Sure, Tom. 
It just means that as new threads are started or people respond to different topics, a thread will start falling to the bottom of the page and might be forgotten or overlooked when people are clicking on “View active topics”. If someone “bumps up the thread” they are responding with the intent to get it back to the top and back “on the radar” so to speak. Things have been pretty active lately here, so this thread had dropped way down the page…
Ah yes, that makes perfectly good sense. So I guess that, if this thread had fallen again (which it hasn’t), then my present post would have bumped it up again! Sorry to be so dense.
-Tom
No worries, Tom.
This was all new to me a few months ago. I even learned how to “tag” someone from Cindy, (like I did the Prince above) so they get a message alerting them to a thread they might be interested in or where their expertise is desired. It’s been a learning experience… 
Most “tormentists” argue that we deserve eternal torture because we have sinned against an infinite being.
Their reasoning is:
What are your thoughts on that?
Not being an inerrantist, I reject 4) and consider it extremely dubious that all Pagans living in the jungle are aware there is an infinite Being out there.
Chris Date takes a different route and argues that annihilation is an infinite punishment because the consequences (lost of existence) last forever.
Hi Tom,
Well, I am surprised: it wasn’t until I got a little into your thread that I realized that you are actually Thomas Talbott, for initially I thought you were a user who enjoyed your work and chose that alias. Cindy recommended that I read your book, The Inescapable of God and I am finding it very helpful.
Thanks for referring me to your argument in the Stanford Encyclopedia. I think that it is a very reassuring idea, that pain is an expression of God’s mercy and a primary means of God’s reconciling us to Him. This would mean, I take it, that, in the case of a hardened rejector of God, that eventually, even in the afterlife, God would make the pain of rejection unbearable to the point that the person has to capitulate, not primarily to punitively punish them, but rather to get them back into the fold. I gather that you are arguing that nobody could infinitely resist or fight this pain.
Obviously, this conception wouldn’t work if there is some kind of deadline for acceptance, but that aside, I think it makes even a Hitler’s or Satan’s infinite rejection of God less likely. Are you arguing that God’s mercy shown as pain would make infinite rejection impossible? It does suggest to me, as Craig I think pointed out somewhere, a “recantation under torture”, though you don’t have to ascribe to horrendous pain to achieve the salvation (and eternal Hell is horrible, so God would probably be justified to inflict almost any type of temporary pain to get people from that eternal pain).
What do you think of Lewis’ Great Divorce, if I understand it, he seems to be arguing that for many of us, our earthly choices sort of solidify our eternal destiny, though contingently (as in the door to Heaven is always open)? So some just keep rejecting. Also, it seems that their pain is increasing, but they still don’t accept (though some in the story do).
Anyway, thanks for your kind remarks. I admire William Lane Craig and his erudition (e.g. his work on the historicity of the resurrection and existence of God) , but find his recent comments re universalism to be almost thoughtless, for in one podcast, he dismissed it with one prooftext and that it was among Origen’s teachings ]that were anathematized. Yet, in a recent interview with a Calvinist, Craig said that Paul’s teaching of God’s “universal salvific will” was obvious, which would be bread-and-butter for an Arminian or a Molinist (Craig?), but that concession does make universalism possible. It would be great if you and Craig could have an actual debate (or have you?), for I feel this is the one area in his work that falls short, certainly exegetically, though his Free Will Defense is not entirely implausible, though I think you are lowering the plausibility of it again with this argument. Inescapable has been a great read so far.
Thanks for your contribution, Lotharson. I discuss the argument you present–which, of course, you reject as vehemently as I do–in section 2 and especially section 2.1 of my entry on heaven and hell for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. See the following URL:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/heaven-hell/
For my own part, however, I think the philosophical objections to this argument–which seem to me utterly decisive, by the way–are independent of any consideration about inerrancy, pro or con. The question I typically put to proponents of such an argument is just this: If God is supposedly so great and is incapable of being harmed metaphysically, then why should he even care whether we defy him or otherwise sin against him? There is, I believe, an answer to this question, but it is not the Augustinian answer. For God is not so small minded that he constantly worries about defending his own honor or cares more about his own “goody proprieties,” as George MacDonald once put it, than he does the welfare of created loved ones.
-Tom
Dear Tom, I am currently pretty busy but I would feel very honored if I had the opportunity to interview you (as the best universalist scholar) after having interviewed an annhilationist (a position I hold to).
My email is lotharson57@gmail.com
I probably passionately hate Calvinism as much as you do:
lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/201 … thodology/
lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/201 … ll-of-god/
lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/201 … ot-matter/
Lovely greetings in Christ
Hello again, Prince:
You wrote: “It would be great if you and Craig could have an actual debate (or have you?) . . .”
In point of fact, Bill and I had an exchange in some journal articles some twenty years ago. (Good heavens, was it that long ago? It seems like only yesterday!) Bill wrote an article entitled “Talbott’s Universalism,” which was a critique of two articles in which I had argued that the traditional understanding of hell is inconsistent with the traditional concept of God, and in response to his critique I wrote a rejoinder entitled “Craig on the Possibility of Eternal Damnation.” It was here, by the way, that I first made the points, quoted above in this very thread, about John Milton’s Satan (note the reference to Craig in that quotation). Bill then replied with another article entitled “Talbott’s Universalism Once More.” But I never replied to this article, in part because it did not, in my opinion, advance the discussion in a significant way. Also, in an article entitled “A Craigian Theodicy of Hell,” which appeared in Faith and Philosophy, 17 (January, 2000), a fellow by the name of Charles Seymour later addressed the substance of Bill’s criticism (and disposed of it, I thought, rather nicely). I believe that Bill’s two articles are still available on his site, even as my rejoinder is available on my own site.
I like Bill and can even get a kick out of watching him tear to shreds some of the so-called new atheists (atheistic fundamentalists, as I like to call them) who are no match for his rhetorical skills. But in the end I cordially dislike a debate format where the goal is to score quick points before an audience or to surprise an opponent with an unanticipated argument. I prefer a slower and more methodical approach, where two parties are prepared to take one tiny baby step at a time as they try to expand an area of agreement or to explore an area of disagreement.
Anyway, here and elsewhere you raise a number of points worth pursuing further, preferably in another thread, I suppose, so that this one can remain more or less focused on the topic that Rachel first introduced. With respect to that topic, you agree, I presume, that no finite sin warrants an infinite punishment as a just recompense. Am I right about that?
Thanks for your response.
-Tom
P.S. Could you perhaps direct me to where Craig cites his proof text and makes his comment about Origen? I would love to see this because Craig’s remarks, as you have reported them, seem to support my own conviction that even many first-rate scholars within the evangelical community have no idea of how Christian universalists put various theological ideas together. And this partly explains, I believe, why their arguments against universalism so often miss the target. Beyond that, is it not simply absurd to cite the condemnation of Origen, as I that were historically significant, even as one ignores the fact that Gregory of Nyssa, who shared Origen’s belief in universal reconciliation, was made a saint?
Hi Tom
Great to see you active on the forum. Your book The Inescapable Love of God is the best book I’ve ever read, and it was a tremendous encouragement to me at a very low time in my life. So thank you . I look forward to the second edition eagerly.
On the point you make to Prince Myshkin about finite sin and infinite punishment, would you agree that the ‘classical’ argument put forward by Thomas Aquinas that sin against an infinite God deserves infinite punishment is actually a logical fallacy?
I’ve heard it called the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. It takes two entirely separate concepts - sins committed by finite creatures, and the infinite nature of God - and draws a spurious metaphorical circle around them to create a relationship between them, like the wayward gunman who sprays his bullets around and then draws a target round the holes to make it appear as if he’s a dead shot.
