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?
. I look forward to the second edition eagerly.
Here’s the link: