No, Cindy, I havenât read it â Iâve been waiting for the second edition that Alex mentioned a while back, but Iâd love to hear some of his best ideas now. 
Hi Kate,
Hereâs some of his work from his site, I think youâll like, that addresses Arminianism and Tomâs thoughts regarding Universalism.willamette.edu/~ttalbott/Universalism.pdf There are some other publications he has on line at his site as well, here: willamette.edu/~ttalbott/
Enjoy!
Steve the second link contains an excellent discussion of religious pluralism and Christian Universalism by Tom. All very clear Thanks!
Thanks for this, Steve! I did find Tomâs site once, and read one of his documents, but Iâd forgotten about all the things he has there. Itâs a great resource.
Thanks so much, Steve! The pdf looks especially helpful, and I will most definitely give it a solid read when I return from a day at McDonaldâs tomorrow.
Hi Kate
Good topic 
.
Given that I used to be an Arminian, I always considered Arminianism to be a thoroughly plausible, Biblical belief system.
Then I became a Universalist. And things changed. As my friend James (corpselight) pointed out on a thread quite some time ago, there are actually huge scriptural and philosophical problems with Arminianism. Many of us - me included - have been blind to them because Arminianism is - or was - our âcontrolling beliefâ. We just accept that because God is love he wonât ever force us to do something we donât want to, ie love him back and do his will. And because most of us are selfish and self-centred and wilful and rebellious (I speak from personal experience here ), we are pretty cool with the idea that we get to run our own lives, most of the time. For most atheists, along with, I suspect a lot of agnostics and all too many professed Christians, the idea that we are not actually in charge of our own lives, and that we must one day answer to a higher power for the way weâve lived out lives, is anathema.
The atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel has explicitly stated this:
I think it was Jurgen Moltmann who said something along the lines of Arminianism being a popular belief system today because it speaks to the modern cult of the individual, of personal empowerment. But he then criticised it because in effect it makes man the architect of his own destiny, and hence more powerful than God. And it is here that Arminianism hits some insuperable hurdles.
Do we really want to diminish Godâs glory and power to the extent that we empower ourselves to thwart eternally his avowed will for us - ie that we should all come to the knowledge of the truth, our God who âwould have all men to be savedâ?
And do we really want to put all the responsibility for our salvation, for our eternal destiny, into our own hands? For slice it and dice it as you will; give God and Christ as much credit as you wish for opening the way to salvation and showing us that way; but ultimately, if Arminianism is true, then the only person responsible for our salvation is us. We make that decision, the decision to accept Christ or reject him, of our own free will. And if we choose to reject him, he simply shrugs his shoulders and waves us off to an eternity in hell. That, Kate, is what Arminianism boils down to. A God who is too weak to save us. A God who professes to love us like a father, but who ultimately gives up on us if we donât follow his rules.
Now I donât know about you, but that isnât the God I see in Jesus (âI will never leave you, not forsake youâ), and it isnât the God I see in the Bible. Indeed, the God I see in Jesus and in the Bible is a God who keeps on searching for us until he finds us. In other words, he never closes the door on our repentance. Not at death, not ever into eternity.
And this, I think, is where Arminianism founders. The âcontrolling beliefâ of orthodox Arminianism that there can be no post mortem repentance is totally unsubstantiated both by scripture and by reason. The verse usually adduced to support the idea of no post mortem salvation is Hebrews 9:27 - usually translated something like âit is appointed for men to die once, and after death comes judgementâ. Now even when taken literally, this in no way precludes the possibility of post mortem repentance. The verse does not say âit is appointed for men to die once, and after death comes judgement with no possibility of repentanceâ! And yet Arminians cite it as proof this is the case! Pure eisegesis.
