The Evangelical Universalist Forum

2009 Glenn and Tom dialogue -- gallery comments

Evangelical Universalism Comments on Featured Debates & Dialogues
#81

My first take on March 11! Glenn essentially concedes Tom’s 3 essentials: 1. God does call us to do whatever is good to all “if we can.” 3. While we “despise” (hate) what others “want to achieve,” we are still to love them in “seeking that the best will come of their lives.” Indeed 2. God does this perfectly toward those in Christ. Thus, insofar as God chooses to only so perfectly love and place ‘some’ to be in Christ, God contradicts what God insists that we do in 1 & 3 to imitate God!

On exegesis, Glenn proves that Mk. 8:35’s literal context IS an (unessential) allowing of our physical life to be lost. But doesn’t the Bible’s own reflection on this universalize it into a necessary death to a “certain type of life”? In Jn. 12:24’s reflection on Jesus’ sacrifice, for “a seed to fall into the ground and die” means that only “those who hate their life in this world will keep it…” Similarly in Lk. 14:26f & Mt. 10:39, carrying the cross means that all must deny their self and follow Jesus’ teaching. Thus, Tom’s interpretation of our need seems far from “bizarre.”

But Glenn appears to argue that unqualified warnings of “destruction” must imply that it is the ‘final’ “end.” For otherwise, the plainest way for an author to declare what sounds like precisely that would be “unfairly” taken from them. I think (beyond already held paradigms that readers bring) Glenn does well explain why most have read these warnings this way. Yet this magnifies how the already held core beliefs one brings (what Glenn calls the ‘details’) to the text that Glenn asserts is already what is “clear,” tend to govern what we are inclined to conclude. E.g. if other texts as well as our convictions on what is moral convince us that there is precedent for “destruction” being redemptive, and for a God who loves all in a way that pursues their best, we may then feel that the burden of proof is on those who insist that the adjective “final” be presumed with each warning of severe disaster to those who have not yet died to self.

I.e. everyone wants to think that they read the texts objectively, and even that the Bible is a book plain to understand. But for me, the texts that suggest that the judgment passages must not be final because God’s love and power promises to bring an ultimately universal reconciliation are admittedly Not as frequent and developed as I would prefer. And yet they appear profoundly there for those with eyes to see, which probably correlates a great deal with which values have already come to impress themselves upon us as an undisputable core of our convictions.

#82

“On exegesis, Glenn proves that Mk. 8:35’s literal context IS an (unessential) allowing of our physical life to be lost.”
I am confused by what is meant here, Bob. Here is my take: Glenn proves (does he?) that Mk. 8:35 (3"For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it.") when taken at its’ face value, is saying that Jesus is speaking of losing ones physical life (dying). And that Jesus is not saying that this is a requirement (by “unessential” is that what you mean, Bob?) for “saving one’s life”. Am I close?

#83

Roofus, Yes, you expressed exactly what I meant! I felt Glenn was persuasive on that verse’s contextual meaning. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

#84

Is the bar really that high? The problem for Glenn is the bible does not say “and by the way, this will be irreversible and there is no coming back from it.” The bible is vast and when we read about God restoring Sodom to what she was before, I wonder why non-universalist can’t see why we would include that scripture of how God deals with Sodom. Sure Glenn reads that God destroyed sodom, but is he willing to use literal interpretation on Sodom’s restoration? I doubt it.
And what exactly is the point? Couldn’t Tom argue the same in reverse. ie. “I’m afraid that your literal intrpretation of the destruction of the wicked leaves it impossible for God to restore people after he’s destroyed them. That would be unfair and would make universalism impossible to find in the text.” The problem here is that we do have scripture that says he’ll do just that for Sodom. Granted, the text is up for interpretation. Nevertheless it leaves me wondering why it’s bizzare.

It sort of reminds me when calvinists argue that the view of Jesus being the elect is not permissible since scripture does not state or teach it. Well that’s the debate.

I may be wrong about my critique here but i’ll stick my neck out. About now, I feel that if Ran and I were video taping this discussion as a movie, this scene would have this one guy swimming deep in the ocean, the music accompanied by a slow deep cello. And yea, we’d call it Jaws. Is Glenn serious? When Jesus told Nic. that one had to be born again, and Nic asked if that meant crawling back into the womb, is Glenn not too far from nic? Granted the disputed text is not dealing with John 3 but is the principal NOT TRUE that in order for one to gain his life, he must lose it. It’s as if Glenn is saying, one can be born again and not be born again. One can be a new creature in christ and be the same old guy. One can sit at the table of demons and the table of God. One can serve two masters. The metaphors used on the principal that Tom is endorsing are VAST and WIDE and almost too numerous to list. And still even though the text’s that are disputed here are about being killed for the gospel, it hardly dismisses the fact that one must…using Jesus’ words from Luke 9:23…“Daily take up his cross”. How many times can a man die?

