When God Can't Win (With Us)

Lately my girlfriend has become a sort of therapist, in that I tend to vent and complain and occasionally curse my way about explaining a theological concept. Usually, this goes over pretty well.

I had a brief discussion with a friend about violence within the Old Testament. Normally, I have no real problem with it and I still don't. But thinking about the idea of promise and marriage and the future involvement of humanity makes for strange bedfellows.

I do wonder about what man truly desires, in that we had so much. I cannot image a "good" or "perfect" relationship with Allison or my parents or my friends.

The very idea is terrifying in that it seems to presuppose some sort of intimacy and openness that, frankly, I don't like. Where wounds are stripped away and you are left bare and alone in the night where all that is you is there.

That scares me. If I knew I could have a perfect relationship with my human friends, the prospect of a very big God being completely open and relational makes me tremble.

George MacDonald said:

Man finds it hard to get what he wants, because he does not want the best; God finds it hard to give, because He would give the best, and man will not take it.

In some ways, I think this is sadly true. I do wonder about God's emotions and passion for humanity, and what truly pleases him. What is the best we can do but pale in comparison?

What is nerve-wracking about the "best" there is?

--Nick

Arminius on Election

Arminius:

In the second place, you assert, that “divine Election is rule of giving or withholding faith. Therefore Election does not pertain to believers, but faith rather pertains to the elect, or is from the gift of Election.” You will allow me to deny this, and to ask for the proof, while I plead the cause of those, whose sentiment you here oppose. Election is made in Christ. But no one is in Christ, except he is a believer. Therefore no one is elected in Christ, unless he is a believer. The passage in Romans xi, 5, does not serve to prove that thesis. For the point, there discussed, is not the election of grace, according to which faith is given to some, but that, according to which, righteousness is imputed to believers. This may be most easily, proved from the context, and will be manifest to any one, who will more diligently inspect and examine it. For the people, “which God foreknew, (verse 2d,) that is which He foreknew according to His grace, is the people, which believed, not that which followed after righteousness by the works of the law (Rom. ix, 31). This people God “hath not cast away.” For thus is to be understood the fifth verse, “there is a remnant according to the election of grace,” that is, they, only, are to be esteemed as the remnant of the people of God, who believe in Christ, as they alone are embraced in the election of grace, the children of the flesh, who followed after righteousness by the law, being excluded. That, which follows, teaches the same thing, “if by grace, then it is no more of works.” What is that which is “by grace “? Is it election to faith? By no means; but it is election to righteousness, or righteousness itself. For it is said to be “by grace” not “by works.” For it is not, here, inquired whether faith, but whether righteousness belongs to any one by works. Consider also the next verse “What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for, but the election hath obtained, and the rest were blinded.” What is that which Israel had sought for, and had not obtained? Not faith, but righteousness. See the end of the 9th and the beginning of the 10th chapters. They rejected faith in Christ, and endeavoured to obtain righteousness, by the works of the law, and this is the reason that they did not attain “to the law of righteousness.” It is the same thing, also, which the elect are said to have obtained, not faith, but righteousness.

 Much thanks to Arminian Today for this. Much to ponder and chew on.

--Nick

Three Views on Hell: A Universalist response to Eternal Torment

Jason Pratt:

Num 16:30: if the "literal" fire killing the same rebels in verse 35 isn't literally hell (and I agree it isn't), why is the pit in verse 30?

Matt 3:12: the verse 11 fire Christ baptizes with, is regarded as salvific. The threat and the result parallel Christ's explanation for the unquenchable fire at Mark 9:49-50.

Matt 5:22: important contexts include a get-out-of-prison clause (v.26) and the rationales for each punishment (hating, and not reconciling with one's brother).

Matt 5:29-30 parallels a saying from Matt 18/Mark 9. In GosMark Christ explains everyone will be salted by the fire into peace. GosMatt includes a repeat of the 100th sheep, and a warning (to the apostles!) against insisting on hopeless punishment (yet with a get-out clause: be merciful!)

Matt 8:12 warns the kingdom's sons (Matt 13:38) who don't want others saved. Christ admonishes someone for asking if only few are saved (Luke 13:29); and punishes someone trying to flatter the king as a thuggish tyrant (Matt 25:30). Christ also warns His chief followers who abuse others (Matt 24:51).

(Ditto Matt 25, per my own essay.)

I take such warnings seriously!--they affect how I interpret material such as the wheat and the weeds!

Jude 7 doesn't end the scriptural story, or there would be no judgment for those spirits later, much less a resurrection for at least the human sinners.

Rev 14:9-11 verbally involves refining gold (scripturally tough but saving love), so long as people continue (per the Greek grammar) worshiping the beast and accepting the mark. John afterward (15:1-4) reports a time when everyone gratefully glorifies God (which rebels cannot acceptably do). Loyal souls have (per the Greek) come out from the beast and from his image and from his number, so were in those things before; to stand on the fiery sea of glass before the throne (which in Temple typology was for cleaning sacrifices to be a pleasing burnt aroma to God). Being victorious over sin elsewhere in RevJohn involves sinners ceasing to sin.

Rev 20:15 doesn't indicate the lake of fire and brimstone is hopeless. (Fire and brimstone were ancient remedies to save a person from infection, as were maggots, not-incidentally.) Subsequent chapters show people after the lake of fire judgment being seriously and successfully evangelized by the sanctified Church (cooperating with God). Another flashforward (21:1-4) reveals there will be total success, even though impenitents must suffer.

Luke 16:19-31 doesn't say the rich man will never repent; it only shows him not penitent for his sins. The chasm isn't "broad" enough to prevent communication, and certainly cannot be "broad" enough to prevent God's omnipresence: especially if the fire, per other scriptural evidence, is the Holy Spirit Himself! RevJohn's final chapters show the Church evangelizing and bringing to salvation such people after the fiery judgment; and 1 Peter 3 & 4 arguably indicate Christ Himself doing the same in hades. "Then who can be saved!?" "With God all things are possible!"

What does TKJ suggest in place of annihilation's "one size fits all" punishment?--any hopeless punishment is still equally hopeless for everyone being so punished! Neither Chris nor I am suggesting impenitent sinners ever escape: even annihilation may follow ages of punishment. How does ECT avoid TKJ's appeal to the punishment being proportionate to the crime? Anyway, universalists don't regard sin's severity as being greater than the omnicompetent God's grace: where sin exceeds grace hyperexceeds, for not as the sin is the grace.

I certainly agree that 2 Thess 1:9's referential context indicates St. Paul isn't talking about annihilation; but I find the grammar and referential contexts do indicate Paul is talking about eventual salvation of those so punished.

"If all will be saved, why not just do what I want because even though the punishment will hurt, it will stop eventually and I’ll be in bliss?" No one primarily concerned with salvation from their sins, instead of only from inconvenient results, would ask such a question. Until such people seek salvation from sin, God will lead and teach them, by punishment as necessary, even into the eons of the eons.

Are universalists mistaken that retribution means bringing rebels back under loyal tribute to proper authority? I think non-universalists have the greatest challenge to show Godly retribution means making sure rebels never return to loyal tribute to God!

If (as I agree) Romans 1 represents a free, informed decision about rejecting God, I think TKJ will have a difficult time showing support that even God's presence wouldn't be enough for such people (namely all of us) to change their minds; since then God would be impotent to save any sinner at all. I routinely find in the scriptures that God can save sinners despite sinners already having a perverse view of God. Calvinists and universalists typically agree that God is competent enough to save sinners no matter how perverse they are. (Sometimes Arminians, too, at least rhetorically in evangelism.)

As to Satan and rebel angels, my soteriology isn't based on what rebels insist on (although as a rebel and chief of sinners myself, like St. Peter, St. Paul and the publican, I am well aware of how people sin against what light they can see); but rather on what God does and is capable of.

Moreover, any argument hinging on God insistently respecting creaturely free will, has basically refuted itself if God allows creatures to permanently lose, or never to have, freedom to repent (much less freedom to ever do righteousness).

Last, I'm amazed that TKJ thinks God only reconciles with "His people" (never saying to those who are not His people "You are My people" for example); and even more amazed that TKJ thinks God only reconciles with repentant people (instead of loving us first to send Christ to reconcile us through the blood of the cross while we are still God's enemies.)

I have usually found Calvinists and Arminians both agree with me (and St. Paul in Romans for that matter) on this!

Editor:

For the longer responses, enjoy them here.
For Kurt's original post.

