Talbott's Triad

[Hmm]

There are, as this forum makes clear, a lot of different, and often inconsistent, views about heaven and hell within Christianity. The writer and philosopher Thomas Talbott came up with his triad as a relatively easy way to help us organise our thinking and see which of three primary views we hold.

The triad is the form of the following inconsistent set of three propositions:

1. All human sinners are equal objects of God’s redemptive love in the sense that God wills or aims to win over each one of them over time and thereby to prepare each one of them for the bliss of union with the divine nature.

2. God’s redemptive love will triumph in the end and successfully win over each and every object of that love, thereby preparing each one of them for the bliss of union with the divine nature.

3. Some human sinners will never be reconciled to God and will therefore remain separated from the divine nature forever.

Because this set of propositions is logically inconsistent, as it clearly is, at least one of them must be false. Talbott maintains that virtually every mainline Christian theologian would accept some two of these propositions with then no choice but to reject the third.

So, Calvanists believe both that God’s redemptive (or electing) love will triumph in the end (proposition 2) and that some people will never be reconciled to God (proposition 3). And so they reject the idea that God’s redemptive love extends to all human sinners equally (proposition 1).

Arminians, being opposed to the Augustinian understanding of limited election, believe both that God’s redemptive love extends to all equally (proposition 1) and that some people may never be reconciled to God because of human free will (proposition 3). So they reject the idea that God’s redemptive love will always triumph in the end (proposition 2).

And finally, Christian universalists believe both that God’s redemptive love extends to all equally (proposition 1) and that this love will triumph in the end (proposition 2), and so they reject the idea that some human sinners will never be reconciled to God (proposition 3).

So here are three quite different schools of thought. According to Augustinian theology/Calvanism, God’s redemptive love cannot be thwarted forever, but the scope of that love is restricted to a limited elect. According to Arminian theology, God’s redemptive love extends to all human sinners equally, but that love can be thwarted by factors, such as certain human choices, over which God has no direct control. And according to the theology of Christian universalism, God’s redemptive love extends to all human sinners equally and God’s will to save each one of them cannot be thwarted forever.

So, the question arises: “Which system of theology do you think best represents the character and glory of God?”

 

[Dave L]

There are, as this forum makes clear, a lot of different, and often inconsistent, views about heaven and hell within Christianity. The writer and philosopher Thomas Talbott came up with his triad as a relatively easy way to help us organise our thinking and see which of three primary views we hold.

The triad is the form of the following inconsistent set of three propositions:

1. All human sinners are equal objects of God’s redemptive love in the sense that God wills or aims to win over each one of them over time and thereby to prepare each one of them for the bliss of union with the divine nature.

2. God’s redemptive love will triumph in the end and successfully win over each and every object of that love, thereby preparing each one of them for the bliss of union with the divine nature.

3. Some human sinners will never be reconciled to God and will therefore remain separated from the divine nature forever.

Because this set of propositions is logically inconsistent, as it clearly is, at least one of them must be false. Talbott maintains that virtually every mainline Christian theologian would accept some two of these propositions with then no choice but to reject the third.

So, Calvanists believe both that God’s redemptive (or electing) love will triumph in the end (proposition 2) and that some people will never be reconciled to God (proposition 3). And so they reject the idea that God’s redemptive love extends to all human sinners equally (proposition 1).

Arminians, being opposed to the Augustinian understanding of limited election, believe both that God’s redemptive love extends to all equally (proposition 1) and that some people may never be reconciled to God because of human free will (proposition 3). So they reject the idea that God’s redemptive love will always triumph in the end (proposition 2).

And finally, Christian universalists believe both that God’s redemptive love extends to all equally (proposition 1) and that this love will triumph in the end (proposition 2), and so they reject the idea that some human sinners will never be reconciled to God (proposition 3).

So here are three quite different schools of thought. According to Augustinian theology/Calvanism, God’s redemptive love cannot be thwarted forever, but the scope of that love is restricted to a limited elect. According to Arminian theology, God’s redemptive love extends to all human sinners equally, but that love can be thwarted by factors, such as certain human choices, over which God has no direct control. And according to the theology of Christian universalism, God’s redemptive love extends to all human sinners equally and God’s will to save each one of them cannot be thwarted forever.

So, the question arises: “Which system of theology do you think best represents the character and glory of God?”

Obviously, Calvinism when understood.

 

[Hmm]

Obviously, Calvinism when understood.

I agree with Calvanism about the truth of proposition 2, that God's love will triumph in the end but I believe that this love is directed at everyone (prop. 1) and so I have to reject prop. 3. This makes me, whether I like it or not!, a Christian universalist.