All the best
Johnny
Hi Tom,
I don’t believe that finite sin deserves eternal punishment, .esp in an Anselmian sense. However, I might think (tho i think you are arguing that this is logically incoherent if we understand God’s purpose for suffering) that somebody could reject God for eternity - like in the Great Divorce, and any punishment they received would not be from God but from their own poor choice. I think this would be a good new thread, to what degree are these ideas related? (or necessary in themselves), b/c it seems to me that the Anselmian defense is tied to many defenses of Hell, but I don’t believe that is necessary.
Actually, I am familiar with your exchange with Craig and started a thread a couple weeks ago on it, so I was wondering if you had debated Craig, or had the opportunity, in person. I agree that the debate format can be more a display of oratory, which Craig has certainly mastered compared to the “Four Hoursemen” and others, as opposed to strict truth. But I would say Craig is not a sophist and doesn’t bowdlerize as far as I have seen. If you saw the Krauss-Craig debates, Krauss sort of irrelevantly brought up God commanding genocide and was essentially mocking, but Craig simply stated a defense and did not lower himself to that level. So, I guess I am saying that if you ever debated Craig in person, it would be very interesting (for as far as I know Craig has never debated a universalist in person, though he debated Ray Bradley who denied Hell, but as an atheist), I think, b/c both of you in my opinion have a high degree of integrity and don’t stoop (at least purposely ) to red herrings. I think that Craig should be more open to the Bible’s at least initial soteriological ambiguity for it to be a good debate tho on the scriptural side of the ?
The Origen comment is from Craig’s Reasonable Faith podcast on Rob Bell and Hell - July 5, 2011 (youtube.com/watch?v=iQvqpO78IXA). Yes, I think one has to consider universalism in the early church as a whole, and not just put it on the back of Origen, though even Origen Luther thought was the most gifted scholar of the Bible ever (and Craig admits Origen’s Biblical astuteness in the podcast.)
I think the prooftext comes in your journal exchange with Craig, and I thought it was in the podcast, sorry, though i think in the podcast he still fairly dismissive of universalism being Biblical (on basis of 2 Thess 1:5, and Matthew sheep-and-goats verses). I am thinking of the first long paragraph in the Intro of “Talbott’s Universalism”, in which Craig wrote that your view of universalism being scriptural cannot be maintained on the basis passages like 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9. However, he concedes that this might be annihilationism as opposed to ECT. And granted I take it your universalism exchange with Craig was on philo level and not to be exegetical, so perhaps that it is fair to only give one or two scriptural examples, but Craig wrote, it seems merely on the basis of this passage, that “there can be no reasonable doubt that the fate of the wicked is everlasting” from a Biblical point-of-view.
Wow, I feel like I’ve been drinking from a fire hose with all the great information you all (that’s y’all here in Alabama) have shared and linked to. I just want to solve the problem in my own mind of how I can sincerely share the Good News, when the Good News rests on this notion that we are all so deeply, intrinsically flawed as to deserve this “eternal torture chamber” retributive version of Hell, as imposed by an all-loving, all-powerful God. I freely admit that I’m naive and overly trusting, but I like to think that most people are really good (or at least have good intentions) underneath it all.
Rachel,
That’s a very good question. I used to worry about sharing the “good news” when it always seemed necessary to share the bad news first in order to make the good news good. What if the person had deceased loved ones who weren’t Christians? How could I make THAT sound like good news?
In order to avoid derailing your topic though, I just started a new one. Feel free to derail it if necessary. Here’s the link: What is the Gospel?
Love, Cindy
Wow Johnny, such lavish praise leaves me speechless. But thank you.
Love that image of someone drawing targets around preexisting bullet holes. The idea that the greatness of the being against whom an offense occurs determines the heinousness of a given sin makes no sense at all to me, nor should it make any sense to the Augustinians insofar as they are committed to a retributive theory of punishment.