McKnight, "Re/Irresistible Grace"

McKnight:

Roger Olson is right: at the heart of the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism (or non-Calvinism) is this question: Is grace resistible or irresistible? To this end, I will begin a new series Monday (so come back to see what it will be about). But today’s post is Roger’s chp “Yes to Grace: No to Irresistible Grace/Monergism.”

I will put my cards on the table first: I believe those Calvinists who push hard for irresistible or effectual grace sketch a God who coerces and I am convinced, regardless of their contentions, that they effectively (and effectually) deny free will. If grace is irresistible, it is not chosen; if it is irresistible, humans aren’t free to say No to God. If that it is the case, … time to move to Roger’s chp.

Do you think irresistible grace is defensible morally? Does it deny free will for it to be true? If you and I were capable of saving an orphanage full of children who were starving and we chose instead to save only some, would we be called good? [Where does this analogy break down?]

Big one: If grace is resistible, is high Calvinism undermined?

For the rest, click HERE. 

--Nick

John Sanders, Free Will Theism & Universalism

Open Theist John Sanders engaged with Universalist Thomas Talbott in Universal Salvation? The Current Debate. I think it was a decent response to Talbott, though I wasn't necessarily convinced in regards to Sanders. Still a most able response.

Does Talbott’s view of being fully rational respect human choice adequately? Do you consider free will essential to how God made us? Does God “risk” when God makes humans and gives them free will? Or, does a libertarian sense of free will entail that God had to take risks when God made humans? Why do you think God made a world in which humans could rebel against God? Is that the best of all possible worlds? Why?


Followers of this academic debate will not be surprised to learn that Sanders doesn’t think Talbott takes freewill theory seriously enough. In the end, Sanders thinks Talbott robs choice of power because God makes conditions that virtually require, or at least necessarily entail, a choice for God.

He begins with a smaller point: Talbott’s belief that humans in heaven can’t be happy knowing the suffering of those in hell. Sanders’ big point is that we don’t know the heavenly condition or ourselves well enough to render such a judgment.

Sanders argues for a libertarian free will and that means humans could have chosen otherwise when they chose to do something. His point here is that God gives humans that kind of free will and that entails humans choosing not to respond to God. So God risks non-love and rejection when God gives humans libertarian free will. Talbott finally argues that such a libertarian free will does not describe God’s redemptive plan.

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

C. Michael Patton, "Why Arminianism Doesn't Sell"

I thought this was quite interesting. 

I made an observation recently that may be completely off base, or it may just betray the reality of the tight Evangelical circles in which I travel most of the time. Either way, here it is:

Calvinists have a corner on theologically-themed conferences. Arminians have apologetically-themed conferences. Leadership conferences don’t do theology.

Is this true? It seems true from my standpoint. Think about the major conferences out therethat are theological in nature: Desiring God, Together for the Gospel, The Gospel Coalition, and Ligonier Ministries. All of them fill churches and arenas with thousands of people. Passion fills the air as speakers talk about theological issues in the church. John Piper, Don Carson, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, Albert Mohler, Tim Keller, and the like are invited to speak. Diversity runs deep in these theology conferences. Dispensationalist and Covenant Theologians, paedobaptists and credo baptists, charismatics and non-charismatics, and premillenialists and amillenialists are all represented. However, it is hard to find an Arminian invited to (much less putting together) such engagements. Why? I don’t know, but I suspect that it is because Arminianism, as a theological distinctive, just does not preach. Don’t get me wrong. I did not say that Arminians can’t preach. They most certainly can. And I did not say that Arminianism is not true (This is not the question on the table). It is simply that the distinctives of Arminianism do not sell in such settings. Evangelicals love to hear about the sovereignty of God, the glory of God in suffering, the security of God’s grace, the providence of God over missions, and yes, even the utter depravity of man. This stuff preaches. This stuff sells tickets.

For the Arminian to put together a distinctive conference, things would be a bit less provocative. Things like “The Responsibility of Man in Suffering,” “Man’s Role in Salvation,” or “The Insecurity of Salvation” won’t preach too well. Think about how hard it is for a Calvinist to try to plug in a token Arminian at a general theology conference. On what subject do you let them speak? “Roger Olson, I would like you to come to our conference and speak on . . . (papers ruffling) . . . ummm . . . (papers ruffling more) . . . Do you do anything in apologetics (except suffering)?”

