Talbott's Triad

[hedrick]

Is any of that biblical? It sounds very alien to me.

Jesus does seem to emphasize intent. His understanding of the 10 commandments in Mat 5 suggests that, as do several other passages. However I note that in Jesus' many teachings about condemnation, people aren't condemned for sin. They are condemned for rejecting the Gospel, abusing others, and failure to be useful.

But that's a divergence from this discussion. The OP isn't based on Scripture. It's based on logic. It's hard to object to it on a logical basis. There are two possible answers. One is to find Biblical ground to reject one of the three statements. The other is to suggest that pure logic may not always be a reliable guide to God's operation. I think that might be Luther's approach.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

What would it matter? We'd be predestined to either heaven or hell anyway.

there are misconceptions about predestination. the bible says all men are under sin and therefor condemned. there is none who seeks after God no not one. all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. the natural man loves their sin and hates God,

so we know without God intervening every single human being deserves Gods judgement or condemnation. so God is not under any obligation to save anyone.

but God being rich in mercy has decided to save some not all. if we look at God from a historical perspective He has always chosen the few over the many, Noah, Abraham and his descendants, David and his lineage which is fulfilled in Christ. Jesus said many are called but few are chosen and many are are the broad road that leads to destruction and few are on the narrow road that leads to life.

So God decided to predestine, elect, choose some not all. Paul knows this doesn't sit right with our fallen human nature and we will question Gods justice in Romans 9.

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—

 

[hedrick]

The following analysis identifies 4 positions, of which you can accept 3: Predestination II | Presbyterian Mission Agency

1. God’s sovereign decision to save is sufficient; all those whom God wills to save are saved.
2. God loves all the world, and wills to save all the world.
3. Some people are damned.
4. Those who are saved must respond in faith.

This leaves them with 4 positions: Calvinsism, Arminianism, universalism, and Barth.

For much of my life I was convinced that Calvin was right, though I might have expressed it differently. I'm still not sure that's wrong.

 

[Hmm]

Jesus does seem to emphasize intent. His understanding of the 10 commandments in Mat 5 suggests that, as do several other passages. However I note that in Jesus' many teachings about condemnation, people aren't condemned for sin. They are condemned for rejecting the Gospel, abusing others, and failure to be useful.

But that's a divergence from this discussion. The OP isn't based on Scripture. It's based on logic. It's hard to object to it on a logical basis. There are two possible answers. One is to find Biblical ground to reject one of the three statements. The other is to suggest that pure logic may not always be a reliable guide to God's operation. I think that might be Luther's approach.

I agree with what you say about intent - it was really the bit ”God sends the reasons people base their choices on" that I didn't understand.

It's true that the OP is about logic and I agree that logic can only take is so far. Of all the mainstream churches, I think Lutherism is the one I know least about, along with the EO church, and I would like to learn about the history of the tradition.

 

[Hmm]

The following analysis identifies 4 positions, of which you can accept 3: Predestination II | Presbyterian Mission Agency

1. God’s sovereign decision to save is sufficient; all those whom God wills to save are saved.
2. God loves all the world, and wills to save all the world.
3. Some people are damned.
4. Those who are saved must respond in faith.

This leaves them with 4 positions: Calvinsism, Arminianism, universalism, and Barth.

For much of my life I was convinced that Calvin was right, though I might have expressed it differently. I'm still not sure that's wrong.

Calvanism is 1 and 3 here I take it?

I'd go for 1, 2 and 4. 1 and 2 makes it Christian Universalism and 4 makes it of the "strong exclusive" type as defined by the philosopher Keith DeRose:

"But perhaps we should distinguish between two types of exclusivism. Let’s label as strong exclusivism the position that adds to exclusivism the further claim that, in order to be a recipient of the salvation Christ makes possible, one must in some way explicitly accept Christ and/or the salvation he offers. (Different versions of strong exclusivism with differ as to the exact nature of this requirement of explicit acceptance.) Weak exclusivism, then, will be the position that combines the exclusivist thesis that Christ’s saving work is necessary for the salvation of any person — so that were it not for Christ, none could be saved — with the position that one needn’t explicitly accept or acknowledge Christ in order to receive the salvation his saving work makes possible."

 

[hedrick]

I agree with what you say about intent - it was really the bit ”God sends the reasons people base their choices on" that I didn't understand.

It's true that the OP is about logic and I agree that logic can only take is so far. Of all the mainstream churches, I think Lutherism is the one I know least about, along with the EO church, and I would like to learn about the history of the tradition.

The idea behind compatibilism is that people don’t make choices randomly, but based on their character and the situation they are in. Both are included in Gods plan. I agree that random decisions are madness, not freedom. But I think you can reasonably argue that some level of indeterminacy is consistent with responsible choice. But still, to say that God doesn’t know what decisions people will make in any given time stream seems to reject standard concepts of God. This gets close to Molinism, but I’m not so sure that that isn’t in fact standard Calvinism.