 

[Dave L]

I agree with Calvanism about the truth of proposition 2, that God's love will triumph in the end but I believe that this love is directed at everyone (prop. 1) and so I have to reject prop. 3. This makes me, whether I like it or not!, a Christian universalist.

Many scriptures speak of God's hatred of sinners and their sins. Also, consider this.

God receives full glory in his hatred for sinners. If God loved us because of something in us, we would share his glory. But since God justly hates us in righteousness, he receives full glory by setting his love upon those he hates. And treating us as though we never sinned, paying for our sins at his own expense in Christ on the cross. And clothed us with His own righteousness. Not only giving us back what Adam forfeited for us. But adding to it God's own imputed righteousness forever.

Now that is love.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

There are, as this forum makes clear, a lot of different, and often inconsistent, views about heaven and hell within Christianity. The writer and philosopher Thomas Talbott came up with his triad as a relatively easy way to help us organise our thinking and see which of three primary views we hold.

The triad is the form of the following inconsistent set of three propositions:

1. All human sinners are equal objects of God’s redemptive love in the sense that God wills or aims to win over each one of them over time and thereby to prepare each one of them for the bliss of union with the divine nature.

2. God’s redemptive love will triumph in the end and successfully win over each and every object of that love, thereby preparing each one of them for the bliss of union with the divine nature.

3. Some human sinners will never be reconciled to God and will therefore remain separated from the divine nature forever.

Because this set of propositions is logically inconsistent, as it clearly is, at least one of them must be false. Talbott maintains that virtually every mainline Christian theologian would accept some two of these propositions with then no choice but to reject the third.

So, Calvanists believe both that God’s redemptive (or electing) love will triumph in the end (proposition 2) and that some people will never be reconciled to God (proposition 3). And so they reject the idea that God’s redemptive love extends to all human sinners equally (proposition 1).

Arminians, being opposed to the Augustinian understanding of limited election, believe both that God’s redemptive love extends to all equally (proposition 1) and that some people may never be reconciled to God because of human free will (proposition 3). So they reject the idea that God’s redemptive love will always triumph in the end (proposition 2).

And finally, Christian universalists believe both that God’s redemptive love extends to all equally (proposition 1) and that this love will triumph in the end (proposition 2), and so they reject the idea that some human sinners will never be reconciled to God (proposition 3).

So here are three quite different schools of thought. According to Augustinian theology/Calvanism, God’s redemptive love cannot be thwarted forever, but the scope of that love is restricted to a limited elect. According to Arminian theology, God’s redemptive love extends to all human sinners equally, but that love can be thwarted by factors, such as certain human choices, over which God has no direct control. And according to the theology of Christian universalism, God’s redemptive love extends to allhuman sinners equally and God’s will to save each one of them cannot be thwarted forever.

So, the question arises: “Which system of theology do you think best represents the character and glory of God?”

Arminianism

 

[Saint Steven]

So, the question arises: “Which system of theology do you think best represents the character and glory of God?”

Awesome topic! Thanks.
I reject proposition 3 as well. Love wins!
That best represents the character and glory of God. IMHO

 

[Hmm]

I like Arminianism although I believe that no one would freely choose hell once they realise God's true nature - it would be the height of irrationality to do so and in that case could they really be described as being free?

Out of interest, what are the main differences between Arminianism and the Catholic, EO and the main Protestant churches? AFAIK they all believe that God loves everyone and that there is human free will or at least enough of it to reject God so I'm not sure where the differences lie.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

1. All human sinners are equal objects of God’s redemptive love in the sense that God wills or aims to win over each one of them over time and thereby to prepare each one of them for the bliss of union with the divine nature.

2. God’s redemptive love will triumph in the end and successfully win over each and every object of that love, thereby preparing each one of them for the bliss of union with the divine nature.

3. Some human sinners will never be reconciled to God and will therefore remain separated from the divine nature forever.

What is the difference between 1) and 2)?

 

[Saint Steven]

Many scriptures speak of God's hatred of sinners and their sins. Also, consider this.

God receives full glory in his hatred for sinners. If God loved us because of something in us, we would share his glory. But since God justly hates us in righteousness, he receives full glory by setting his love upon those he hates. And treating us as though we never sinned, paying for our sins at his own expense in Christ on the cross. And clothed us with His own righteousness. Not only giving us back what Adam forfeited for us. But adding to it God's own imputed righteousness forever.

Now that is love.

Thanks for your detailed response, Dave.
But what do we do about this? See below.

The Bible appears to be contradictory on this subject.
As you noted, we are told that God demonstrates "hatred" in the biblical record.
However...