Then when you consider that the correct translation is âit is appointed for those men to die once, and after death comes judgementâ - those men being the temple priests, who as mortals destined to die are being compared to Christ, the immortal High Priest - the verse loses any possible implication of no post mortem salvation. This is just one of numerous examples where translators have twisted the original Greek text to make it fit their a priori theological prejudice. (Another good example of this sort of dishonesty is Paul saying, on occasion, that we are saved by the faith of Christ being wrongly translated as we are saved by faith in Christ - eg Romans 3:22.)
And let us not forget that great statement of Paul, Ephesians 2:8-9, âFor it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast.â I donât know about you, but that sounds like pure Calvinist âirresistible graceâ to me . So maybe Calvinism isnât quite so rubbish after all 
?
So where does this leave those of us Universalists with an Arminian commitment to free will? If God allows us to âgo our own wayâ - as he so obviously does - both in this life and the next, then what guarantee is there that we will all ultimately be saved? This is a debate I had over an extended period of time with my friend Andrew (WE ARE ALL BROTHERS). Andrew was for a long time a near-as-dammit Universalist, but because of his strong commitment to free will - something I firmly believe in as essential to any meaningful theodicy - he was unprepared to make the leap to full-blown Universalism. Until he actually did! Precisely what finally tipped him over the edge you would have to ask him - he does post here from time to time. But as has has been pointed out above, Universalist philosophers such as Tom Talbott and Eric Reitan have put forward convincing philosophical arguments in favour of âhardâ Universalism in the context of free will. A really brilliant essay covering this topic is Ravi Holyâs Damned Nonsense. It can be found here, and is well worth reading, Iâd say:
So, in summary, I would say that Arminianism is a wolf in sheepâs clothing. While it purports to present a loving God - far more loving than the unscriptural tyrant of Calvinism - it ends up giving us a God whose love has a built-in time limit, and is too weak to do anything about it. In truth, Arminianism emasculates God far more comprehensively than any doe-eyed presentation of the baby Jesus in the Nativity.
What do you think?
All the best
Johnny
Thanks for the thoughtful insight, Johnny.
Very interesting read, and you share many of the doubts I had with Arminianism.
For starters, this idea terrified me, as I knew I could barely succeed in remembering to put on socks in the morning, much less authoring my eternal destiny. So Iâd alternate between Arminianism and Calvinism in an agonizing process of flip-flopping. Throw in a dosage of good olâ Catholic guilt, and I was a spiritual mess!
Agreed! I like this thought very much!
So interesting about the translations â I have never heard of the mistranslation of Romans before. The faith âof Christâ is much more comforting than the words faith âin Christ,â as when I was Arminian, I knew my faith was so weak and lowly. I often wondered if it was enoughâthinking that perhaps I was simply reveling in wishful thinking and actually had no real âfaithâ at all. Faith âofâ Christ really makes all the difference here, since it implies that our faith has already been perfected. And I think to have any faith âinâ Christ, we first need to experience the faith âofâ Christ.
Indeed it does! I happen to believe in âirresistible graceâ â I just think itâll spread to everyone someday.
I need to hear this story now, Andrew! If you stop by this thread, please share what convinced you!
I find it odd that my Arminian mother defends the free-will of her belief system, but then she says, âBut God can do as He pleases, and if that means some go to hell, then His will is perfect.â For one, according to the Bible, sending some of His children to eternal punishment could never be what âGod pleases.â It seems that my mother both defends the free-will of Arminianism, while unknowingly adhering to the predestination of Calvinism. 
Thanks for the thoughts, Johnny!
Love,
Kate
Hi everyone, really good stuff, thank you!
About free-will. I think this is really interesting. -This is a bit of a tangent, but I hope itâs not a massive digression.
I highly recommend two books by the Linns âGood Goatsâ and âReading difficult scriptures in a Healing Wayâ. In these works, Matthew, Denis and Sheila Linn, drawing on their experiences of working with people on the 12 step recovering programme from addictions, argue that free-will only begins to happen when we daily allow Godâs love and mercy to heal us. Before that point, we are bound up in the unfreedom of self. Free will is thus an end-point, not a starting point. Sin enslaves us, binding us in compulsive and addictive behaviours. Jesus comes to free us and heal us.
This makes all talk of people âfreely choosing to sinâ or âfreely choosing to reject Godâ highly problematic. An alcoholic doesnât freely choose to drink. A person suffering from OCD doesnât freely choose to wash his hands repeatedly. And us, when we sin, we are not âfreely choosingâ anything, but are acting out our unfreedom. As we learn to walk with Jesus, we slowly, maybe painfully, start to experience the growth freedom in our lives - the freedom to love and be loved, the freedom to âbeâ the person God calls us to be.
Arminianism assumes that weâve all had profound and consistent experiences of what it means to love and be loved, that we are all psychologically and spiritually whole, and that we are empowered to make these fundamental choices. Few, if any of us, are! God has come to restore our freedom, not condemn us for our lack of it. Freedom is not occupying a neutral stand-point, and then making a consumer like choice about different options. Freedom means being healed to the point where we can say yes to all that God wants for us.
Was Jesus free to sin? A possible impossibility! - says Karl Barth (I think). Jesusâ wild and revolutionary freedom is precisely His power to choose and go on choosing all that Love needs of Him.
Until we reach that point, all we can do is cry out in our brokenness and need. Can you do that? âOk, letâs go!â, says God.
How interesting, Jess! Iâll have to pick up those books â Iâve never thought of it that way, but it makes a lot of sense!
Proponents of Arminianism profess to believe in free will. Yet future events are just as much settled as they are in Calvinism. For Arminianists believe God âlooks into the futureâ and thus knows everything that will ever happen. But are there future events which are true right now? For example could it now be true that you will eat mince pie tomorrow as 1:00 P.M.? If so, is it possible for you to refrain from eating pie at 1:00 P.M. tomorrow? If it IS possible, then it couldnât be true now that you will. If it ISNâT possible, then you donât have the ability to choose not to eat it. You are just as pre-destined to eat that pie as you would be in Calvinist thinking.
Good point, Paidion. This befuddled my understanding of Arminianism quite a while ago, as I wondered how, according to their thought, Judas had any free will in choosing to betray Christ. And if he didnât have free will in the matter, I thought, then do any of us? But, then again, Christ did know that Peter would deny him. Does this confirm Arminian logic?
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I sometimes feel that my Arminian mother, who hardily disagrees with Calvinism, has actually accepted more of Calvinism than she intends.
Jess, we are in agreement. And ironically, Paidion, I maintain that you and I are also in agreement. We can choose not to eat the pie â or to eat it. We can choose to sin or not to sin. BUT no one will deny that without Godâs deliverance and empowerment, we will choose TO sin far too often. âThe good thing I desire to do I do not do, for the bad thing (which I hate) is ever near at hand.â (My very loose paraphrase from memory â I think thatâs in the closing verses of Romans 6) âWho will free me from this body of death? I thank my God, through my Lord Jesus Christ â for the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.â
We are free to choose, but our chooser is sick, deceived, and deceitful. We choose the thing we hate. Therefore we are not as free as Father desires for us to be, though we ARE free to choose this or that at any moment. We do not â in a sense we cannot â consistently choose the good we long for over the evil we hate.
Thank you, Cindy. Said what I was trying to say, but more succinctly.
About our actions not being free because God forsees themâŚI think C S Lewis (following Boethius) answers this one in âMere Christianityâ - the section âbeyond personalityâ, from memory. God has no foreknowledge of the future; He does not look out at the future from the perspective of the present I(so heâs going to do that, the little monkey!) To God, past, present and future - the whole flux of time - are simply present, and known, as an eternally present now. Just as my action in the present is not rendered âunfreeâ because of the fact that it has an observer, so any action, past present or future is not compromised in its freedom because God observes it - He doesnât foresee it, He simply observes it. Time for us is experienced sequentially, but God is not enclosed within any moment of time.
