-
About Matt. 12:32. Talbott does a great job of explaining that there are some sins that are forgiveable and then there are other ones, like denying the holy spirit, that are more problematical and stand in the way of reconciliation so need to be dealt with more severely. Of course, even if it’s not forgiveable here and not in the age to come it doesn’t imply that under different circumstances God isn’t able to forgive or doesn’t want to.
-
Hebrews 6:4 : Is it even possible for Calvinists that God called someone and then they fall away? Why would God call someone to really experience Him and then not continue that? It would seem weird of their understanding, right?
I don’t know how God works, why some seem more hardened than others? I also don’t understand God’s timing of things - why some come to repent sooner than others? I’m more sure that God really loves all, desires they repent, and is able to effectively make that happen. Don’t Calvinists also assert that for God nothing is impossible, that if someone believes, experiences God, that it’s because of his grace? Then, how in their view, could it ever be impossible for anyone to not return to God, if that’s what he had purposed? I guess they just figure God didn’t elect that person.
3.2 Thess. 1:8 doesn’t have the verb shut out, but rather “of.” It’s curious that it’s translated shut out. Other texts may suggest that there is a separation of a kind like the sheep and the goats. It’s interesting that people make so much of the words shut out, as if it proves something, when this is not really what the original words say.
I think how people understand “aionios” is critical. I sense this conversation is needed and coming.
He seems especially hung up with the notion that saying eternal means in the age to come, not endless, limits not only hell’s duration, but also heaven’s. I do believe this is also discussed in Talbott and/or Parry’s books.
I found difficulty with a few of his statements:
I’m not sure how sin is any less serious in our view. This seems like a characterization to me. We would agree that sin is deserving of punishment, but for a purpose. In our view God is so unhappy with sin that he effectively seeks to eradicate it and address every man’s heart. We don’t have a decreased view of sin, but we do have an increased view of the love of God.
The whole concept of justice is a great discussion too. I recently read Talbott’s article on justice and was so persuaded that justice isn’t served in punishment alone, but when there is restoration. This sense of justice makes so much more sense of a God that is consistently both love and justice.
It’s a nice thought that we’d all read our bibles and comes to our own conclusions solely from the text. But who of us is not strongly influenced by our teachers and a particular paradigm or understanding? Calvinists strike me as stuck in their paradigm of what punishment can and cannot be.
Take this for example:
Why does he pit punishment against God’s spirit? Doesn’t punishment ever correct? In so far as punishment ever serves to correct us, bring us to repentance, isn’t it doing the spirit’s bidding? Couldn’t punishment be a tool of God’s spirit? Could it be that his paradigm of punishment, as solely retributive, doesn’t allow him to make this connection? Sometimes it seems like we aren’t asking the right questions and are assuming wrong things, like that God is solely concerned with a justice that gets what is deserved. As parents we want not just for our kids to get what they deserve, but for them to turn from the error of their ways! This is our focus. I suppose the Calvinist is not beyond seeing this too? It just comes down to who does God love in a saving way?
I think he may be more accurate about our view in this statement…
Isn’t our view that God’s mercy, in desiring people’s repentance, values any step necessary for it, like wrath? I’ve heard it said that God’s justice and mercy are two sides of the same coin, united in purpose. It would seem the blogger has some grasp of our view, right?
I’m also learning right along with you, Alex. I hope I made some sense here. It’s so late and I lost my first email in taking too long to write it. I’m enjoying following your discussion and, hopefully, will learn from it too. It’s so hard to get anyone to dialogue so this great that we can experience your discussion along with you.