whchurch.org/content/page_910.htm
It’s the sermon from 1/11/2009 (2nd one from the top)
Enjoy. By the way, Boyd has (for all intents & purposes) rejected the traditional view. Here’s some more info on his inclination toward annihilationism.
Looks like the usual arguments, nothing new there. I’ll go back and see if I overlooked anything…
Greg (from his website article): Annihilationism is the view that whoever and whatever cannot be redeemed by God is ultimately put out of existence.
Tom: Well, this is “a” version of annihilationism, but not annihilationism per se. Not all annihilationists insist that what’s annihilated must first be “irredeemable.” To some the ‘redeemability’ question is beside the point. Some just insist that those who aren’t redeemed in this live are annihilated postmortem, period. But Greg believes something that not all annihilationists believe, viz., that God would not annihilate whatever is redeemable AND he doesn’t think physical death settles the fact. For him there’s the whole question of character solidification. God only annihilates what’s irrevocably solidified into evil, and that process likely continues postmortem.
Tom
I did notice that subtlelty when I was listening to the RM&L sermon. Good clarification. Sounds almost like a blend of universalism and annihilationism, maybe a “hypothetical universalism”.
Sounds like Lewis’ limited annihilationism (which had a number of characteristics typically found in universalism).
Two considerations keep annihilationism alive as an option for Greg (an option to believe, not to experience, ha!):
(1) His belief that God would not annihilate whatever is redeemable. That follows for Greg from omnibenevolence. A God of love will continue to pursue any and all possibilities so long as there are possibilities for Godward movement. That’s what love does. I’m not sure how obvious this is in his sermons.
(2) The finite nature of libertarian free will. Libertarian free will is, for Greg, ultimately finite. We “spend” it or use it up. As we exercise free choice over time we ‘habituate’ or ‘solidify’ ourselves into a fixed character which in turn delimits our scope of choices. Greg imagines (because he doesn’t know how to preclude the possibility) that irrevocable solidification into evil is possible. And in the event it occurs, perfect love WOULD annihilate whatever was irrevocably solidified in evil, for what is irrevocably evil is truly hopeless, irredeemable. When I asked, “What could possibly shut the door (metaphysically speaking) to all possibility of relationship with God,” Greg answers, “Character solidification.”
I’ve pressed Greg on this by arguing that irrevocable solidification into evil is (based on arguments he makes in his own thesis against Hartshorne) NOT a metaphysical possibility. Given the nature of love as the sustaining presence and ground of created being, God’s own presence constitutes the one unchanging/constant fact within the scope of possibilities for future becoming for any created entity. This presence just is what the Greek Fathers called the “logoi” of created entities. So it’s quite impossible, on my view, for any existing entity to foreclose all possibility of Godward becoming. This openness to Godward becoming IS its being and existence. So, as long as a thing exists, becoming what it was created to be remains possible (because God in love decides to stand within creation’s scope of being and unfailingly offer the invitation to become).
So I’ve suggested to Greg that he must abandon one of his six warfare theses (that which claims “Libertarian freedom is finite”). It’s finite in the sense of being dependent upon God’s free creative act, yes, but not in the sense Greg means. He means libertarian freedom by definition is a ticking clock. It’s winding down and will eventually run out as we solidify ourselves into either irrevocable godliness or godlessness. The latter are annihilated. But annihilation can only be an option for a loving God if (a) God is less than loving and/or (b) hopeless existence is possible.
We agree on (1). God is love. But we disagree on (2). But we both insist that while God can override libertarian freedom here and there on occasion, God cannot constrain our future options such that God is the ONLY option. That would eradicate something equally necessary to our moving into a loving relationship with God, i.e., free choice. And this is where we’d disagree with Talbott and other universalists. We have to work out our universal hope in terms of the necessary/definitive role libertarian choice plays in our becoming what God created us to be.
Tom
Great read, Tom. Thanks for sharing!
