Talbott's Presentation

[Homer]

Homer, do you give room for a different understanding from yours?

Yes, but depends on what you mean. Do I think the scriptures teach universalism? No, the scenarios presented here concerning reformation in hell I find nowhere in the scriptures.

Is it possible that scripture does NOT "plainly say" the things which you believe.

Yes

Is it possible that you could unwittingly be "shoehorning" it to fit your own preconceived ideas?

Yes, but I try very hard not to do so. When this long discussion on hell began my default position was not an eternal roasting in literal fire, but as many evangelicals believe, an eternal existance totally separated from God. Through the discussion here, and my studies, I see annihilation as equally possible as an understanding of scripture. What seems very clear to me is that there will be a final, irrevocable judgement. As I have studied universalism's scriptural claims, I have become more convinced it is false, not less. Claims of proof of UR, such as the 2 Thess. 4:10, fall apart under close scrutiny.

Is it possible that your strong repugnance of universal reconciliation is based not on what scripture "plainly says"

I have no strong repugnance to UR, it is rather appealing (as false teaching usually is). I simply find no basis for it in scripture and think it is wrong to give false hope to sinners, and to teach something that Jesus and the Apostles never taught.

but upon your feeling that if God were to save all, it wouldn't be fair?

That consideration has no part in my thinking. I understand Ted Bundy repented and became a believer before his execution. If I am found worthy to enter heaven, I will be glad to see him there. That may not seem to be fair (either me or him); Jesus was the One who took unfair part . I may be wrong, but I do not expect to see Hitler there. It would seem he missed the cut-off point for repentance. And fairness has nothing to do with either Bundy or Hitler.

"God has set a day....".

[steve7150]

Here is a pertinent example of what I was referring to earlier - the "it doesn't make sense to me" argument. No reference to or explanation based on scripture. We have seen this over and over ad infinitum from the UR folks. "God is a loser if all aren't saved" and so forth. Starting with a presupposition based on an idea of what God must do or what is "fair" and then shoe horning the scripture to fit that idea yields poor conclusions IMO. And we see it from the homosexual advocates. Scripture rather plainly says something, but that can't be, so fictive "scriptural" arguments are promoted to defend the indefensible. IMO, anyway.









Homer i suspect one of the reasons you reject Calvinism is because it does not make sense to you. Why would God punish folks if he arbitrarily chooses who He will save therefore making it impossible for the unbeliever to ever believe? Tell me your common sense had no weight in your decision to reject Calvinism. BTW i admire how you skillfully wove together UR and homosexuality in your response! Well done!

[jriccitelli]

Calvinism completely ignores 'layers' of biblical doctrine, verse, chapters, and teachings, without even having to implore the lack of sense involved with Calvinism.
Calvinism misinterprets ‘chosen’ ‘elect’ and such, to the total ignorance of choice and freewill, rendering meaningless believe, have faith, repent, love, the Cross itself, who is responsible for sin, and who are the chosen – believers, that is.
I do not abhor Calvinism because it does not ‘make sense’, it is because it denies biblical mandates and principles laid out in volumes of scripture. That sounds familiar...

[steve7150]

I do not abhor Calvinism because it does not ‘make sense’, it is because it denies biblical mandates and principles laid out in volumes of scripture.

User avatar
jriccitelli






.
However you did use the word "abhor" instead of "disbelieve" and abhor is an emotional rejection of something which may be related to the injustice of Calvinism which one can deduce from the fact that it doesn't make sense with justice or God's character.

[jriccitelli]

I thought my King James was haunting me, but abhor is also there in the NASB and ESV.
It is false – therefore I abhor it.
(As opposed to ‘I don’t understand it, or I don’t like it, therefore I abhor it’)

My abhorrence of it comes from the fact that it is in opposition to plain biblical doctrine, in opposition to Gods Word; falsehood should be an abhorrence to a believer;
‘Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good’ (Rom 12:9)
‘I hate and abhor falsehood, but I love your law’ (Psalm 119:163)
‘You destroy those who speak falsehood; The LORD abhors the man of bloodshed and deceit’ (Psalm 5:6)

[Paidion]

The NASB and the ESV (as well as the RSV from which it arose) are my favourite translations. I find that the New Testament in all 3 translations are true to the older Greek manuscripts, and the papyri, such as papyus 46 and papyrus 66 from the days of early Christianity from which they were translated. I am privileged to possess transcripts of all extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament prior to 300 A.D.

Of course, if you insist that the Greek texts from which the AV is translated are the "true original" texts, then you will disagree.

I would like to refer you to examples of how copyists of the latter group of manuscripts (which originate from "textus receptus" or similar texts) or perhaps persons or church leaders who have influenced those copyists, have altered the texts to fit their doctrines, or to "correct" the texts to make them agree with each other. This is a study which I undertook several years ago and then shared on Theos.

Late Textual Tradition? Or Early Manuscripts

[jriccitelli]

... copyists, have altered the texts to fit their doctrines, or to "correct" the texts to make them agree with each other. This is a study which I undertook several years ago and then shared on Theos.

I am glad the NASB and the ESV are your favorites, I keep a Received text interlinear open also. How do I know you aren’t the one ‘correcting’ the texts? Many things I have read of yours incorporate your own ‘preconceived ideas’ (see your accusation of Homer pg.6. Apr10).

Is it possible that your strong repugnance of universal reconciliation is based not on what scripture "plainly says" (pg.6 Apr10)

If I see way too many leaps of thought, and emotional resistance (to hell, and sacrifices, etc), while you debate in English, why should I trust your interpretation of Greek? And how did your post have anything to do with the debate on Abhor, Death, Talbot, or Universalism
(I don't think the word abhor, detest, or the Hebrew word for hate שָׂנֵא is debatable, do you?)