Customer Reviews

The Inescapable Love of God

5 star:		(24)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I read Talbott's book ("studied" and "absorbed" might be better words than just "read") after studying "If Grace is True" by Pastors Phillip Gulley & James Mulholland. Both of these books are arguments for a Universalist view of the Gospel -- that is, God will through His love and grace ultimately reconcile all persons to Himself; some people may end up in a place of punishment such as Hell for a time, but that will not be permanent and everlasting. If I found Gulley & Mulholland's book to be compelling (and I certainly did for the most part), Talbott's is twice as good. "The Inescapable Love of God" is more systematically researched, more Biblically-based, more scholarly in every way than "If Grace Is True." Talbott is a professor of philosophy and religion at a university in Oregon, and eagerly embraces his belief in Jesus and a love for Christianity. His background in philosophy allows him to apply the best logic I've ever heard or read to the study of Christianity. Plus, Talbott doesn't have that wacky, radical view of the role of Jesus that Gulley & Mulholland offer in chapter five of "If Grace Is True."

Talbott, Gulley, and Mulholland offer a refreshing and logical view of Christianity that I certainly welcome having spent thirty years in the Baptist church where much of the time the only incentive and motivation taught for becoming a Christian was/is fear.

After acquiring a degree in Biblical & Theological Studies at a college that is steeped in the Calvinist/Arminian debate, I found myself unable to accept either theological position. While I appreciated the importance of God's sovereignty espoused by Calvinists, I could not accept the way they developed it, which seemed to create a God more interested in his own "glory" than in the wellbeing of his children. I could not worship a God who created people simply to send them to hell. On the other hand, the libertarian free will upon which Arminians insist seems necessary, but results in a rather ineffective or unloving God. Did he not foresee that so many humans would end up in hell? If not, how wise could he be? If so, why did he create in the first place? [Example: I would not have a child if I knew s/he would suffer for a lifetime, and if I "though [I am] evil" would sacrifice my desire for a child for the good of that same, as-yet-unconceived child, "how much more [would our] Father in heaven" forego creating people if he knew they would suffer eternally (idea based on Mt. 7:11/Lk. 11:13)?] If the "traditional" understanding of hell is true, I see no way of getting around these issues, and Mr. Talbott seems to appreciate this dilemma. I found myself thinking, "YES!" as he objected to assumptions that go all but unquestioned by the majority of Christians. In other words, he really thinks critically about Christian doctrine, rather than simply swallowing certain aspects of it without considering potential problems and contradictions within then.

Fortunately, there is a way to maintain both God's ultimate sovereignty and human freedom... and simultaneously affirm that all will be saved! Mr. Talbott puts forward a number of strong arguments, though he certainly does not exhaust all the biblical passages that we must exegete before decisively deciding the case. One of his first points is well taken, however: We can find verses that, at least from a face value reading, support Calvinist, Arminian, and universalist positions. Both Calvinists and Arminians must interpret challenging passages in a way that will allow them to hold consistenly and logically to their belief. There are surely passages that speak of the salvation of all people, so why is universalism any different? In fact, it may be the simplest to defend, since the Arminian "proof texts" show that God desire to save all people, and the Calvinist texts show that he is able to accomplish his redemptive purposes. These competing doctrines have done a significant portion of the work for universalists, since universal reconciliation simply affirms the core tenets of both doctrines! Talbott rightly insists that we at least place universalism on the table in this area of debate.

I had hoped that this book would delve into more biblical passages that seem to support the doctrine of eternal/everlasting damnation. But Talbott focuses instead on building a positive case for universal reconciliation, which he does quite well. Certain passages make so much more sense given his line of thinking [Example: the idea that some people will be saved through fire (1 Cor. 3:15)]. He does also defend universal reconciliation in light of the infamous sheep/goats teaching in Matthew 25, used so often to dismiss the notion of universalism. While there are other passages that we must re-interpret in order to reject the traditional view of hell, I am very grateful for this book. Some works out there (for example, "If Grace is True," by Gulley & Mulholland) simply reject the infallibility of the Bible and the necessity of Jesus' work, so they no longer teach Christian universalism, but rather a form of pluralism. Talbott, on the other hand, maintains an assumption of biblical authority and atonement through Christ, so evangelical Christians who are drawn to the idea of universal reconciliation need not fear that such core beliefs will be discarded in this book.

Talbott responds to scholars who challenge his ideas (and those of other universalists) in the book "Universal Salvation? The Current Debate," edited by Robin Parry and Christopher Partridge, which I also recommend. That book has a website (www.universalsalvation.net), with links to other sites/articles that are helpful to people who want to search out further evidence in the issue of universalism.