Of course, there was the John 3:16 conference, which was Arminian. But that was not a general theology conference. It was a specific conference which amounted to a polemic against Calvinism. During the conference, the speakers simply countered all five points of Calvinism. This is symptomatic of so much of the Arminian distinctives with regard to their message. Much of the time Arminianism is simply seen as “Against Calvinism,” whereas Calvinism is more affirmatively focused on the sovereignty of God. Even the latest books published on the subject betray such a reality: For Calvinism by Michael Horton and Against Calvinism by Roger Olson. I think one can find this same general approach in the theological blogosphere. Calvinists have something they are for, while Arminians are always on the defensive, fighting what they are against. Finally, as far as I know, the John 3:16 conference only happened once (in 2008). That it, or anything like it, has not been renewed or rebooted may serve to prove my observation.

Now, apologetics seems to be a different story. Not only to do you have Arminians filling the pulpit when it comes to defending the faith, they seem to dominate. William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Paul Copan, Norman Geisler, and Gary Habermas are all on the roster. It is “Team Biola.” This is not to say that Calvinists don’t do apologetics. However, they normally do so in a less “evidentialist” style that just won’t teach. Have you ever tried to teach people to defend the faith using presuppositional and transcendental arguments? Enough said. The simple observation I am making is that apologetics is heavily dominated by Arminians today. However, I don’t think there is anything distinctive about Arminianism which would make them more equipped to hold apologetics conferences. Perhaps, the focus on the free will of man makes the whole apologetics enterprise more necessary and effective in Arminianism. Theoretically, Calvinists, because of their compatibleness (holding the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man in tension), could teach evidentiary apologetics just as truly as an Arminian. ”Did Christ Rise from the Grave?”, “Who is Jesus?”, “Is God a Moral Monster?”, or “Responding to the New Atheists” are all topics on which Calvinists and Arminians could teach together without sacrificing their theological integrity. There may be some distinction with a topic such as “If God is Real, Why is There Evil?” But that is the only apologetic issue which I think could be an exception in this group of topics.

Leadership conferences, on the other hand, are normally very diverse. Why? In all probability, they are not very theological in nature. Stirring passion about finishing strong, leading by serving, and preparing a sermon does not require any theological commitment one way or another. However, if the leadership conference turns on men’s issues or women’s issues, the complementarian/egalitarian elephant enters the room. And, generally speaking, most complementarians are Calvinist and most egalitarians are Arminian.

That said, these observations are not timeless. They are what I see today. I think they represent the chicken or the egg question (I don’t know which comes first) to the resurgence of Calvinism in the pews today. My hypothesis is that Calvinism preaches better than Arminianism. In a confused world of suffering and pain, we want to know that God has it under control, not man. Calvinism instigates more of a dramatic change in theology than does Arminianism. We are more naturally inclined toward the Arminian idea of free will and God’s sovereignty. People normally don’t “become” Arminians. But nearly all Calvinists can tell of a passionate “conversion” experience as to how Calvinism dramatically changed their way of thinking about God. This creates incredible passion. Therefore, we invite Calvinists only to these theology conferences (even when the organization, itself, claims to be more broadly Evangelical). And people leave with a full heart. On the other hand, when we want to fight against the New Atheists, we do not need to discriminate against the finer points of theology too much. Therefore, we invite either Arminian or Calvinist apologists.

C. Michael Patton

--Nick

Kevin Miller, "Why I reject Free Will -- But Embrace Choice"

I've interviewed writer/director Kevin Miller for The Christian Manifesto, and I found this blog post quite interesting. Check check check it out. ;)

As regular readers of this blog know, my investigation into the doctrine of hell has made me rather skeptical of the notion of free will. That is, I find it virtually impossible to conceive of how a being that is neither omniscient nor omnipotent can ever make a choice that is not to some degree constrained by fear, ignorance, deception or bondage to self-destructive desires. Therefore, I can’t accept the idea that any of our choices are free in the sense that most people imagine them to be. Instead, I see our decisions as the product of a complex web of influences and experiences, most of which we are not consciously aware. So the notion that God would condemn anyone to an eternity in hell as punishment for decisions made under such circumstances seems the height of injustice.

