I’ve written to James Gould asking for a link or pdf for the article (have copied you in on my email to him). The alternative is to get a copy of the journal from ATR but that costs 15$ plus postage.
Basically, if I’ve understood James’ argument correctly, it is that God, by creating us in such a way that “salvation is necessary for our ultimate completion as spiritual beings” has voluntarily taken on the obligation to make that salvation available to us. As an analogy, he talks about the obligations we take on when we bring our own children into the world. We are not talking about clay pots here. Towards the end of the article he briefly evaluates the universalist implications of his argument and comes out as a hopeful universalist, but not convinced based on Jerry Walls’ definition of these terms.
Hi Drew (good to hear your cyber voice 
), hi Alex
I composed a new thread post on this very subject offlinet this morning and posted it up without realising you had already started to discuss it here. Perhaps you might want to join in there …
Cheers
Johnny
Sorry to take to so long to post on this Alex, but how exciting that some Christians are brave enough to even really approach the issue, even if they stand in opposition. Hat’s off to Fred.
I agree that Paul does not have trouble with some being made for destruction because for Paul that’s not eternal hell fire. Instead he argues in Romans 9-11 that those who were hardened (Esau) were hardened that they too might receive mercy.
Regarding God punishing to correct - see Lev 26. If we say God was working in the midst of our rebellion preparing us and drawing us, then are we implying we require no regeneration? I don’t think so. To argue otherwise would mean when we become regenerated we continue in our rebellion against God – this is not reformed theology. Part of our repentance is our learning that we’re in the wrong – that is education. And repentance happens because of regeneration which allows us to accept grace. Fred has simply set up a false dichotomy – either it’s educative or it’s regenerative – logically it can be both.
Fred is confusing to say the least regarding his connection that our realization for divine mercy is in contradiction to penal substitutionary atonement. Even if God’s wrath is corrective (again see Lev 26) that doesn’t mean that Jesus can’t absorb that. Simply because Jesus didn’t need correcting, doesn’t mean he can’t absorb someone’s wrath. It seems to me Fred thus must conclude that God’s wrath CAN NEVER BE CORRECTIVE.
On point 4 –To argue otherwise is to say God loves us but doesn’t value us and that would be unbiblical. We have worth but not because we perform (for we’re unrighteous) but because he is full of love. The extent of the punishment Talbott and Parry have raised is really an objection to the reformed false understanding of justice – to balance the scales.
Judgment day is decisive but it doesn’t mean God is restricted from acting. If God should choose to have mercy to those he’s consigned to hell, he can and according to Paul in Romans 9 – not one Calvinist can complain and call God a liar. Calvinists would be forced to commit to their misunderstanding of the mystery of how God could consign someone to eternal hell and yet still reserve the right to save them from that very infinite hell – he’s God and he has mercy on whom he pleases WHEN HE PLEASES.
On election and free-will- I tend to think they’re both true. God has elected mankind (Adam/Christ) and will see it through but he’s also working in and through our choices just as he did with Joesph’s brothers selling him into slavery.
I’ll stop there although I’m with Fred on D.
Alex, I meant that most people in the U.S.A haven’t read TEU or The Inescapeable Love of God. (I’m reading through Talbott’s book again and appreciating it as much as the first time.) For this reason, there aren’t many, if any, seminars going on of this kind. I think it’s so impressive that they even had a seminar, even as I am critical of some of their conclusions. Very sad about Fred being one of your best friends for 20 years and no much since you came to believe in EU. 
My belief in EU has also been a stumbling block in my relationship with a few of my former close friends. For the ones I have left, I’m trying to be discerning about what I say. I’ve decided to try and come in the back door. 
I think this just goes to show how very difficult it truly is to overcome our presuppositions, prejudices and traditions in order to see the truth: Our plausibility structure in other words, as discussed in Josh Walter’s post here in his current series on universalism and its lack of acceptance: videoaudiodisco.blogspot.com/201 … grace.html
Thanks, although don’t worry about it if it’s going to cost anything.