I also agree that weâre not as free as weâd like to think we are, but God has come to set us free. Thatâs why, 2000 years before we were born, Mary said âyesâ for us, and Christ chose to come and save us - thank goodness none of that depended on my half-baked decision making resources.
The extent to which we - I - can still be held to be complicit in our sin - thatâs a more complicated one to handle. I know that the first of the 12 steps is to admit that you are not in control, and to surrender all your life - the pretty and the very un-pretty stuff -into Godâs hands. Until then, youâre in culpable denial.
Pax, Jess
"And do we really want to put all the responsibility for our salvation, for our eternal destiny, into our own hands? For slice it and dice it as you will; give God and Christ as much credit as you wish for opening the way to salvation and showing us that way; but ultimately, if Arminianism is true, then the only person responsible for our salvation is us. We make that decision, the decision to accept Christ or reject him, of our own free will. And if we choose to reject him, he simply shrugs his shoulders and waves us off to an eternity in hell. "
I do not view any problem if you replace âeternity in hellâ with âutter destructionâ
If after the death of someone that person does not sincerely desire God, she will cease to exist.
I believe that many non-Christians including numerous atheists do desire (albeit unconsciously) the God they donât believe in.
But many bigots and monsters such as Hitler, Fred Phelps and the pharisees our Lord confronted truly rejected God and will thefore be entirely annihilated.
I donât feel sad, and many secular folks I asked told me they would not either if that turned out to be the case.
While ETC is morally atrocious, the annihilation of wicked people fits rather well our moral intuitions.
the annihilation of wicked people fits rather well our moral intuitions
Well actually for me, it does not. I donât think I want to recapitulate all the arguments on this forum for Evangelical Universalism, which has solid exegetical grounds; but as for moral intuitions - many people (not you!! This is not a personal attack, ok? ) have a gut reaction that calls for revenge, or a âjusticeâ that obliterates the offender - and they call that gut reaction 'moral intuition". I think our moral intuitions are in a large part formed in us, they are not innate. And again - for me - the understanding I have of God has changed my moral intuitions.
I hope thatâs clear.
Iâve heard many hellists and annihilationists assert that God loves us too much to abrogate our free will. For the hellist, this is particularly ridiculous, as they also typically assert there can be no changing your mind after being cast into hell. For the annihilationist, this is also a problem, however, as it does not require that the person choose to be annihilated, only that they choose not to receive Godâs love and forgiveness. This person may prefer to live an eternity without God (as in Lewisâ version of hell in The Great Divorce). According to annihilationists, he may not, is not given the freedom of will, to make that choice. Indeed he may desire that hell be the everlasting party he snidely referred to during his lifetime, and of course he cannot make that choice either.
The God who values our free will does not destroy it by condemning us to an eternity in torture, nor by annihilating us (and thus also destroying forever our freedom of will). He rather persuades us (finally successfully) to turn to Him and be healed and forgiven.
I imagine that receiving many stripes (depending on knowledge of what one SHOULD do, and on the degree of the offense) might consist of, say Hitler since you mention him, experiencing everything, pain for pain, that he inflicted directly and indirectly on every single person of every single nation that he hurt â perhaps double for his sins as Father gave to Israel in their captivity experience. When you think of the scope of damage Hitler caused, that is a truly terrifying prospect, yet it may take all of that to free him from his sin and reconcile him to those he has harmed. I think this would satisfy even the most keenly offended heart far more than a quick annihilation, and it would satisfy justice far more than condemning one who was doubtless insane (as well as hateful), to eternal annihilation when he could have been cleansed and given back to those he hurt, as the blessing he should have been to them and was not â indeed because a horror â yet now a humble loving brother. That is hard, but that is certainly loving oneâs enemies.