Now, you might want to challenge this assertion by arguing that history offers overwhelming evidence that human beings are free to do pretty much anything their minds can dream up. For example, you might argue that I’m perfectly free to commit murder right now, just as millions of people before me have done. And I would have to agree with you that, yes, despite various hockey-related injuries, I am physically capable of taking the life of another human being at this moment. But this is where the agreement ends, because to my way of thinking, ability does not equal freedom.

Think about it: Could the decision to carry out a murder ever be considered a free choice? If so, we would have to point to someone like Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik as a paragon of freedom. But I don’t see anyone doing that. Instead, the more Breivik describes his motives, the more we realize the depth of his depraved thinking. His killing spree wasn’t an example of freedom in action. Instead, his actions merely confirm that murder is always driven by one or more of the following factors: fear, ignorance, deception, self-destructive desires or mental illness. I would argue that the same can be said for virtually any destructive or self-destructive behavior you can imagine. None of these acts are the product of a free will. Instead, they are symptomatic of a will in bondage.

A few other objections typically come up at this point:

1) If our choices aren’t free, then they aren’t actually choices. Everything we do is determined. We’re just playing out a script.

No rational person can deny the fact that human beings make choices. We make hundreds of them each day. So jettisoning the idea of free will does not require us to ditch the idea of choice. Instead, it’s a matter of asking what might be influencing or even determining our choices. Once again, I’m suggesting it’s virtually impossible to answer that question in an ultimate sense or to come up with an example of a choice that isn’t somehow constrained by fear, ignorance, deception or bondage to self-destructive desires.

Think back to the story of the Fall in Genesis, for example. The decision to eat the forbidden fruit was the direct result of deception—which was made possible by ignorance. When the serpent initially tempted Eve by casting aspersions on God’s motives, apparently she didn’t know enough about God to counter his accusations, so she trusted the serpent more than God and ate the fruit. You could also say that the serpent played on the couple’s self-destructive desire for autonomy—ironically, upon their desire to be “free” agents unconstrained by God or each other! As soon as they realized what they’d done, fear entered the picture, prompting yet more irrational behavior. Would you really want to call any of these decisions free?

Another example, one of the most important choices we ever make—the decision to get married. What motivates this decision? And what motivates the choosing of a particular spouse? At the most fundamental level I can say that you probably don’t recall choosing your sexual orientation. Instead, for as long as you can remember, you were simply attracted to one gender or the other—or in some cases, both. (And this is to say nothing about whether sexual orientation is a product of nature or nurture. Either way, the choice was out of your hands.)

Second, I can say your choice of a spouse was definitely constrained by ignorance of all the potential people you could have married—seeing as you probably didn’t take the time to speed date with every potential candidate on the face of the earth. I’m not sure if I want to comment on how fear, deception or self-destructive desires might bear on such a decision, but I’ve already demonstrated that even though this choice isn’t completely free, it’s still a real choice. You made a decision. You got married. For better or worse.

Incidentally, by rejecting free will, I’m not going to the other extreme and arguing that every choice we make is done in a state of complete bondage. Clearly, some choices are better than others. The freer you are from fear, ignorance, deception and self-destructive desires, the better your choices will be. So it’s not an either/or case here—total freedom vs. total bondage. It’s a matter of recognizing that all choices are made along a continuum of freedom. As psychologist Richard Beck puts it, rather than talk about free will vs. no free will, it’s better to think about it in terms of strong vs. weak volitional capacity.

2) If our choices aren’t free, then they don’t really matter.

Try telling that to your spouse! Even if our choices aren’t free, they still matter, because every decision we make affects not only ourselves but others as well. This is why I find abandoning the notion of free will so helpful, because instead of diminishing the consequences of our choices, it actually gives us a far greater understanding of their meaning. Rather than see ourselves as islands floating out in the middle of the ocean, we are able to dive down deep where we see that even islands connect to the mainland eventually. The appearance of separateness is merely an illusion. In the same way, we are all connected through a chain of cause-and-effect that stretches back into the past, forward into the future and in every direction in the present. There’s nothing we can do that won’t somehow enhance or disrupt the flow of energy and information across this vast web of relationships. With so much riding on every decision, there’s even more reason to ensure we are making the best possible choices—creating the best possible causes—so that our actions produce the most constructive effects. That means doing everything we can to minimize the distorting effects of fear, ignorance, deception and bondage to self-destructive desires. The less bearing those influences have on our decisions, the freer our decisions will be.

