Meditations of a Christian Hedonistand most recently Expository Exultation: It is not the disobedience of the lump that determines its destiny.
Doctrinal Tract and Book Society, Though I did not read every end note in the whole volume, this would have significantly increased the reading time I frequently found the notes I turned to very helpful in comprehending the point or position being discussed.
The writing is careful, cogent, logical, scholarly, at times pedantic and at other times passionate. But there it was in black and white: In support of proposition 1one might cite such texts as II Peter Talbotts universalism essay The first is a set of biblical responses as authored by biblical scholars.
Though the above is somewhat oversimplified from the careful treatment in the book, Talbott asks the questions why Calvinists do not believe that the Arminian view is heretical, and visa versa, but generally both believe that universalists are guilty of great heresy. Doctor, I realize that scholars feel that they must be nice to one another, and exercise tolerance for even the most outlandish of unscriptural statements.
But Arminians insist that Jesus did indeed die on behalf of every person who ever lived.
At other times, admittedly, the finer points of philosophy or theology are intricate and complex. Though the editors make no claim in the introduction or anywhere else in the volume to being partisan in this debate it seems clear that the emphasis of this book is on the viability of the doctrine of universalism and its ability through the help of gifted thinkers and writers to hold its own next to the more widely held views of Calvinism and Arminianism.
If this is indeed an inconsistent set of propositions, as I believe it is, then at least one of the propositions is false. One view presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind — election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit — as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly.
This is very unlikely, for while aionios need not always mean everlasting, this is its usual meaning in the New Testament and it does not have the modal sense Talbott wants it to.
Which of our other two propositions would you then reject?
As a whole, Israel has been temporarily rejected Forgive my boldness, but yes, I believe it is. But God does command us to love our neighbor. Returning now to Talbott I learned a lot from this book. Anyone who takes a position with respect to our three propositions--whether the person be a Calvinist, an Arminian, or a universalist--will end up denying a proposition for which there is at least some prima facie biblical support.
Why should Calvinists regard universalism as any more heretical than Arminianism? Fortunately, neither of us are biblical scholars.
It especially highlights the progression of thought since the Protestant Reformation. Review on behalf of review committee at: It would be a conversation hamstrung from the foundations. First, to recap, a little history. But nothing like that seems to be true at all, and here, at least, is how I see the matter.
Tentmaker Ministries and Publications. It is this attitude that divides rather than unites the Body of Christ. The influential church father Origen ca. My first response to this argument Reformed Journal, April, contained an inconsistency Talbotts universalism essay I should own up to. Finally, Talbott cannot dispose so easily of passages which teach eternal punishment; for example, Matthew Universalism, Calvinism, and Arminianism: As a case in point, this soteriological and eschatological conflation will continue in the account below.
Notice that this is not a reference to all Jews but to Israel as a corporate whole conceived as an entity that endures from generation to generation made up of different individuals from time to time.
The introduction by the editors is particularly full of uncommonly used terms and lofty rhetoric so I found it somewhat daunting and a little discouraging as I began to read.
One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God who enables man to save himself. First, it should be noted that significant Biblical support could be cited for each proposition.Following Talbott's brilliant apologetic, the polemic of universalism is divided into four categories and each is treated by two authors with diverging views.
The first is a set of biblical responses as authored by biblical scholars. The second approaches the topic philosophically. Talbott's Universalism In his essay "The Doctrine of Everlasting Punishment," Thomas Talbott argues that any Christian theism that includes both the doctrine of hell or eternal punishment and the doctrine of a universally loving God is logically inconsistent.
Universalism, Calvinism, and Arminianism By Tom Talbott (homepage), Professor, Department of Philosophy -Willamette University When I first began interpreting the New Testament along universalist lines, I was struck by how many regarded such an interpretation as not only mistaken, but utterly unreasonable and heretical as well.
The logic of Talbott's universalism " Consider the following inconsistent set of propositions: God's redemptive love extends to all human sinners equally in the sense that he sincerely wills or desires the redemption of each one of them. Talbott considers three responses to this argument, which he calls "hard-hearted theism," "moderately conservative theism," and "biblical theism." I take it that these labels are intended to be somewhat facetious.
For according to Talbott, "biblical theism" is universalism, which rejects (4). Posted by: (Tom Talbott) Eric, I can only conclude that you are responding to posts without reading them. I mean, I suggest that we assume that universalism is false, and I pose a question within the context of that assumption.Download