As to the general tenor of the masses (desiring Hitlerâs destruction), that matters not at all. What matters is Godâs love toward all of us. How do we know, given the same background, the same experiences, failures, successes, and opportunities, the same genetic code, the same emotional landscape in the body/brain, that we would not be Hitlerâs equal? We were NOT given those things. Why wasnât HE spared them? We are only better than Hitler because we are not truly in his shoes. This is what happens when a madman is elected to power. Hitler looked good at the time and would probably look good to us today in the conservative evangelical USA, as a political candidate. He deceived most, and not the less that they were ripe for deception. We are none of us innocent. Itâs just that the vast majority of us havenât attained the position of power sufficient to test us. There are many Hitlers (IMO) who only escape being monsters by their lack of opportunity to do so.
Love in Jesus,
Cindy
I am well aware of this philosophical, but meaningless (in my opinion) concept. What does it mean to exist âoutside of timeâ or to live in âthe eternal prersentâ? I think this is mere gobbeldy-gook which supposedly explains Godâs supposed knowledge of the future. No one knows the future since there is no future to know.
Sentences about the future have no present truth value, and the only propositions which can be known are those with truth value (either true of false). Such propositions are called âlogical statements.â
For example, âMy wife is driving the car toward town.â That sentence is either true or false. It is a logical statement. Therefore it is possible for it to be true, and for someone to know that it is true.
On the other hand, consider any sentence about the future.
âOn Dec. 25, Joe Bloe will eat mince pie.â It is in statement form, and therefore is mistaken for a logical statement. But does it have truth value? Is it either true of false NOW? Letâs assume that it is. Then there are only two possibilities. The sentence is true or the sentence is false.
Suppose the sentence is true. Then it is impossible for Joe Bloe to refrain from eating mince pie on Dec. 25.
Suppose the sentence is false. Then it is impossible for Joe Bloe to eat mince pie on Dec. 25.
In either case, there is something Joe Bloe CANNOT do. But nothing outside himself is preventing him from eating or not eating the pie. Thus he must not have the ability to choose whether or not to eat it. And so it is with any other logical statement about the future (if such exist). Thus Joe Bloe (as well as everyone else) does not possess free will.
However, the sentence, âOn Dec. 25, Joe Bloe will eat mince pie,â is neither true nor false, but BECOMES true of false on Dec. 25, then the problem evaporates. But if the sentence is not a statement, what is it? I claim that itâs a PREDICTION. The real meaning of the sentence is, âI predict that on Dec. 25, Joe Bloe will eat mince pie.â Other sentences about the future are statements of intention. For example, âI will go to town tomorrowâ actually means âI intend to go to town tomorrow.â
So no one (including God) can know (in an absolute sense) the future, since thereâs nothing to know. This does NOT deny the omniscience of God. He knows everything that it is possible to know, but He cannot know something that isnât there to know. For example, He cannot know that thereâs a pink elephant in your living room, if there is no such elephant. Similarly He cannot know what you are going to choose tomorrow, but He can make excellent predictions of you will choose because He knows your character completely. Godâs predictions are known as âprophecyâ.
However, what God thought or predicted would happen didnât always happen. For example:
Even if itâs âI saidâ instead of âI thoughtâ as some translations have it, this doesnât make much difference. For God wouldnât SAY a thing that He knew was false.
Now why would God DECLARE that He would destroy a nation and INTEND to do it, if He KNEW that they were going to repent, and that He would change His mind and NOT do it?
Paidion - a couple of questions on your post.
-
There has been fulfilled prophecy. Lots of it. Unless weâre willing to say that the prophecies were written after the fact, in order to encourage a certain group such as the Babylonian captives. Along with this, do you think it is possible that in what a prophet said the Lord said, the prophet was mistaken, and his mistake is simply recorded in the scripture? I donât know.
-
I notice you quote the RSV - is that a translation of choice for you - and how does the NRSV stack up in your opinion?
Dave
I would be willing to see prophecies as wish fulfillment.
But this is just the heretic me
Judas Iscariot might not agreeâŚ