The following long post is from what initially started out as a response to a comment left by visitor TitforTat from the post: Oh yeah!?, how could a loving God condemn someone to hell?". TitforTat’s comment, a quote from Thomas Talbott’s book: "The Inescapable Love of God", called for a deeper Biblical response which seemed a waste to bury in a comment thread. Below (in blockquotes) is a copy of the commented quote left by Titfor Tat, followed by my response."
COMMENT FROM:Oh yeah!?, how could a loving God condemn someone to hell?".
TitforTat Says:
January 1st, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Hey Christopher
Happy New Year, heres something to maybe make you think a little. If you really want to think, get the book.
The idea that divine justice requires forgiveness accords very well with the New Testament analogy between God and a loving parent. It also illuminates in an intriguing way the nature of Gods opposition to sin. As the Augustinians see it, God opposes sin enough to punish it, but not enough to destroy it altogether; instead of destroying sin altogether, he merely confines it to a specially prepared region of his creation, known as hell, where he keeps it alive for an eternity. According to our alternative picture, however, God forgives sin for this very reason: In no other way could he oppose it with his entire being. For as the St. Paul saw so clearly, our specific sins express a sinful condition, and the latter is a form of spiritual death; it is simply our condition of being separated or estranged or alienated from God and from each other. So the opposite of a sinful condition is a state of reconciliation; and if that is so, then God cannot be against sin, cannot oppose it with his entire being, unless he is for reconciliation. And he can hardly be for reconciliation unless he is prepared to forgive others even as he has commanded us to forgive them. Indeed, if God should refuse to forgive someone, as is not even possible given his loving nature, he would then separate himself from this person; and that is the very essence of sin as Paul himself understood it.
Thomas Talbott …The inescapable Love of God
Christopher says:
Thanks and Happy New Year to you as well. I’m going to chew on this for a bit and get back with you.
Grace and peace be with you.
END OF COMMENT
POST/RESPONSE
Let us begin by addressing the assumption that "divine justice requires forgiveness". This assumption I believe is a spin on the same idea that because God is and does love; it precludes Him from allowing anyone to pay for the consequences of their own actions (sin). I say ‘allowing" because I believe a tendency of our naturally sinful selves is to shift responsibility or blame onto someone else. In Genesis, Adam illustrates this when confronted by God.
Genesis 3:11-12
11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?" 12 The man said, "The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."
In one breath Adam deflects his own culpability by managing to not only blame Eve, but seems to be implicating God as well… "The woman you put here with me"; forgetting that God had given him a specific command; "…I commanded you not to eat from?". (See also Genesis 2:15-17) Eve wasn’t created yet when that command was given.
Returning back to divine justice requiring forgiveness however, it assumes that we deserve or are otherwise entitled to forgiveness. This thought proposes that without extending forgiveness God can’t be just nor administer justice. The question is his though: "Who’s understanding of justice are we talking about? – God’s or what man presumes to know of it?" Notice in the following from Isaiah that God gives a specific response that man is to have towards Him, of which God will then respond back to man.
Isaiah 55:7-8
7 Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon. 8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.
If we take Talbott’s notion of "divine justice requiring forgiveness" as a blanket statement,it presents a problem as then even Satan (See Isaiah 14:12-15) and his demons (fallen angels) should qualify for a pass. Is that justice – to allow the architect of chaos and sin a pass? Or perhaps Satan and crew don’t count in Talbott’s assessment of divine justice? The question would then be – "Why is it that Satan and his demons won’t be forgiven by God?"; since as Talbott states:
Indeed, if God should refuse to forgive someone, as is not even possible given his loving nature, he would then separate himself from this person; and that is the very essence of sin as Paul himself understood it.
Thomas Talbott – The Inescapable love of God
Talbott puts the heat on God here, making it out that God is the one doing the separating from His creation. Throughout the Bible though, as God is dealing with Israel, it is the nation of Israel that provokes God to divorce Himself of Israel due their adulteress actions (sin). This same response from God was first shown in Genesis when God drove Adam out of the garden… because of his sin against God.
As did Adam, Talbott attempts to reverse the situation making God out to be "the bad guy". Talbott is confused in his theology, the very essence of sin is that it is rebellion to what God has commanded; an act of disobedience (Adam) or defiance.(Lucifer/Satan). It is that rebellion (sin) that causes us to be separated from God, because His nature is holy.
Speaking of separation and God’s nature… from the book of Romans, Paul the apostle warns of the coming wrath of God. Paul makes it clear that God and His ways of righteousness are evident.
Romans 1:18-20
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
From the beginning; in the beginning, God seems to be making a point about separation. I brought up Romans 1:18-20 as a parallel thought and to segue back to Genesis, to further illustrate a point concerning God’s holy nature. Building off of Romans 1:18-20, in Genesis 1:4, you have a literal and metaphorical example, the metaphor referring to sin/evil. Genesis 1:7 is another literal example of separation displayed in nature as an example of… "God’s invisible qualities-His eternal power and divine nature.".
Genesis 1:4,7
4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.
7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.