Thanks for the clarification. I’ll respond on Johnny’s new thread 
No probs - good point about them being courageous in tackling EU, not because we’re scary but because it’s easier to ignore than to engage/confront.
Thanks for pointing out Lev 26, it uses full-on language but makes a strong point. I agree that we need both regeneration & re-education.
In his defense it’s possible my notes/summary aren’t clear enough. However, I agree that it’s perfectly possible for Jesus to “take in on the chin” without it correcting anything about Him.
I agree that our primary worth comes from being the objects of God’s love.
Good point.
I agree.
How would you answer, “Why didn’t Jesus talk about UR?”
Ah, that makes more sense 
I started reading TILoG again but stopped once I heard the 2nd edition was in the pipeline i.e. I’ll read that once it’s out (it will probably be next year now, as Talbott keeps getting distracted speaking at conferences & the like ). Hopefully more will read the books now Hellbound is creating more awareness of the issues & authors. I think (hope!) I’m learning to be patient and more sensitive in my discussions.
I agree.
I’m awfully busy on other projects, so… http://www.wargamer.com/forums/smiley/nothingtogive.gif
Just wanted y’all to know I was following along in lurky mode.
Alex,
Jesus never talked about every knee bowing and every tongue confessing either but that’s hardly evidence that he didn’t believe it. We build these things from other sources. There’s no proof Jesus spoke of the rapture. But perhaps the most important one is that Jesus never explicitly states that we are saved by grace and not by works. If anything he tends to endorse that our behavior matters - don’t forgive and you won’t be forgiven. But we know we’re saved by grace because God spoke through Paul. And so Paul also demonstrates and reveals God’s masterful way of dealing with the lost - he hardens that they will turn and repent.
But most important to me is the notion that we are loved even while we are his enemies. That God so loved the worthless means we can count on him saving us - “for if while were were God’s enemies he reconciled us to himself through the death of his son, then how much more having been reconciled shall we be saved.” - I believe he reconciled ALL (Col 1) to himself. And if those reconciled while they were enemies, how much more shall they be saved?
Great reply Gene - I’ll use that when replying to Fred
Fred does not see that in the New Testament - by very definition Judgement Day is nothing if not decisive.Even Heb 9:27 (“And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment”) only tells us that there is judgement - which most EUs affirm. It doesn’t tell us the outcome of the judgment or whether that outcome is irreversible. I still think Judgement Day is significant, not least because it marks the end of this eon and the beginning of the next, where the intensity of reality will greatly increase.
, Parry"]My response appeals to the account of “in Adam” and “in Christ” above. Christ was justified on our behalf—his resurrection was his justification (Rom 4:24). Those united to Christ are justified in him—they participate in his resurrection, his justification. Those who are not united to Christ do not. If we are united to Christ prior to the final judgment we can experience new life (i.e., justification in the present in anticipation of the fullness to come). But, I propose, it makes theological sense to postulate that those who are united to Christ after the final judgment also come to share in Christ’s resurrection/justification. This is not a second judgment of the person nor a reversal of the verdict made in the final judgment: they were condemned in Adam—that judgment stands. But they are no longer “in Adam.” The justification they experience is a participation in God’s verdict declared in Christ’s resurrection. And that too remains unchanged. What has changed is where they personally stand in relation to the two ways of being human. They were dead and objects of wrath (in Adam); now they are alive (in Christ).
It’s a shame Fred didn’t take up my offer to read the 2nd edition where Parry wrote a 19 page appendix on Election
It would be helpful to know what Parry wrote that made Fred think this was the case? For example maybe Fred’s taking the latter part of this quote too far?
, Parry"]I do not claim to have disproved traditional interpretations nor to have demonstrated the truth of my suggestions. I do claim to have proposed a range of possible interpretations that are both compatible with universalism and with the text of Revelation. These possibilities gain considerable plausibility from their contexts and, given the legitimate hermeneutical bias in favor of universalist readings, I suggest that they have the edge over traditional interpretations.(It’s interesting that Fred acknowledges that if UR was part of your big picture framework that you’d find UR everywhere - it’s not a very big leap to say the reason we should have UR as part of the picture framework is because it’s everywhere )
He doesn’t think Parry means conservative theological synthesis, but something more creative, building upon the trajectory of where Scripture is going and taking it further than what the authors were actually teaching. Fred’s uncomfortable with that.In the 2nd edition (p210-214) Parry goes into more detail. For example
, Parry"]I also believe that the contexts within which texts are interpreted are critical and that, for Christian readers, the biblical canon itself forms an authoritative context for interpretation. So theological interpretation cannot stop when, for instance, we interpret Jesus’ sayings in Matthew against the historical background of Second Temple Judaism and the literary context of Matthew’s Gospel as a whole. Sure, those things are fundamental, but if we are reading Matthew as Scripture then we also need to read those texts in the context of the whole biblical canon. And that changes the dynamics of interpretation. Just as taking a painting and putting it in a new frame, in a new gallery, and alongside different pictures will change the way in which the painting “means”—taking it beyond what the original artist had in mind—so too taking biblical texts and setting them alongside other texts in new contexts will shut down some possibilities for interpretation and open up others. In the Bible all sorts of texts rub shoulders, make friends, and spark off against each other. The outcomes of those complex textual relationships—sometimes amicable, sometimes tense—are not easy to predict. My proposal is that while some texts do indeed have the potential to be understood as affirming eternal hell, they must now be interpreted in a canonical context alongside other texts that shut down that possibility and thus open up alternative possibilities in the text. Such a theological hermeneutic goes beyond historical criticism. Biblical texts are authoritative for Christian theology only when read in canonical context (and according to the rule of faith).
, Parry"]My proposal is that universalism provides a way of holding together a wide range of biblical teachings better than its alternatives. The case for it is analogous to the case for the Trinity. The claim that the doctrine of the Trinity is biblical is not equivalent to the claim that all biblical authors believed that God was triune (without question many would not have done), nor even the claim that any biblical authors had a fully developed doctrine of the Trinity (none of them did). Rather the doctrine of the Trinity is biblical in this sense: that it is (a) found in some New Testament authors, albeit in embryonic form, and (b) that it allows us to affirm and hold together the teachings of all the relevant biblical texts in ways that its denial does not. The claim of the church, which I affirm with all my heart, is that the full-blown doctrine was the natural development of trajectories inherent within the text itself and is the only way to do justice to the revelation of God in Christ. In that sense the Trinity is biblical. And, so I maintain, in that sense universalism is biblical too.
The fact that some died trusting God & some died in rebellion against Him isn’t an obstacle at all to universalist, who typically believe that’s still occurring - just as we were once all sinners and now some are believers, it’s not the matter of one’s past/current position before God but a question of what one’s final position will be. Furthermore I think the distinction in the OT is actually not as clear Fred describes - from memory the Psalmist & Jonah both describe going to Sheol, and I’m sure there are examples of godly people not “going to sleep with their fathers”.
As Gene reminded me, there are many things we deem important to Christianity that Jesus didn’t talk about - at least not explicitly. Having said that, I do think some of His parables strongly suggest UR.
Also Origen suggests even St Paul, one of the most developed authors of UR in the Bible, sometimes held back for the sake of his audience.
I can think of all sorts of things that can be gained from this new universalism Also it’s encouraging that he at least thinks the objections are well put. I agree that the questions/concerns are common and therefore should be addressed - hopefully when they are, people will see that the Calvinist responses aren’t as good as the EU’s - sadly this will only occur if the Calvinists give the EU’s a fair hearing rather than try to silence them and kick them out of their churches. Given Calvinists’ strong view of God’s sovereignty, they really shouldn’t be afraid of EU - we certainly can’t steal away any of the Elect and if they really are closer to the truth it will withstand EU! Trying to hide EU is also disrespectful of the Holy Spirit’s ability to help the individual believer discern the truth.
1)Packer thought it would be & even the Gospel Coalition felt the need to respond to it…
2)It has already been a big thing in the Catholic church - I’m no expert of Catholicism (so please correct me if I’m wrong) but it seems ever since Vatican 2 they’ve gone as far as possible (without overturning a previous Pope, which would be awkward) towards UR e.g. the last two Popes have openly said we should hope and pray for the salvation of all. (I guessing it’s vaguely similar with the EO?)