As indicated above, I discuss this idea further in sections 2 and 2.1 of my entry on heaven and hell for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and, for those who may have missed it, I’ll reproduce the URL below:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/heaven-hell/
Thanks again, Johnny.
-Tom
I agree with you, Prince. This would be an excellent new topic. For you and I are indeed on the same page here. We agree, I take it, that no actual sin committed during our earthly lives would warrant everlasting torment in hell as a just recompense. We also agree that this, by itself, in no way settles the matter in the favor of universalism. For as I noted in my initial response to Cindy above:
So right here, perhaps, there lies a possible disagreement to explore, and I’ll either jump into an existing thread that seems relevant or start a new one in the near future. Exactly when, however, I’m not sure because I’ll be out of town all of next week.
Thanks for your further response.
-Tom
The fearful paintings by Hieronymus Bosch of Hell so very like the horrifying images in the Ghost Town Fengdhu City halfway up the Yangtse River, served to sow fear amongst the people and enhance the power of those who reigned over them, Church included!
Michael
Welcome Rachel, I’ve been at this awhile and I still having a hard time with the same thing. This is a good place to hang out with people in the same boat.
Hi Tom
Thanks for your response. Sorry if I embarrassed you earlier. They say you should never meet your heroes, but they’re wrong .
Like you - and Rachel, if I read her right - I find the idea that anyone could reject God forever incoherent. The way I see it, what God wants for us is for us to be fully and eternally happy. Because we live in a ‘fallen’ world, it isn’t always easy for us to see that, and because of our ‘sinful’ nature we don’t even always desire that. (I don’t believe in orthodox notions of original sin or inherited guilt: rather I believe that simply to be human is to be prone to error, to be prey to evolutionary impulses outside our control.) But as our false beliefs are stripped away, and our inherited tendency to error is corrected, so any possible motive for rejecting God will attenuate and eventual disappear into the vanishing point - because in rejecting God we will be rejecting what, deep down, we really do want for ourselves. You showed me the truth, and the force, of that argument in your wonderful book. So thanks again.
God bless you, sir.
Johnny
Correct; it makes no sense that a person would choose torment over God. It’s the very picture of insanity.
I suppose the disconnect with most Christians I know is that they believe in the death deadline: that once you’re dead & judged guilty, God has abandoned you completely/eternally. He can’t reach across the divide any more. And you do not have the option to repent after you’re dead, and certainly don’t have a means to be baptized. (I’m still on the fence with the death deadline myself, and I’ve been praying that God will allow me to read His word without bias to discover the truth of the matter, one way or the other.)
So (traditionally) the way you live & having the correct theology is the “choice” of Heaven or Hell. But it seems an awfully tricky choice, considering all the “paths to God” people have found over the years. I won’t even get into the issue of choosing the “right” denomination! I’m not a pluralist, but I’m still very uncomfortable with the idea that, say, a devout Hindu would burn because they lost the cosmic lottery & believed the wrong thing. They didn’t “choose” Hell.
It would made no sense to choose torment over God, but what if someone prefers to cease to exist rather than being with God?
I think that the Almighty will grand his or her wish.
lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/salvation-by-love-erlosung-durch-die-liebe-unten/
You are right in the sense of, “Rather than submit to God, I choose to be tormented eternally.” That would be insane.
However, I don’t think those people who are saying, “If you don’t chose God, you are choosing hell” actually mean that.
Suppose you want to go to a pleasant vacation. You travel many miles in the countryside . You come to a fork in the road. You choose the right hand branch, and end up in an ugly swamp with millions of mosquitoes to torment you. Had you chosen the left-hand branch, you would have arrived at a beautiful lake with a gorgeous park next to the lake, a park with lovely flowers and amusement equipment for your children. Did you choose to go to the swamp? Not knowingly, but ignorantly, you did. So it is that many people ignorantly choose to go to hell. They don’t expect that their life choices will result in a place or condition of discomfort.