I admit I love Glenn and enjoy his blog. I consider myself a fan. But I do feel like he’s that man in the deep ocean grasping for anything to prove Tom wrong. Perhaps it’s me being uneducated. But I’m allowed my critique even if it’s a crappy one :slight_smile:

#85

The ‘systematic theology’ of Calvinist is beyond boring. In fact, when they resort to it - I see it as nothing less than the veneration of that whore logic over the cross - actually, replacing the cross. “Theologians” sleep walking. Glenn’s latest contribution is not great theology - it’s the predictable nonsense of the most wild-eyed TULIP pupil making a case of why his mother or brother burning in hell will bring great joy. Apparently, according to Glenn, the annihilation of our loved ones will bring greater joy. Annihilationism is grasping at straws because it’s all straw as far as what Calvinism offers.

Is this as good as Mt. Olympus can serve up? Acting like a couple of scholastic elitists to the ‘peanut nut gallery’ is not cutting it. I’m not impressed. Give me Barth or Kierkegaard any day.

Don’t be fooled. True theology demands the simple declarative sentence. ‘Civility’ demands a book.

#86

I’d like to say a few things which I stated in my last comment. First, I know Glenn and he’s a person with a great sense of humor. I hope others understand the Jaws analogy was meant in a humorous way. I am well aware that calvinists who read this dicussion, undoubtedly see Talbott as being the guy at sea while Glenn (the Great White) is coming up from the deep to swallow him whole. I consider Glenn to be brilliant and his being in this discussion is certainly appreciated.

Also, I wanted to comment on the achilles heel of Universalism. Glenn is no doubt tapping on that heel as he speculates where in scripture it promotes that we all should desire the destruction of God. Now no Universalist I know of would say you should want the wrath of God. But if the destruction of a person is the salvation of the person then everyone should pray that God’s wrath comes upon them. Yet, as Glenn points out, this form of universalism escapes the natural reading. Instead scripture exhorts us to FLEE from the wrath of God. And that, I feel, is a strength for ECT/Ahhinilationism. I realize we Universalists have answers but we should not simply say “what stupid reasoning”. It’s an obvious question, if we want people to understand our view, we have to address it in a reasonable manner. If our reasons seem self manufactured or construing scripture so much that we seem desperate, then we are no different than Glenn who seems to grasp for straws on the philosophical approach to salvation.

Aug

#87

Well, it ain’t wrath, but I am promised to be salted with fire. “Everyone will be salted with fire.” How does one flee that? I know that doesn’t sit well with the self-righteous, they’re already perfect. :mrgreen:

#88

Interesting discussion.

I’m wondering how much longer they will go till they just agree that they don’t agree on what a) love actually is and b) what love “compels” God to do. My sense is soon. Seems curious to me that Glenn would argue that even if he agreed with Tom about what love means and dictates, he would still be compelled to go with the idea of final death/destruction because that is what the obvious (to him anyway) reading of the text forces him to do. Well then – are there not texts which just as “obviously” force one to lean strongly toward Universalism? (1Cor 15:22 etc etc) So it is fascinating to wonder how/why one allows which texts to inform the others. I think that’s a little of what Bob and Aug are saying as well.

Now Glenn said something which gives me a glimmer of hope that maybe this discussion will take on new life and direction (ie my sense is that re: the “what is love” discussion, they are going to agree to disagree) when Glenn hesitantly admits to leaning toward Molinism. Thus we get into the ideas of free will and then go down the road where I think Tom can talk about how a person who choses death/annihilation is anything BUT free; that the “choice” for final destruction is instead evidence of a sick, bound, deluded person. And as such, God cannot accept that decision so instead does what He must to destroy that persons false self which has him so bound. So we’ll see – I could be wrong. Of course Tom could have entirely different directions and tactics in mind. But the free will discussion could proceed even though they have such different views of “love”.

Aug:
I liked you response to Glenns charge that the bar has been placed too high for annihilationism. Seems to me Glenn is guilty of the same thing in placing the bar just as high for Tom and for Universalism!! ie if the bible writers really were trying to assert Universalism, can the reader allow them to do it??

Also Aug, curious about what you said re: Universalism achilles heel. Doesn’t Paul explicitly deal with this (from a different angle) when when he says since grace is free why not go on sinning?? Heavens no!! That sort of thing. As Tom T talks about in his book, the very same mercy is experienced quite differently – depending on which direction one is headed. For some, that mercy comes across AS wrath…

Good stuff

TotalVictory
Bobx3

#89

TV,
( edited for mistake - marked with ** )
In saying “achilles heel” I do not mean it is certainly wrong (far from it). Rather, I mean that if Universalism has a place where explanation is difficult, that is it. Try telling a ECT, who’s never heard of Universalism, that Hell is an extension of God’s love. What you’ll find is “Lucy, you’ve got alot of esplaining to do!”

Yes, your point is exactly right but at first glance, people might construe Univesalism as promoting to seek the wrath of God. Paul’s words in Rom 6 are for believers, which is why I believe Tom is right. However, Glenn is right, that this motion that God’s going to destroy the wicked does ** seem to be within the context of the passages (but as I said, the bible is far more vast than those paragraphs). For us who know Tom’s reasoning, I think we’re all waiting to see how Glenn is going to defend the arsenal that’s about to be launched.