Over 2500 years after Genesis (dates of Creation, The Fall of Man, The Noahic Flood, & The Tower of Babel unknown) Christ Himself has this to say about separation of sin from righteousness in the Parable of the Net.
Matthew 13:47-51
47 "Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. 48 When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. 49 This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
51 "Have you understood all these things?" Jesus asked.
"Yes," they replied.
For Talbott to arrive at the position that in the end every one is forgiven and thus saved from eternal condemnation to Hell, Jesus has to therefore have lied. Additionally Talbott’s position makes Christ’s crucifixion in vain, there’s no connection between the death of Jesus on the cross and the need to have a savior in Christ to atone for our sins. Would you willing die for no reason, no purpose?
Romans 3:25-26
25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
Colossians 1:19-20
19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Here Talbott paints the opposite of sin as reconciliation. The opposite of a sinful condition would be righteousness, as obedience is the opposite of disobedience, right is to wrong, holy is to wicked, and as light is to dark. He tries to close the gap between sin and holiness with reconciliation. Talbott fails to mention however that as sure as there is the potential for reconciliation, there first must come a response of repentance which affords justification, and the only way to be justified before God is through Christ.
Romans 3:21-24
21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
"So the opposite of a sinful condition is a state of reconciliation; and if that is so, then God cannot be against sin, cannot oppose it with his entire being, unless he is for reconciliation…"
Thomas Talbott – The Inescapable love of God
Again in order for Talbott’s position to be true, it then insinuates that Jesus lied or was confused concerning the Parable of the Narrow and Wide Gates He gave. What then do we say concerning the words spoken by Jesus of separating The Sheep and The Goats as all the nations are gathered before Him in heaven?
Matthew 7:13-14
13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
Matthew 25:31-46
31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left…. 46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Talbott insists that all will then be given eternal life using the rationale that God has to forgive everyone since He is for reconciliation. Reconciliation on the other hand is the effect of a repentant heart, justified through Christ. Adam was already in a right relationship with God, he was not reconciled to God prior to committing sin, because there was nothing to be made right until after he sinned against God.
Romans 3:21-24
21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
"… And he can hardly be for reconciliation unless he is prepared to forgive others even as he has commanded us to forgive them."
Thomas Talbott – The Inescapable love of God
A few questions to meditate on:
- "If there’s no imminent danger or consequence why then the warnings against sin?"
- "Why then does God allow His Son to be murdered by His creation?".
- "If God was willing to let His Son die for our sakes (for reconciliation), why would He not allow man to in fact pay with his life for refusing to accept His grace?"
- "What is the rationale or purpose in this exercise of a blood payment for sin?"
God has made it perfectly clear in Romans 6:23 that "…the wages of sin is death." He’s made known what the conditions are for eternal life, as well as what’s at stake for those that do not repent from their sin(s) and accept his gift of grace.
John 3:16-18
16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
Romans 5:8-9
8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!
1st John 5:11-12
11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.
In the end, I don’t agree with Talbott’s perspective concerning God and His (God’s) method of administering justice.
It’s not that I feel it unfair of God to let some pass without meeting the standards while others are supposedly held to them per Talbott’s spin. My reasons as already presented via Scripture are that Talbott goes beyond what Scripture clearly reveals about God’s plan and means of reconciliation for humanity. Talbott’s interpretation simply doesn’t line up with the Bible. Talbott it would appear has manufactured in his mind some new gospel not preached by Paul. Furthermore, a brief visit to Talbott’s site revealed this link where he calls for "a universalist reading of the New Testament". That said, I leave you with these words from Paul himself.
Galatians 1:6-10
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
10 Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.
Ephesians 5:6-7
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7Therefore do not be partners with them.
Grace and peace be with you.
Got-Fruit(?) 
Changing your perspective by not “But(t)ing” heads with God
E. Barrett of R3 left a comment on yesterday’s post; a quote about fruitfulness, which spurred a longer than expected response (not that brevity is my trademark) so I decided to “share” additional thoughts on the first half of his comment in a post instead of burying them in a comment.
The Lord gave Moses a mission of speaking to Pharaoh concerning the release of the Israelites from captivity in Egypt, however Moses looked inwardly and tossed out an objection, based on what he perceived as a shortcoming. Perhaps Moses assumed that he was to oversee the exodus single handedly? Maybe Moses was overly concerned with the details; and in haste spoke up with objection? All of that is just speculation on my part. Notice however that the Lord doesn’t sternly rebuke Moses for his doubts. The Lord continues on and tells Moses that He will equip him (Moses) with a a helper in Aaron.
Regardless of what we assume to “know” concerning God’s specific plan over our lives (at the personal level, not collective level of humanity), I’m willing to bet that we too tend to view what God lays upon us with a temporal mindset, or from the vantage point of what is within our capabilities much like Moses did.
And so we get back to our sin problem…, in some respects a result of Adam and Eve not trusting in the Lord. Adam nor Eve had the foresight to see beyond their respective decision’s to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil, yet God didn’t ask them to exercise such thing, simply to trust in Him (through obedience).
Grace and peace be with you.