The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Logical Argument - Thomas' 3 premises

Featured Writers Dr Thomas Talbott
#1

Dear Tom,
Thank again for taking time with us here at EU.com. I have been reading through more of your writings and thought I should ask you about this thought on your argument.

(1) It is God’s redemptive purpose for the world (and therefore his will) to reconcile all sinners to himself;
(2) It is within God’s power to achieve his redemptive purpose for the world;
(3) Some sinners will never be reconciled to God, and God will therefore either consign them to a place of eternal punishment, from which there will be no hope of escape, or put them out of existence altogether.

Tom, I believe that Arminians will not reject proposition 2.

My guess is they would respond with the idea that it is within God’s power to achieve his redemptive purpose for the world BUT because of his sov. choice to allow man free agency (Mormon language lol) he will not use all his power and over-ride the mans choice. Thus for the arm. 1, 2 and 3 are true.

Am I wrong about this. Please, if you have addressed this already can you give the links or addresses.

Auggy

#2

Auggy-

Here are my thoughts on this (and naturally they pale in comparison to Tom’s).

Calvinists typically suggest that God finds you. Arminians typically suggest that you find God. Or at least in a rough sense I believe this is true. We can toss in terms like prevenient grace and so forth, but I think the concept is generally true. Since most Arminians believe in libertarian free will, i.e. that man chooses his eternal destiny by exercising his free choice to accept or reject the offer of salvation, then we have to assume that they have taken the power of salvation out of the hands of God in one sense (to preserve free will), while still suggesting that God is the author of salvation (to avoid heresy and accentuate the sovereignty of God).

The notion, then, that Arminians believe that it is within God’s power to achieve salvation for all relies on the ability of man, not God. Thus, I’m not sure how you could claim that Arminians believe in all 3 premises, since man could continue to frustrate God’s plans for them by their continual persistence in rejecting salvation. Arminians would not suggest that God could trump the will of man (at least on a mass scale) in salvation as that would destroy the very foundation of their belief in the preservation of the free will of man if they were to assert that God could just save everyone. In effect, as Moltmann so beautifully describes, they believe they are the masters of their own destiny and God is merely the accessory who puts that will into effect. If I decide for heaven, God must put me there; if I decide for hell, he has to leave me there. If God has to abide by our free decision, then we can do with him what we like.

So in short, Auggy, I see what you’re saying when you conclude that Arminians believe that God is all powerful, but you can’t hold that God is omnipotent and that man has libertarian free will in relation to salvation, and then suggest that Arminians believe that God can save all without giving up your belief in free will. I don’t think Arminians are willing to do that.

#3

Fire, I believe the issue here is that premise one is what Arminians will object to. I stated that premise 2 they would agree with but one they may object to.

(1) It is God’s redemptive purpose for the world (and therefore his will) to reconcile all sinners to himself;

If I recall Robert Shank, In Elect in the son, argues that God’s will is complex and not simple. I believe the Arminian would say that it is God’s redemptive purpose to reconcile the world to himself but it is conditional; therfore the premise might be:
(1) It is God’s redemptive purpose for the world (and therefore his will) to reconcile all sinners, through their free will, to himself.

Perhaps I’m totally wrong about this, but it makes sense to me that arminaisn will object to the argument.

#4

If you break down the argument (Cal v. Arm) in its most basic form, you have an either/or scenario that is typical of western thought.

And the either/or positions are based on the questions of power and the will.

In the end, who has the power? God, or man?
Who ends up folding to the others will?

The Calvinist says God always has the last word–man cannot resist the will of God.
The Arminianist says man is in control–God cannot resist the will of man.

Universalism sees beyond the two contradictions by framing the argument in a totally different context. No longer are we arguing about the bourgeois clerical issue of power (as a means of control), but the focal point becomes love–the true essence of power. With the power of God’s love, rather than division, a reconcilliation of the will takes place, and in this reconciling both the will of God and man “win”.

#5

Thanks for your question, Auggy. Yours is a question that several others have raised as well, and I address it in a paper at the following URL:

willamette.edu/~ttalbott/KNIGHT.pdf

I also provide a shorter answer in footnote 1 on page 44 of The Inescapable Love of God. Here is the shorter version:

So if, as most Arminians believe, God does not have the power to bring it about that all are reconciled to him freely, then neither does he have the power to bring it about that (2) is true. After several people raised the same issue, however, it occurred to me that virtually every biblical text that might seem to support

(2) It is within God’s power to achieve his redemptive purpose for the world
would also seem to support the stronger claim that God not only has the power, but will in fact exercise his power, to reconcile all to himself. So in Universal Salvation? The Current Debate I restated my three propositions as follows:

(1) God’s redemptive love extends to all human sinners equally in the sense that he sincerely wills or desires the redemption of each one of them;
(2) Because no one can finally defeat God’s redemptive love or resist it forever, God will triumph in the end and successfully accomplish the redemption of everyone whose redemption he sincerely wills or desires;
(3) Some human sinners will never be redeemed but will instead be separated from God forever.
Here I think it clear that an Arminian would reject proposition (2) in this set of propositions even as an Augustinian would accept it.

Thanks again for your question.

-Tom