Alternatively, if you want to hold onto the notion of yourself as a free agent—an “un-caused cause,” so to speak—then you’re really seeking the same thing Adam and Eve were after when they ate the forbidden fruit. You’re also arguing that you can make decisions that are completely independent of your history and your environment—in other words, decisions that are completely isolated from the two biggest shapers of your identity. That hardly seems rational, because what exactly is motivating those choices then?

Also, seeing as you’re arguing that you are capable of making choices that are completely independent of your history and environment, then everyone else must be in the same boat. That means you also have to argue that your choices couldn’t possibly influence or determine the behavior of others, which is essentially a denial of reality.

3) If our choices aren’t free, then we don’t bear any responsibility for them.

I’ll concede this objection in part, but only to prove a larger point. It’s true that once we begin to see ourselves not as autonomous agents acting independent of our environment but as interconnected nodes in a vast network of influences, the notion of holding individuals solely responsible for their behavior begins to break down. Instead, we start to see sick individuals as the product of a sick system. This isn’t to excuse individual acts of deviance. It seems reasonable to hold those closest to the deviant act most responsible for the deviant behavior. But I fear we have gone too far in the opposite direction, where our entire legal apparatus has become a systematic denial of responsibility for the welfare of our fellow human. When someone commits a crime, rather than ask how our actions or indifference may have helped create an environment conducive to the deviant behavior, we focus almost exclusively on seeking retribution against the offender. By vilifying individuals, we can conveniently look past our own moral failings, which pale in comparison to the monstrous behavior of the offender, thus enhancing our sense of self-righteousness.

This leads us back to the traditional Western doctrine of hell. Rather than recognize the interconnectedness of humankind and the complexity of causation that goes into each and every decision, it seems to be premised on the notion that human beings are isolated monads who will be held solely responsible for their actions in some eternal sense. As I’ve sought to demonstrate above, such a doctrine is very difficult to square with reason and experience. And that should motivate us to ask whether or not we’ve interpreted the Bible correctly on these matters.

As I’ve no doubt illustrated more than once, I’m not much of a philosopher, but I do recognize a good argument when I see one. Perhaps the best version of the argument I’ve tried to make above is put forward by philosopher Eric Reitan in the book Universal Salvation? The Current Debate. Eric’s contribution is called “Human Freedom and the Impossibility of Eternal Damnation,” and its by far the best rebuttal of the free will defense of hell I’ve ever read. I can’t recommend this book or Eric’s chapter enough, so I’ll leave you with a taste to whet your appetite:

In order for a choice to qualify as truly free, the person making the choice needs two things: First, a full and adequate understanding of the nature of the choice (as [Thomas] Talbott puts it, freedom from all ignorance and deception); second, freedom from any bondage to desire (more precisely, bondage to sinful desires that the person is powerless to resist). But anyone who understands the options and is free from bondage to desire would have no more motive to reject God’s offer, and every motive to accept it. Furthermore, we never freely choose what we have no motive to choose and every motive not to choose. Hence, it is incoherent to speak of someone freely choosing damnation. Anyone who does choose damnation must therefore lack genuine freedom. God could save them by removing their ignorance, deception or bondage to desire—thereby restoring (not interfering with) their freedom.

Miller/Hellbound?

Check out the entire book of Universal Salvation. Eric Reitan and Jerry Wall's responses to Talbott, and his concluding remarks in return are worth their weight in the $19 I paid for them. Of course, reading Marshall and Talbott spare was a treat as well.

--Nick

Roger Olson, "Piper & Judgment round 2"

Roger Olson and John Piper, round two. Qualifications from Olson follow. 

"True, in this particular blog entry Piper does not explicitly say the tornadoes were God’s judgment on those towns. He does say, however, that the tornadoes were “God’s fingers.” In light of everything else he has written and said about calamaties and catastrophes, it is clear to me that he believes not only this tornado outbreak but every natural and man-made disaster (including the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.) are from God and not only in some attenuated sense in which most Christians would say they are from God by concurrence. (That is, by God’s permission and granted ability as the creator and governor of nature.)"