Yep, he’s definitely going the full Lewis route there. (Which, not incidentally, MacDonald agreed with in theory: if character solidification ever did occur, then God would annihilate. MacD trusted that God would be able to keep such solidification from occurring. Indeed, MacD expected that a frustrated desire for annihilation would play a role in the eventual redemption of at least some sinners!)
Ooh. A fine tactic! 
Agreed.
Jason,
Knowing your interest in trinitarian questions, I know you’d enjoy Greg’s PhD diss. on Hartshorne. He manages to keep the best Process insights without the objectionable parts (no trinity, necessary God-World relationship, etc.). I think you’d enjoy it.
Tom
Wow Tom:
Very insightful, concise, and pointed. Thanx big time.
The idea that freedom is something we can exhaust – ie we can freely choose NOT to be free – is an interesting problem/question. Which would draw me back to some of Talbotts insights where he states that to be free, one must be aware of consequences and not be under the undue influence of factors that make him unable to choose what is best (ultimately) for himself. (That’s my paraphrase)
Couple this then with the idea that Christ comes to “free” the captives (maybe freed from all our illusions and self deceptions?) and that He is the Light which lights the WHOLE world and that the Spirit of Truth comes to set us FREE (and so on) we can build a pretty powerful case (it seems to me anyway) for the idea that freedom is A) supported by God and He has a “right” to assure it remains intact (ie if freedom has already been broached, how can God be accused of violating it?) and that B) when one IS free that can easily be seen in the choices he makes.
So sure; I actually tend to define freedom as that state when outside influences not longer distort our thinking and we therefore CHOSE God!
I too have found myself fascinated that the fabulous Greg Boyd bothers to answer my emails! I’ve argued Universalism with him too – though not nearly so coherently as have you – and I do sense he has a real weakness for this truth. But I know we all welcome his critiques; for criticism from such as Greg B can only enhance and strengthen our position.
So it seems to me…
TotalVictory
Bobx3
I’m a big fan of GregB in most regards anyway. I wish he had time (and inclination?) to formally dialogue with us on various topics!
The Lewisian character of this position is interesting, because NT Wright’s position shares a similar feature in that he also believes in some form of character solidification; that which becomes wholly evil ceases to be fully “human”, (or whatever) and hence can become irredeemable.
I personally think that the ‘character solidification’ position is rather silly. One major problem with it is that it makes the nature/ power of evil and corruption more powerful than God’s ability to save/ redeem. Which we (particularly as universalists) know is not correct.
I have a question about this comment:
TGB wrote:
“And this is where we’d disagree with Talbott and other universalists. We have to work out our universal hope in terms of the necessary/definitive role libertarian choice plays in our becoming what God created us to be.”
What necessary/ definitive role did the Apostle Paul’s “libertarian choice” play in his becoming what God created him to be? That little incident on the road to Damascus basically amounted to God sitting Saul down on his butt and saying, “Look, you’re not being who I created you to be. Now change!”… Saul/ Paul: “Ok!”
It seems that I recall God saying, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and harden whom I will harden.”
Melchi: I personally think that the “character solidification” position is rather silly. One major problem with it is that it makes the nature/power of evil and corruption more powerful than God’s ability to save/redeem. Which we (particularly as universalists) know is not correct.
Tom: I think you have a point Melchi. However, I don’t think ‘character solidification’ itself is a silly idea at all. I think it’s self-evident that we habituate and solidify our characters. The question is whether or not “irrevocable solidification into evil” is possible. The deeper the metaphysical waters get the more charitable I am. I mean, I think it’s a meaningful position. I can’t see any obvious contradiction that’s generated by believing it. But I agree that (given other metaphysical commitments I have), irrevocable solidification into evil is impossible.
Melchi: I have a question about this comment: TGB wrote, “And this is where we’d disagree with Talbott and other universalists. We have to work out our universal hope in terms of the necessary/definitive role libertarian choice plays in our becoming what God created us to be.”