- I’m more involved with EU (& UR in general) worldwide than Fred, and from what I can see it’s growing at all levels of Christianity - humanly speaking, all we really need is a few of the most prominent leaders to embrace the position to make it “legitimate” (like John Stott did for annihilationism) and many more will follow.
Having said that, sadly there are some major obstacles:
a) Conservative institutions in particular are designed to restrict change. For example, there’s only been 2 tiny changes to the Westminster Confession of Faith by the General Assembly of Australia since 1901!
(Ecclesia semper reformanda “Always reforming”? 
)
b) People have a lot invested in their current position - reputation, career, power, etc.
c) Since some people (thankfully not Fred) become Christians for selfish reasons (to “get-out-of-jail-free”), they are less inclined to care about the salvation of others.
Thanks very much Alex for your clear and well thought out responses to Fred. Any chance of him joining in the conversation?
Thanks for the very encouraging comment! The last of my responses to Fred are below. I think it would be beneficial for him & myself to discuss it here however I suspect he wouldn’t be interested because he would think I’m inviting him to have a “turf war over there”. I think I’ll send him a summary, a link, and an invite to discuss it over coffee. Please pray he’s receptive & that the conversation would be God honouring and not hostile - both of us carry emotional bagage about this issue.
I agree that we care about the Gospel and faith in the Gospel. I think the narrower Australian definition is mistaken & should be changed, not only for the sake of truth & encouragement to those who have had non-believing loved ones die, but so that ECT doesn’t stand as an unnecessary obstacle for people coming to faith.
I appreciate the primary focus on their Christianity, however in practice trying to silence them is caring that they are a universalist (& ironically has lead some to give up church, if not Christianity).
Treating them as 2nd class Christians is stopping them playing their role within the body (& as I said above, implies only the leaders have the Holy Spirit helping them discern the truth & the universalist does not).
I think calling temporary restraint (something infinitely less than what the Elect receives) “concern”/“grace” dilutes the meaning of the words. Worse still, no matter how nice God is to the Reprobate for the few years here, if He then eternally consciously torments/punishes them, it appears as cruelty, because they have something nicer to compare it to.
My advice would be to pray about it, engage with it and don’t assume you’re already right (I say this to myself too, I know there are plenty of things for me still to learn). I agree ask them how it relates to Jesus, his death and resurrection - as they’ll find EU is very Christocentric - Christ’s work means more to more people i.e. it isn’t just sufficient for all, it’s efficient for all. I agree that we need to read things in context - not just of a verse but the entire biblical metanarrative.
I don’t mean this to sound mean, but I genuinely don’t understand why a Calvinist wants lots of people to be saved? Surely if quantity is irrelevant to God (Does He even need to save anyone to demonstrate His mercy?), then it should be to them?
Anyway, I hope Fred’s desire to see many, many, many people saved is actually an indication that in his heart he knows that the more people are saved the better it is (& given we worship the God who’s love “surpasses knowledge” and who can “do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine”…).
You’re not being mean, Alex, you are just gently pointing out one of the (many) absurdities and illogicalities of hard-core, five point Calvinism.
One might ask why a Calvinist bothers praying that God would save our loved ones, as that prayer cannot possibly have any effect. If our beloved brother or mother or best friend has been predestined to ECT “for the glory of God”, nothing we - nor they - can do or say will change that miserable fact. Indeed, one might ask why a Calvinist offers up any sort of petitionary prayer at all, seeing as how God has already “unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass”.
It sounds to me like Fred is one of those good Christian people who think they have to believe something because the particular faith tradition that they belong to - in this case Calvinism - teaches it, and that faith tradition’s biased interpretation of scripture appears to support it. But actually they know in their heart that it can’t actually be true, so in practice they deny that teaching - in this case, that God won’t save their loved ones.
And as for Jesus not preaching UR, could we not respond “why didn’t he preach ECT?”