Olson/Piper II

Olson very often engages with folks who comment. If you have something to contribute, I'm fairly certain he'll answer. I might even post something myself. ;-)

--Nick

TheoPerspectives, "Orthodoxy & Gregory of Nyssa's Universalism"

From author James Goetz,

"I: INTRODUCTION
Gregory of Nyssa famously defended the doctrine of the Trinity in the Second Ecumenical Council in AD 381, and Gregory of Nyssa also defended the doctrine of universalism with the restoration of all things. Ironically, the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 condemned Origen's universalism according to the wishes of Emperor Flavius Justinian, who wanted to condemn all universalist teachings, but the Fifth Ecumenical Council also commended Gregory of Nyssa, calling him a holy Father who wrote about the true faith. And universalism has been heterodox in most of Western Christianity since then.1

On the other hand, universalism was an orthodox option during the Early Church and the first four Ecumenical Councils. For example, four of the six known theological schools during the Church's first five centuries taught universalism.2

Gregory of Nyssa had exemplary trinitarian credentials and taught that the unsaved dead suffer punishment in hell while he also taught that hell is purgatorial and temporary. He taught that hell is purgatorial in that the punishments in hell purge the sinful dispositions of the unsaved dead. And he taught that hell is temporary in that the unsaved dead suffer punishment in degree and duration according to their sinfulness. And this implies that the unsaved dead will eventually repent in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and get liberated from hell.3

Modern evangelical denominations typically forbid doctrines of purgatorial hell. For example, the Assemblies of God credentialed me a few years ago, but I had to resign my credentials or waive my right to teach my recently modified interpretations of future prophecies in Scripture.

This paper contends that Christian Scriptures teach that the unsaved dead can eventually repent in the name of Jesus to get saved out of hell and accepted into heaven. And this paper contends that such formerly orthodox teachings should be orthodox within evangelical churches. And here is a review of some relevant Scriptures and various opposition. . .

Gregory of Nyssa famously defended the doctrine of the Trinity in the Second Ecumenical Council in AD 381, and Gregory of Nyssa also defended the doctrine of universalism with the restoration of all things. Ironically, the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 condemned Origen's universalism according to the wishes of Emperor Flavius Justinian, who wanted to condemn all universalist teachings, but the Fifth Ecumenical Council also commended Gregory of Nyssa, calling him a holy Father who wrote about the true faith. And universalism has been heterodox in most of Western Christianity since then."

To continue, TheoPerspectives and Gregory of Nyssa


A very interesting post. Gave me much food for thought. 


--Nick

C.S. Lewis, Free Will & Hell

This is a really interesting article written by Kevin Miller over at Hellbound -- 

"One Lewis book that almost failed to pass the evangelical smell test, however, is The Great Divorce. It’s about a group of people in hell who board a bus to heaven, where they get to decide whether or not they want to stay. One-by-one, most of the people find a reason to get back on the bus, finding they prefer to wallow in their petty jealousy, self-pity and bitterness rather than submit to the healing on offer in heaven. 

This is a difficult book for many evangelicals, because it seems to suggest that Lewis believe there might be an opportunity for postmortem salvation–a second chance to get things right after death. It also smacks of an Orthodox understanding of the afterlife, which sees heaven and hell not as separate places but as distinct psychological conditions.

Most evangelicals turn this grit of sand into a pearl by saying, “It’s just a story.” Lewis didn’t actually mean to suggest there might be a second chance after death; he was merely seeking to demonstrate that wherever we wind up after we die, our destination will ultimately be a result of the choices we make here on earth. In fact, the road to heaven or hell doesn’t begin at death; it begins right now. 

While many people find this to be an airtight defense of hell, others aren’t so sure. Philosopher Thomas Talbott is one such dissenter. In his view, the C. S. Lewis defense falls under the category of “hard-hearted theism” a.k.a. “tough love. Many people content themselves with the idea that if people freely choose to reject God, too bad for them. They had their chance just like the rest of us. They just made the wrong choice. And far be it from God to intervene in the face of such poor decision-making. After all, we’re not a bunch of automatons. However, Talbott raises two objections to this line of thinking:"

I'm a fan of Talbott, and he always manages to make me think. To continue, click below!

Article

Hope you enjoy!

--Nick

P.S. for those of you interested in reading more of Thomas Talbott,

Thomas Talbott's personal site and his academic one.

It includes various chapters of his books, as well as his articles. He has interacted in the past with John Piper and William Lane Craig on the philosophical nature of Universalism and free will.