Talbott did demonstrate that the destruction in Second Thessalonians (1:9) will be in the presence of Yahweh. Perhaps that was what you were thinking of?
The point of the passage is that salvation is a gift. I think if Ephesians 2:8 speaks against an Arminian soteriology, then we probably need to reject an Arminian soteriology. But, as (hopefully) demonstrated, Ephesians 2:8 simply speaks of salvation as the gift. Nowhere in the scriptures does it reasonably suggest that faith itself is a gift from God (we can further discuss any supposedly contrary texts, if need be). Rather, faith is consistently āour faithā, āher faithā, ātheir faithā, and āyou of (little) faith. If faith is truly a gift, the demand for people to ābelieveā seems greatly diminished, if not entirely misplaced. Why would the prophets (including Yeshua) mention it at all (John 1:12-13; 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:47; Acts 16:31, 34)? It really should have been preached to Yahweh instead (who is taking an unacceptably, insufferable time to ābelieveā for everyone). And why would anyone claim we are saved through faith, if we are really saved unto faith? But my biggest concern with the claim that faith is a gift and a thus a fruit of regeneration, is that furthermore, it greatly diminishes the many biblical exhortations to obey the Royal Law (exhortations already diminished by sola fide). If faith is irresistibly infused, God also necessarily sanctifies apart from any cooperation we might offer. Victory over sin is then guaranteed, even though the scriptures insist that believers, having partaken of the divine spirit, can still radically succumb to their sin. The subjective, salvific process is greatly unbalanced, and what is otherwise simple becomes an unnecessarily tangled mess. One cannot truly claim there is a semblance of free will and that God also gives us faith (the Lutherans kind of do this however).
Salvation however, is truly a gift. And a gift, universally understood, can be rejected. The word āattainā admittedly makes me nervous, but I suppose thatās an accurate word if we use it very carefully. So yes, it could be said that one attains [acquires, applies] salvation through faith; though they did not merit or add to that gift. If a beggar is stirred from his slumber and handed a slice of bread, he can hardly claim to have merited or added to that generosity. That would be absurd. If he does not want the bread, for whatever reason he deems best, he can clearly decline. If our altruist proceeds to shove it down his throat irresistibly, I canāt honestly say that his generosity would be appreciated. I think a more practical perspective (with regards to effective social justice) might be helpful, but I donāt have the time to develop it here.
Personally, irresistible grace comes with a bevy of irresolvable philosophical and biblical problems. Namely, that God isnāt the only āsovereignā will working in the world. And to be unfairly honest, monergism often bears particular fruits. I donāt wish to offend anyone, but as I said, irresistible grace diminishes the salvific process. I donāt personally see particularly inspirational works from āGod Almightyā Reformed Christians. I do personally see them from āYeshua the Leastā vulnerable-to-rejection Christians. Not sure if thatās harsh or unfair, so I sincerely apologise for any offence.
Iām not claiming that universalism is or isnāt true here. But we have to be clear and admit that evangelical universalism doesnāt provide a new answer to soteriology. And so it doesnāt address boasting at all. Universalism necessitates some soteriologically convictions (namely, unlimited atonement, judgement is remedial and so forth), but foremost itās an eschatological vision. Either God acts monergistically to secure our salvation. Or we act in synergy; drawn and embraced resistibly. (Note that the differences can be slight in that a Lutheran insists God acts monergistically, yet also insists we can resist him. I honestly have difficulty discerning the difference with Arminianism. Though the latter seems to emphasizes our capacity to yield and accept (have faith), rather than our capacity to resist. Both Luther (and Melancthon) and Arminius thoroughly believed that in our lapsed and sinful state, we are not capable, of and by ourselves, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good. Would be great if our resident Lutherans chipped in ā I know we have one). So whether a non-universalist subscribes to an Arminian or Calvinist soteriology, there is no more room for boasting than if a universalist subscribed to either view.
Regarding Ravi, I donāt necessarily disagree with him. I think there are problems with the insistence that everyone will repent, but not that everyone could repent. Chess, after all, is a game that accommodates stalemates. But Iām not particularly critical of universalism (universalist determinism? Yes). It just takes a faith I donāt yet have.
Anyway Johnny, thanks so much for your thoughts. I do apologise for my delayed response ā Iāve been overly busy (in a weird sort of way) but you and Arminianism in general have certainly been on the back of my mind these last couple of weeks. Hopefully Iāll respond to some more of Raviās thoughts, regarding Godās āgenerally impotent, non-sovereignā will. I also intend to finish a big personal refutation of Universalism (mostly for Devilās advocacy purposes) one day in the eschaton; it obviously wonāt be that convincing for many (any?) but Iām sure youād like to gently butt heads with me all the same.
Peace, and all of those other wonderful Christian valedictions.
Dbbpatu, thanks for your continued thoughts here. Maybe Iām just thick (please bear with me!), but Iām still struggling to see how universalism offers a new soteriological viewpoint. At the very least, the world is not subjectively saved at present. Not all have repented from their sins. So even if one believes that there are no (fore-decreed, eternal) reprobates, one must still believe there are a group of people who are not presently saved. All arminians believe this too (though itās a tad more settled with foresight; I lean towards Open Theism myself). There is absolutely no more room for boasting in arminianism than universalism, because evangelical universalism doesnāt offer a particularly new soteriology. You might have a different take on universalism however, which I would be happy to hear. God bless you, brother.
But I donāt think the metaphor of a drowned man who needs resuscitation describes salvation and our spiritual condition fairly. We are drowned in our sins, but this really means being separated from Yahweh. I donāt think the scriptures describe us as being totally unresponsive and impervious to divine influence, i.e. entirely dead. Otherwise we would be obliged to believe that being dead to our sins, means we are totally impervious to its influence also. And this clearly isnāt the case.