 

[Hmm]

The idea behind compatibilism is that people don’t make choices randomly, but based on their character and the situation they are in. Both are included in Gods plan. I agree that random decisions are madness, not freedom. But I think you can reasonably argue that some level of indeterminacy is consistent with responsible choice. But still, to say that God doesn’t know what decisions people will make in any given time stream seems to reject standard concepts of God. This gets close to Molinism, but I’m not so sure that that isn’t in fact standard Calvinism.

I agree with that (I think!). I think God would know what decisions we make in advance but I don't think foreknowledge necessarily entails predestination.

I remember reading something once but I've forgotten the writer saying that even if God doesn't know what we are going to think or do in the future, it wouldn't mean that He's not omnipotent. The argument is that omnipotence means that you know all things that exist or that are true. Whether I stir my coffee clockwise or anti-clockwise tomorrow morning is not yet a truth because it hasn't happened so it is not an item of knowledge yet. I find it more natural though to think that God knows these things but it's not something I think it's important to have an opinion on.

 

[hedrick]

I agree with that (I think!). I think God would know what decisions we make in advance but I don't think foreknowledge necessarily entails predestination.

I remember reading something once but I've forgotten the writer saying that even if God doesn't know what we are going to think or do in the future, it wouldn't mean that He's not omnipotent. The argument is that omnipotence means that you know all things that exist or that are true. Whether I stir my coffee clockwise or anti-clockwise tomorrow morning is not yet a truth because it hasn't happened so it is not an item of knowledge yet. I find it more natural though to think that God knows these things but it's not something I think it's important to have an opinion on.

Compatibilism doesn’t prove predestination. But I think it’s necessary to make predestination acceptable.

 

[Hmm]

Compatibilism doesn’t prove predestination. But I think it’s necessary to make predestination acceptable.

It's a fudge in other words lol

 

[Saint Steven]

This is true, but God sends the reasons people base their choices on and thereby judges them for wanting to sin or wanting not to sin.

Why judge anyone when Calvinism says they are all predestined from the beginning? Is it so God can blame the victims for what he has done to them? Since they have no free will.

 

[Saint Steven]

Compatibilism doesn’t prove predestination. But I think it’s necessary to make predestination acceptable.

Like a bandage on a bad doctrine. Something to stop the bleeding. - lol

 

[Clare73]

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?”

Wrong question. . .wrong standard.

All "theology" is not equal.
Which "theology" represents the teaching of Scripture understood in the light of the whole counsel of God?

 

[Clare73]

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

Wrong standard. . .

 

[Clare73]

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?

The Reformers say man has limited free will, not complete free will.

He is able to make some choices, but not all; to wit, to control his tongue.

 

[Clare73]

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.

Calvinists believe in limited free will, the ability to choose according to our disposition, which is not complete free will.

Actually, limited free will is called free agency.
Complete free will is called free will.

 

[Clare73]

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)?

You assume its about his ability and, therefore, require universalism.

It's not about his ability, it's about his will and purpose.

 

[Clare73]

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

You're gonna' measure just/righteous divine infinity by sinful human finiteness?

Get off the throne. . .he's God, you're not.

 

[Clare73]

It's not a dichotomy. God isn't torn between loving us and being just towards us. He's not a split personality. Love and justice aren't separate and opposing attributes of God that He has to choose between. Rather His love is just and His justice is loving. Just like a human father, when he punishes his children it's for correction and it's done in a loving way for the greater benefit of the child. No father would punish his child retributive and forever. That's what makes sense to me but perhaps you disagree - neither of us knows for sure.

No.
Justice is not "loving." Justice is just.
And love is loving.

 

[Clare73]

No. Almost all Calvinists accept compatibilism. That says that responsible human choice coexists with God bring responsible for everything.

Man is able to choose what he prefers.
He is not able to make all moral choices.
He is not able to choose to be sinless.

Free will is not the issue in the NT, or in salvation.
The issue is the disposition--what one prefers, likes--which governs the will.
It is our sinful disposition that is the problem, and which only the new birth can fix.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Calvanism is 1 and 3 here I take it?

I'd go for 1, 2 and 4. 1 and 2 makes it Christian Universalism and 4 makes it of the "strong exclusive" type as defined by the philosopher Keith DeRose:

"But perhaps we should distinguish between two types of exclusivism. Let’s label as strong exclusivism the position that adds to exclusivism the further claim that, in order to be a recipient of the salvation Christ makes possible, one must in some way explicitly accept Christ and/or the salvation he offers. (Different versions of strong exclusivism with differ as to the exact nature of this requirement of explicit acceptance.) Weak exclusivism, then, will be the position that combines the exclusivist thesis that Christ’s saving work is necessary for the salvation of any person — so that were it not for Christ, none could be saved — with the position that one needn’t explicitly accept or acknowledge Christ in order to receive the salvation his saving work makes possible."

Calvinism is 1 and 4. Those predestined will respond in faith.