Cheers
Johnny
maybe there could be a school of calvinist thought (kinda!) that says that if we pray for God to save some, He will elect them…kinda like how Moses and Abraham both reasoned with God and won. so that would make our ministry, rather than evangelism, solely a prayer based one…
which contradicts the great commission, so they’re stuck there too.
Calvinist’s have a fair answer for this. We are predestined as the means as well. If a missionary is predestined to preach and thus save a villiage, that does not release the missionary from having to preach. And likewise, his prayers will be heard and answered by God.
This is a great introduction point to why Calvinism’s philosophy is actually more sophisticated than Arminians or even Universalists often give credit.
but what if the missionary doesn’t do it? does that mean he was never destined to? and those he almost preached to not actually predestined to hear?
at some point does this become his fault, or God’s? if the persistence of the saints also applied to this, would he have done it?
it’s not really that fair an answer at the end, because you have a ready but undisprovable fallback position that “obviously God never really willed it to be”
not that satisfying.
Hello Gene
Thanks for your response. I’m sure that Calvinist theology is far more sophisticated and nuanced than my limited understanding of it. Nevertheless, I’m afraid I don’t see that your ‘fair answer’ does anything other than make an absurd situation even more absurd.
James (Corpselight) illustrates the problem well. Indeed, I’m afraid I can make no sense of your statement, “We are predestined as the means as well. If a missionary is predestined to preach and thus save a villiage, that does not release the missionary from having to preach.”
Why do you even introduce the possibility of the missionary being “released” from his role in saving the village? Either God has “unchangeably ordained” that the missionary will preach, in which case nothing can prevent this happening, or He has “unchangeably ordained” that he won’t, in which case nothing can make it happen.
Now the priest, if he is a convinced Calvinist, might take the view that he does not need to preach to this particular village, because if they are elect they will be saved anyway, via some other instrument of God’s salvific will. And if they are elect, then of course the priest is correct. But is he, in merely following his own theological beliefs to their logical conclusion, then ‘thwarting’ God’s will? Surely not, for under Calvinism, God’s will cannot be thwarted. Which means either that the priest is elect, but was never predestined to preach to that village - and was hence mistaken in his original ‘calling’; or he is actually reprobate but hasn’t discovered that fact yet.
In my opinion, this reductio ad absurdum argument can justifiably - and to my way of thinking at least, unanswerably - be levelled at traditional, five-point Calvinism on pretty much every level. Followed to its logical conclusions, Calvinism becomes absurd – because it is fundamentally absurd and illogical.
You see the problem?
All the best
Johnny
Corpse and Johnny,
I imagine you’re already familiar with compatibilism - the notion that God’s ordaining events is compatible with man’s responsibility to do what is right.
I agree with both of you that Calvinist ideology is pointing to an absurdity, but it’s not easily escaped. If anyone is ordained by God to go to a village to preach then according to Calvinism, that person will go to the village to preach. What Calvinism does not imply or agree with is that the person will not act during the process - as if he were a zombie. That person will still have choices to make and he will experience everything that happens in this world. However, Calvinists simply believe that the person will make the choice God has destined or fore-ordained.
Now asking, what if he chooses not to? What then? Calvinists simply believe if he chooses not to then God ordained that to be and the person will be held accountable for not doing so (even though he could not have done otherwise).
So I’m not introducing the possibility or the preacher being released, I’m saying the explanation is that he doesn’t carry the ordaining right to choose either or, but does carry the responsibility and accountability if God ordains him not to.
Actually the priest could be elect and the village be reprobated. So that may be why God does not send the priest to preach.
Yes Johnny, everyone sees the problem. The issues lie in scripture where Calvinists see man doing one thing (sin) while God intends that same action for good (righteousness). Romans 9 being the capital of Calvinism. Does God harden people causing them to make bad choices in order to bring about his means. If he does, then are those people accountable for their bad choices (punishable)? Did God harden the Pharaoh and punish him for his choices? If God intended Joseph’s brothers action of selling him into slavery for good then does that mean the brothers were sinning or not? If they are sinning, how does God intend an evil action for good? To say God was just using their action avoids the point that their evil action was an INTENTION by God. Does God intend evil acts?