Aug

#90

Actually, I’m on record (here on the forum and elsewhere) as following George MacDonald on this: if we truly understood the character of God’s justice we would (in certain moods) pray for His wrath as much as for His mercy. And that’s something I have done in devotional practice as well, with some regularity.

I haven’t caught up with Glenn’s latest post yet, but I thought I should mention this. :slight_smile: The OT itself has a relatively common theme about the importance of accepting the wrath of God upon ourselves for our rebellions; it isn’t altogether absent as a theme in the NT either.

I’ll try to have something more substantial to add in regard to Glenn’s (and Tom’s?) latest entry later.

#91

Glenn shot himself in the foot more than once in that last post. I think he really did himself in when he wrote:

Didn’t Glenn just disprove his own argument? If psuche has the same meaning in Matthew 10:28 and Mark 8:35, as Glenn argues (and Tom would agree), then isn’t Glenn’s reading of Matthew 10:28 rendered nonsense? I mean, according to Glenn, to have one’s psuche destroyed is to lose their very life, but the loss of one’s life is precisely what happens when the body is killed! So what am I missing here?

#92

Gabe,
Excellent question and one that raises difficulty for me as well. I know little greek…wait correction…I know 0 greek, and so I can’t hardly follow Glenn. I’m certainly unqualified to know if there is a good point or a invalid point Glenn is making.

I also would like to comment as well that when we subscribe to a paradigm and begin defending it we certainly can make mistakes. Tom no doubt made a mistake (as Glenn shows us) when he states:

Glenn notes that the text does not say “those who destroy their soul…will end up saving it”. But due to my ignorance of greek, perhaps I simply a not understanding Tom’s point as well. Is this an oversight by Tom? Perhaps Tom realizes he exchanged “life” for “soul” in making his point?

#93

*** NOTE ***

Glenn and Thomas are now able to read the comments thread. - keep it clean guys :laughing:

#94

I don’t think Tom made a mistake here, Auggy. ‘Soul’ certainly is a viable translation of psuche in both Matthew 10:28 and Mark 8:35 (see Mark 8:36 also). Moreover, ‘life’ and ‘soul’ can be used synonymously in English. What Glenn seems to be saying is that Mark 8:35 is talking only about losing one’s life (i.e. literally dying). However, Glenn’s reading (if indeed I am understanding him correctly) is without merit, for Mark 8:34 is rather explicitly talking about denying ourselves and following Christ.

#95

Tom’s latest post hits the nail on the head. Well, several nails, really.

#96

It’s a distinction worth pursuing in the discussion. “Destruction” is a fearful prospect but a universal experience. There is nothing more destructive than death. But all are resurrected from it!

I would like to see Glenn challenged as to why he thinks death and annihilation is not the enemy itself - but rather the souls he sees being fed into it after being resurrected from it! In other words, the annihilation of immortals is possible! in his scenario or he must argue that some or all are raised mortal - but their is no indication of that mortality amongst the resurrected in scripture.

He may well argue that God can annihilate immortals, which empties the word of meaning. It becomes all nonsense at that point.

#97

Am I right, but it seems Glenn will simply argue that this passage is about losing ones life quite literally. If one reads it in light of the “end times”, seems like Luke 21 might be quite a match:

So I don’t think Tom has dispelled this literal approach that Glenn takes. However, I still feel that Glenn will have to adopt a liberal approach (much like he accuses Tom of doing) on the restoration of Sodom (Ezk 16). If the destruction of Sodom represent what God will do to the wicked then how much more does their restoration represent what Toms says God will do for the wicked?

On the love issue: I know I’m already influenced by Tom to say the least. But from my vantage point Tom is like a sharpshooter when he states that it’s about a transformation of heart and not just some external command which is met simply because we don’t know who the wicked are. And after all isn’t it the point that God does in fact love his enemies and that we should do the same? If we’re to do the same, and God’s giving a bit of rain on them qualifies as loving them, then perhaps saving their life is not required, but only a wave hello and good morning to you (though they starve in the street - sheep and goats rings a bell).

And last but not least, I fully agree with Tom that v.34 is a necessity for salvation. So though I agree with Glenn this is about martyrdom, it hardly means there can’t be a further or deeper meaning. And certainly the requirement to die to ourselves is global and non-optional.

#98

Any word as to whether or not Tom’s and Gelnn’s debate will continue?

#99

Glenn stated he would post a closing remark but I’m not so sure that’s going to happen. It’s been quite some time and I think both he and Tom are extremely busy. I believe they prefer to leave it as is.

Aug

#100

Thanks for posting Aug. Unfortunately, due to a slight glitch in a recent upgrade your post didn’t come up on “Active Topics” when you posted it. I’ve now fixed the problem and am just commenting to make it appear in the “Active Topics”. Sorry about that.