Jesus taught us that loving our enemies is godly behavior. If that is the case, why wouldn't God love his enemies? Some make God out to be worse than a pagan or tax collector. (traitor)

Matthew 5:43-48 NRSV
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

 

[Hmm]

What is the difference between 1) and 2)?

Prop 1 says that God loves everyone equally and prop 2 says that this love will win out in the end and that everyone will eventually be restored to Him. The difference is the possibility that this love may be ultimately thwarted in some way, for example by someone rejecting it through their free will.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Prop 1 is says that God loves everyone equally and prop 2 says that this love will win out in the end and that everyone will eventually be restored to Him. The difference is the possibility that this love may be ultimately thwarted in some way, for example by someone rejecting it through their free will.

Yeah, 1) didn't come to a conclusion so it seemed like they were saying the same thing since God is not a hypocrite.

 

[Dave L]

I like Arminianism although I believe that no one would freely choose hell once they realise God's true nature - it would be the height of irrationality to do so and in that case could they really be described as being free?

Out of interest, what are the main differences between Arminianism and the Catholic, EO and the main Protestant churches? AFAIK they all believe that God loves everyone and that there is human free will or at least enough of it to reject God so I'm not sure where the differences lie.

The Reformers based on scripture and Augustine's theology are alone in saying free will does not exist. Where is free will when James says we cannot control our tongues?

 

[Hmm]

The Reformers based on scripture and Augustine's theology are alone in saying free will does not exist. Where is free will when James says we cannot control our tongues?

This is a huge subject isn't it? All I can say is that from my personal experience, I can't always control my tongue but I can sometimes. Sometimes I know that a kind word is required but don't give it and I feel that this is me deliberately choosing not to do what God would want me to do. And I'm sure many times I omit to say the right because I'm not aware of the need. And occasionally I do manage to get it right. So I believe I have free will but I have limited awareness and so I often get it wrong.

Do you believe that you have no free will at all? I know Calvanists believe this but that doesn't seem to me to match our experienced reality.

 

[Dave L]

This is a huge subject isn't it? All I can say is that from my personal experience, I can't always control my tongue but I can sometimes. Sometimes I know that a kind word is required but don't give it and I feel that this is me deliberately choosing not to do what God would want me to do. And I'm sure many times I omit to say the right because I'm not aware of the need. And occasionally I do manage to get it right. So I believe I have free will but I have limited awareness and so I often get it wrong.

Do you believe that you have no free will at all? I know Calvanists believe this but that doesn't seem to me to match our experienced reality.

The vast gulf between natural man and salvation is that we can only imagine god and turn it into an idol. We must be born again before we can discern Christ in truth. So God saves us through the new birth that results in Faith in Christ.

 

[Hmm]

The vast gulf between natural man and salvation is that we can only imagine god and turn it into an idol. We must be born again before we can discern Christ in truth. So God saves us through the new birth that results in Faith in Christ.

I think what you're saying is, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that we don't have free will and so if God save us it's without us having to do anything, not even make an accepting response to the offer of salvation (because we can't, having no free will). Suppose that that is true, why can't God save everyone (the universalist position) instead of just some (Calvanism)?

 

[Dave L]

I think what you're saying is, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that we don't have free will and so if God save us it's without us having to do anything, not even make an accepting response to the offer of salvation (because we can't, having no free will). Suppose that that is true, why can't God save everyone (the universalist position) instead of just some (Calvanism)?

He created all for His glory. No sin, no idea of who God is. Sin reveals his sovereignty in damning some and saving others. Mercy also. And righteousness. We cannot know God apart from the contrast sin provides.

 

[Hmm]

He created all for His glory. No sin, no idea of who God is. Sin reveals his sovereignty in damning some and saving others. Mercy also. And righteousness. We cannot know God apart from the contrast sin provides.

Okay, but that doesn't make sense to me. It's abstract thought and doesn't relate to personal experience.

 

[Saint Steven]

The Reformers based on scripture and Augustine's theology are alone in saying free will does not exist. Where is free will when James says we cannot control our tongues?

So, then how does personal responsibility for our actions fit, if we don't have free will?

How could we possibly be accountable to God for our sin if we have no control over our lives?

Aren't we all living out the script we were given by God then? How could he be angry with us for that? And how could he hate sin? Since he would have to script it for us to act out.

 

[Dave L]

Okay, but that doesn't make sense to me. It's pure philosophy and doesn't relate to personal experience.

Paul teaches this in Roman 5. And Romans 9.

 

[Hmm]

Paul teaches this in Roman 5. And Romans 9.

If that's your interpretation, that's fine!