagined it more reasonable than this man presents here… he basically just listed texts) clearly concedes all his arguments and retreats, as his main defense, to the supremacy of “free will”. THREE points are awarded here he claims! – and why the aesthetic position earns only one point is a monstrous offense it seems to me…

So here you have both adversaries, both fielding their defense against Universalism, doing so as advocates against position #2 – and doing so on the basis of “free will”. – That seems to me a huge step in the right direction Tom. I’ve often gotten folks to this spot - that the issue really is one of free will - and asked them to give me a bible study on the topic of free will. Does God freely let us chose our own A) eternal torment or B) non existence.
No one can do it.

Which is really an amazing place to be since now we are (apparently) out from under the “umbrella” of A) the text, and B) the authority of tradition… (not that these are not incredibly important to us as well…) Both things which are held to be deeply respected and honored. So this amazes me that Walls confidently seeks solace for his position behind the wall of “free will”. So confident he gives it “three points”!!!

That tells us where the argument needs now to be directed…

All that said, why not go back and ponder the exact nature of what was going on as it’s recorded in Genesis at the tree. What was/is the basis of our rift (self created) with God? God said this… Satan (or who ever this snake was) said that. They are in conflict. What’s the issue they’re arguing/making claims about? I’m very much in the realm of speculation now, so this is just thought experiment territory…

Could it be that the central issue seems to revolve around our intense need/desire to experience autonomy and independence. But more, the source of our origins. And the nature of our continued existence. We’ve reluctantly agreed that we are not “free” to create the circumstances nor specifics of our existence, yet imagine we are “free” to cause our non-existence. Why is that? Why does it seem so “self-evident” to so many?

So the central temptation unmasked at the tree is to go our own way; to exist apart from God; to see ourselves as be all and end all; to assume responsibility for our own well-being. That sort of thing.

But God says No, that’s actually not the way reality works; if you separate from Me, you will die. We exist at HIS pleasure – not our own. (Whether we exist FOR His pleasure is a bit of a different question I think…) (And the bible is a record of God demonstrating – proving, that His reality is the only one…)

What I’m thinking then is that the belief that I can control my eternal non-existence is simply to fall for the original temptation to be the cause of my own autonomy; my own well-being; my own existence. It is a denial of the fact of our God caused and God chosen (He sure didn’t include US in His decision!) being at HIS pleasure. Not ours.

Or something like that.

I’m wondering if you’ve developed this idea or any other explanation for why we Christians largely believe God is somehow obligated to give us eternally what we’ve “chosen”??

Thanks
Bobx3

PS Oh – and Happy Thanksgiving!!

I think perhaps you have a point there, Bob. I’ve noticed also that the bible says precious little if anything about freedom of will. It seems to imply this, though. Joshua says, “Choose this day whom you will serve.” Elijah says much the same thing. Our personal experience certainly seems to be one of freedom of will.

Yet Paul also has a point, in that he says, “I have discovered this law: To me, the one desiring to do the right, to me the wrong always lies near” (more or less, quoting very loosely.) And the good news is that the law of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death. The law of sin and death is, imo, this “law” that Paul has discovered . . . that though he loves the law of God, he is in bondage to the law of sin and death. And that it is the law of life in Christ Jesus that sets us free from this law of sin, which leads to death.

But we ALL want to do what we see as right, whether right for ourselves or just right as society perceives rightness. Only we can’t do either one. So in that sense we are NOT free. It is only in Christ that we BECOME free. And once we do truly become FREE, we will choose that which we WANT to do; that which is in our best interest; and we will be ABLE to do that, having soundness of mind and soundness of knowledge and being no longer in bondage to the law of sin and death. It is for freedom that Christ has set you free.

Based on that, it seems to me that only those who HAVE chosen Christ are even capable of exercising freedom of the will. So the free will point in defense of choosing eternal death or eternal conscious torment is a moot point. It is only in Christ that we can experience freedom.

Wom, Tom gave an AWESOME presentation!!! :smiley: :smiley:
Chris

To be fair, though, cindy, I think a lot of the commands (and God’s upset with people) imply, and can only be really understood in the light of, at least a degree of genuine human moral freedom. In that sense the bible is saturated with the view that people have freedom (of some sort).

It’s not specifically my intention to renew the freewill debate about which Tom has written so well. Tom has talked about the limits of free will - not about it’s irrelevance or it’s unimportance.
For example here:
[The Essential Role of Free Will in Universal Reconciliation)

So rather my question is directed towards the hubris (excessive pride or self-confidence…) of humans who imagine that their freedom extends beyond it’s limits; who fail to accept those limits; who deny those limits. And I’m suggesting that this failure relates specifically to the embrace of the very same premises whose embrace lead our Edenic parents (whoever they were) to sin in the first place.

Namely, a desire to escape the limits inherent in our own creatureliness. To be the cause of our own existence and sustenance. To somehow resent perhaps those very limits and curse God for building a world that contains them (ie contains our limits).

Now to be sure it’s pretty awkward to paint a picture of an opponents view that is explicitly linked to his (our) human sin. But I guess that’s exactly what I’m doing – or trying to do. “That idea is a manifestation of our embrace of the flawed premises that lead to sin in the first place” is not an entirely winsome line is it!!

So yes, of course God wants us to “choose you this day…” but that need not necessitate the choice of permanent torture or annihilation. It is that such a choice leads to destruction, which causes God pain even as it causes us pain. Surely we’re not saying that God warns only of ECT or annihilation; it seems clear to me He warns of suffering and anguish that result from certain choices.

Bobx3

It seems obvious that everyone has free will, that is, if they are in a situation where they may choose X or not X, they have the ability to choose either one.

Now I realize that Christ said that people are slaves to sin, and that whom the Son has set free is free indeed. Yet even a slave has the ability to choose. A cruel master might beat a slave if he refuses to obey. Yet that slave has the ability to choose NOT to obey — and face the consequences.

Some non-Christians who were addicted to alcohol have been able to quit drinking, or to control it. Some who are addicted to smoking have been able to cease smoking permanently.

Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. (Revelation 22:17)

However, I agree that Christians have the enabling grace of God to assist them, whereas non-Christians don’t. So there is a far greater likelihood that Christians will be able to live a more consistently good life.

I want to thank all of my friends here for your many thoughts and prayers over the past couple of years. My wife seems completely recovered from her bout of breast cancer, and her 95-year-old mother passed on to a better life last December. Because my mother-in-law was in need of constant care (and surveillance) for many years; because the family chose to care for her alternately in our home and in the homes of two of my wife’s brothers; and because my wife has been tied down for a long time with family responsibilities in addition to her battle with cancer, we made considerable travel plans for this past year and the coming year.

Also, as I continue to grow older, I still have a number of writing projects that I want to complete, not the least of which is the second edition of The Inescapable Love of God. I recently completed a 12,000 word essay on Heaven and Hell for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which I expected to be available before now, and I’m still hoping to write a book on the topic of freewill. So my time for additional conversations remains rather limited. I plan to respond further to some of the points raised in this discussion thread. But I also feel compelled to call your attention to an apology I have written on my own website concerning my inability to respond to as many communications as I would like. You can find it at the following URL:

willamette.edu/~ttalbott/contact.html

Thanks again for all of your thoughts and prayers.

-Tom