What necessary/definitive role did the Apostle Paul’s “libertarian choice” play in his becoming what God created him to be?
Tom: Every difference so far as I can tell.
Melchi: That little incident on the road to Damascus basically amounted to God sitting Saul down on his butt and saying, “Look, you’re not being who I created you to be. Now change!”Paul: “Ok!”
Tom: God can be convincing, no doubt. But in the end, I think, the journey requires us to determine ourselves in response to God’s commands, offers, invitations.
Tom
Fair enough!
I suppose if solidification into irredeemable evil is possible then it shows that even God can create some shonky goods that have to be thrown away - except that when we create less than perfect items they don’t tend to have nervous systems and feelings and mental problems they are just inanimate and hence aren’t affected to the core of their being by their own puzzling existences.
I guess my point was that I didn’t see any libertarian choice being exercised by Saul/ Paul in that scenario… 
I actually had an in-depth reply to this written out a few days ago, but I wasn’t saving as I went (writing at home) and the system logged me out before I tried to submit it. After which I could never get back to the composition window to rescue the text.
The short version, though, is: depends on what is meant by “libertarian choice”. 
Saul was free to say “Okay” or free to choose to remain blind; just as he was free to kick the goads up to that point.
He wasn’t free to avoid being blinded and goaded. And he wouldn’t have been free from any unwanted consequences to remaining blind; just like he wasn’t free from any unwanted consequences to cooperating instead of rebelling. He was however free to cooperate or to rebel.
Well, I suppose it would depend on how one defines libertarian choice, certainly.
I’m not as confident as you are that Saul was free to say Ok, or remain blind. I think saying he was free to cooperate or rebel is an assumption, frankly. Like Tom T., I am uncertain that we are truly in a position in our current state to make free choices. However, under the circumstances of Paul’s Damascus road experience, I would say that the only “free” choice (ala Prof. Talbott) he had was to do what he did! Which I don’t think is what we typically think of at all when we think of libertarian choice! (At least not the way I do) If the only way we can be free is to know the truth, then we cannot ‘freely’ choose to remain in ignorance/ blindness once we know the truth in a way that is not compromised by illusions.
In other words, once he knew the truth (which sets us free), Paul didn’t have any other free choice to make except to be free!
First off, ‘redeemability’ is beside the point - if one defines redemption from death and that ‘All will be made alive in Christ’ as having anything to do with the point. Everyone is still going to be resurrected the last time I checked.
Secondly, as James (our James) reminded us, the one irrevocable promise of what the future holds is that EVERY knee shall bow to Christ as their Lord.
There is no such thing as an irrevocably evil human being. God will draw all men to Him. His love will not fail. But you’re talking about evil as though it were a thing - like a hard little nugget. So I’m not quite sure what you have Him annihilating.
But of this, I am certain, the inclusion of the annihilation of people in any brand of universalism is a contradiction in terms. A baffling pretense made to look like the Gospel.
More like an inference from other data (including scriptural data). Christ considers Saul responsible for “kicking at the goads”, for example: “Saul, Saul, how hard it is for you to be kicking at the goads.”
I suppose I am somewhat more sanguine (bloodily so! ) about the ability of those who know the truth (which and Who sets us free) to nevertheless squint their eyes to the truth, and stop up their ears, and harden their heart, so that they will not repent and be saved.
If Christ complains about this in the Synoptics (as I just quoted), and complains similarly (specifically in regard to the truth) about His opponents doing so in GosJohn, to give two of very many scriptural examples that could be adduced, then I think I have exegetical grounds (not even counting metaphysical ones) for believing that God, at least, believes that it is possible for people to know the light and yet refuse to come into the light but rather to stay in the darkness (to ref GosJohn again).
Certainly, when I am being self-critical about my own sins, I can see myself intentionally ignoring whatever of the light I do see in order to go do something else instead. I am free enough to do one or the other. I am not free of the consequences of doing one or the other, though; no more than I am free of God’s persistent action to save me from sin, whatever it takes to do so.