After witnessing 9/11 firsthand, I reflected on my faith with many others in NYC, while criticizing Islam for believing that non-Muslims were "infidels" worthy of death. My non-Christian friends responded "Youu Christians say the same thing - believe in Jesus, or burn in hell forever". Well, yeah, but we try not to think or talk about it too much. (Not an acceptable answer) This led to hours of biblical study and reflection, which culminated in finding this book.

I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, the reality of hell, and the ultimate and universal Triumph of Christ over Hell, Death and Sin. Talbott lays out this belief in a way that is strongly biblically supported and rigorously (!) logical. He also lays out the historical reasons for the theological ascendency Augustinian/Calvinist doctrine, with it's Biblically dubious doctrine of "limited atonement" (wherein Christ asks that you love your neighbor, but He Himself may not if they are not "elect".)

This is not a "tree-hugger" book. This is a book for serious Christians and seekers of all types who have difficulty reconciling their personal experience of God's Character with the implications of mainline Protestant theology.

Is God both All-Loving and All-Powerful? A robust and well-argued "Yes!"

I find this book a superb overview of the Christian case for belief in the ultimate victory of the love of God -- over every trace of sin, pain, death and hell. Talbott is a philosophy professor in a secular university, but he is also a Christian who knows the Bible and church history extremely well. He shares his own journey from traditional belief in eternal loss to his belief that in the end (which is in a sense the beginning) God's love will prevail and no one will be lost. Rigorous thinking, careful research, excellent writing.

God, thank you for Dr. Talbott. I struggled and still am struggling with so much fear of hell and eternal torment. Fear and despair have been seared deeply into my soul and though I know the truth, it will take time for it to settle in my heart.

This book is great for those whose ears and minds have been trained to read eternal torment into the Bible. It will build a logical framework for re-interpretting those "hard saying" passages and escaping the Calvinist or Arminian mindset.

I recommend you pick it up today!

This is one of the best-written non-fiction books I have ever read. This diction is, on its own merits, an aesthetic pleasure to read.

Talbott states at the start that this is, essentially, a catalog of his journey toward universalism, but I believe that he is being modest. Talbott puts forth the most logical, biblically grounded case for universal reconciliation one might find anywhere.

He begins by presenting a historical case for the faults in the doctrine of eternal damnation (or separation, or whatever) and how it came to be accepted as the mainstream, effectively dismantling the notion that various church councils were somehow free of politics or coercion. He also makes very clear that some who many Christians consider to be theological bedrocks, such as Calvin and Luther, should undergo a bit more scrutiny in the mainstream. He does this not with abstract declarations, but by showing on the page exactly some of the ridiculous things that they said and did, and how those things flowed from faulty theological presuppositions.

None of that, however, posits a positive case of biblical universalism, as much as it does a case against certain other theologies, and Talbott is quite aware of this. In subsequent sections of the book, he not only tackles objections head-on made by many theologians, but examines the biblical texts themselves and makes a compelling argument that there is a universalistic thrust throughout the whole of th New Testament, without resorting to isolated proof-texts. Rather than relying on shallow interpretations of context-free quotations, the many texts which are used an analyzed thoroughly, to the extent that even the most ardent opponent of the universalist view should be able to, at the very least, see how they _could_ be reasonably interpreted as universalist. Indeed, Talbott states that it is worth asking how so many intelligent people could have missed such obvious universalist language for so long. He then proceeds to tackle this issue, as well.

Talbott doesn't stop there. He presents three propositions which are logically inconsistent, yet which many Christians take for granted: that is, any two of the propositions may be true, but not all three. He uses this same line of philosophical reasoning more than once, and I must say that I do not see how it can be definitively refuted. It appears to be quite air-tight and straightforward, even for those who may not be familiar with formal logic. I do not mention them here, because I believe that this is best read in the context of the full argument, as presented in the book. He confronts some rather pointed philosophical objections to his own work in later chapters. I think that he effectively deals with William Lane Craig's rather contrived argument for the necessity of hell, for example.

There is much more, but this book is so rich and so filled with sound reasoning and impeccable logic that it would be impossible to summarize it all in a brief review.

Some who have perhaps read some conservative apologetics materials might be tempted to assume that they have "heard it all before." It is very likely that that is not the case, and even if one's goal is simply to refute the very best of arguments for universalism, this would be the place to find them. Likewise, if someone is looking for the closest thing to a comprehensive explanation of, and case for, biblical universalism, this would be the book to get. In essence, anyone who is interested in this topic, and can read, should get this book.


I have also read Kalen Fristad's Destined for Salvation and Gulley and Mulholland's If God is Love. If God is Love is certainly a pleasure to read, but it is of a different, more applicative bent. The Inescapable Love of God is the place to start. Talbott's book has the material necessary to build a philosophically sound foundation for the worldview-changing universalism and introduces one to the ways in which it should effect such a worldview change; Gully and Mulholland's work extends that worldview-changing paradigm and develops it in a highly personal way. As a theological companion to this book, I would recommend NT Wright's The Challenge of Jesus. It is not a universalist book, but it does provide a reasoned approach to Jesus's actions which provide alternate -- and, I think, much more compelling and meaningful -- interpretations to Jesus's life, which eschew reading hellfire metaphors into half of the things that he said and did.

Finally -- and this perhaps goes without saying -- it is worth noting that the exclamation point-abusing reviewer who gave this book one star obviously had not read it.

As a mathematician and scientist (former Chief Scientist with the USAF), I found the Part II of the book worth the price of the book -- and much more! Thomas talbott lays out the arguments in a fair and balanced manner, but clearly demonstrates that the Bible, pure logic and common sense all conspire to suggest that all sinners (eventually) will be reconciled to God and enjoy eternity with Him. My path began in Roman Catholicism, moved through a period of sinful "what the heck?", landed in a true Faith in the salvation of Jesus ... but with one problem remaining. Universal reconcilliation (and I hate titles or labels) has closed that last "hole" in my belief system, such as it is. I hope that Talbott will write something more attuned to the non-mathematician/logistician with the arguments stated simply and powerfully. Some may be turned off by language that is beyond that of high school, and that is a shame. It should be read by EVERYONE!

I am a born-again, conservative, evangelical Christian. However, I also believe in Universal Salvation. This book does an excellent job of presenting the case. I recommend it for any Christian or person interested in Christianity. It will broaden your view of God's plan of salvation. I have also written an essay from my own research and would be glad to email it to anyone who requests.

This book seems to echo the same victorious tones that Bonda's "The One Purpose of God: An Answer to the Doctrine of Eternal Punishment" and it seems to add demensions to his book. These two books should definitely be in every library and studied together for the maximum possible impact from Paul's epistle to the Romans. Talbott, though, doesn't just seek to explain the epistle of Romans in a lovey-dovey sorta way that's all inclusivistic. He deals with the New Testament for the most part as a whole and shows that a major problem with critics of Universalism is the fact that most traditional mainline clergy-men/women have never even met a Universalist. So, he starts from that basis and while giving some insightful historical observations, he for the most part tries to share what the big picture is; how to read the New Testament as a Universalist. As a philosopher Talbott adds refreshing theological insight in showing that there are only 3 paradigms from which the New Testament can be read and those are 1) the Armenian. 2) the Calvinist. and 3) the Universalist paradigm. This book is both philosophy and New Testament scholarship at it's best. He systematically takes the reader to the tearful conclusion that the Love of God truly is INESCAPABLE:-)

This book by Thomas Talbott is wonderfully organized and logically presented. His section on his personal move to universalism and also the one defending universalism philosophically are both very interesting, though not terribly successful in forming a strong argument. What is really fascinating is the middle section which defended universalism on biblical grounds.

Two of the primary passages Mr. Talbott utilized in his biblical argument for universalism (he uses many passages) are from Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. Until I read both in context I considered his position very reasonable. Indeed, I do believe that Mr. Talbott succeeds in disproving classic Augustinian and Arminian views regarding these passages. However, there are more views than the three he presents in his book.

Reading Romans 5 it appears that the "death" being spoken of as coming into the world through Adam was physical death. Thus, even those who had not sinned like Adam suffered death (Romans 5:12-14). That this is the case becomes even clearer in 1 Corinthians 15, where the apostle Paul is proclaiming that Jesus really was risen from the grave and that all will be resurrected because of Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:21 discusses how death came into the world through one man, so resurrection of the dead can also come through one. Unless the "resurrection of the dead" is speaking of a spiritual resurrection (as in Romans 6), the "death" the same passage refers to cannot be spiritual death. The opposite of spiritual death would be spiritual resurrection. The opposite of physical death would be physical resurrection. Since Paul was very painstakingly making the case for the reality of Christ's physical resurrection, the latter contrast seems the correct one for this passage. Thus, Christ's resurrection guarantees the general resurrection of all humanity, but not the spiritual salvation of all humanity.

As much as I would like universalism to be true from a sentimental standpoint, it does not appear that I can believe in it and still affirm the authority of Scripture. That being said, I gladly give this book 5 stars because it makes a remarkably coherent, intelligent, logical and compelling case for universalism. If you will only have one book on the doctrine of Universal Reconciliation from a Christian perspective on your bookshelf, I really believe that this will be the one you want.