The Inescapable Love of God: Second Edition

The Inescapable Love of God by Thomas Talbott is an excellent book and I heartily recommend it to all Christians – in fact, to all non-Christians too. I have been fascinated with the topic of universal salvation for the past few years. Of course, you often here the cries of heresy and even more frustratingly the idea that universalism is some fringe doctrine that we shouldn’t spend much time on—there are more pressing issues. But what could be more important than the ultimate and eternal fate of the souls of all the creatures of God? It’s hard for me to imagine something more important, especially since this reveals the character of the God we believe in. Anyways, this book must definitely be on the reading list of all those who think the demonic picture of God that has prevailed in the Church gives one pause. Talbott writes well and makes complex philosophical arguments palatable for the uninitiated – no mean feat.The overarching idea that runs throughout the text is the idea that Paul taught that God’s grace is ultimately irresistible in the long run. We can resist him for a time, but eventually this very resistance becomes a source of grace. It seems like this is one of the points of divergence in the tradition. People like St. John Damascene, St. Augustine, etc. believed that when people reach rock bottom there is no coming back and you are doomed forever whereas people like Origen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, etc. believed that this rock bottom is precisely where things get interesting and grace overflows. In fact, I’d add St. Paul here since he said that where sin abounds grace abounds much more (Rom 5:20). I don’t think Talbott’s defense of this issue in itself is an ironclad proof, but it makes sense, especially in light of his other arguments.In the first part of the book he gives some personal information relating to his journey from a Christian to nearly being an atheist due to a crisis of faith and then ultimately rejecting infernalism for universalism. He was brought there, like so many of us, in part due to George MacDonald’s luminous writings on the subject. He also shows just how appallingly bad the traditional arguments are for infernalism. In fact, when I discuss this topic with friends the number one reason I get for believing in infernalism is due to the reverence of saints who believed in it. I was floored to see this--- I am Eastern Orthodox, so of course, I believe in venerating saints but I still agree with Aristotle when he said “We love Plato--- but we love the truth more.” He also shows the legacy that such fear leads to – widespread carnage due to viewing heresy as a worse crime than murder because it kills the soul rather than just the body. I agree with him that sound doctrine, soundly interpreted bears good and not evil fruit, so when Augustine decided to use force on the Donatists to bring them back into the church (Correction of the Donatists 22-23) and that we all deserve damnation (Enchiridion 98-99) rational people should’ve doubted these conclusions. As Talbott is a protestant I think he goes a little too far in his critique of the institutional church, but overall I heartily agree with most of what he said here, especially his grasping of the Platonic intuition that we know something is true if it is beautiful.Part II consists of chapters 4-7 and is, in my opinion the best part of the entire book. Talbott here spends most of his time on biblical exegesis that will make so you will never read the NT the same way again. He starts off by introducing an idea that runs throughout the whole text that there are 3 basic pictures of God in Christianity (although of course these morph into dozens or even thousands of different schools). The Augustinians ultimately believe that God doesn’t desire the salvation of all. The Arminians ultimately believe that God doesn’t always get what he wants. Universalists ultimately believe that God does desire the salvation of all and is powerful enough to accomplish it. One of the biggest epiphanies that Talbott convinced me of is that the infernalists do not have a monopoly on exegesis. There are texts for each of the 3 major positions that support and cast doubt on them, prima facie. So we all interpret some verses in light of others. Infernalists make certain “hell texts” normative (Mt 25:46, 2 Thess 1:9, Eph 5:5) and universalists make others like 1 Jn 4:16 and 1 Tim 2:4 normative. In general, there seems to be no reason why to prefer one to the other except that the universalist position is not only more beautiful and “worthy of God” it has the added benefit of making more sense. Another of the most illuminating insights that Talbott leaves the reader with is that most of the bad exegesis in Church history is due to lack of imagination abetted by fear. I can personally attest to this and realized it more once he said it. Many conversations I’ve had with people since I’ve read this book, I’ve shown the problems with their logic and the responses I’ve gotten back reflect their fear and inability to see something further than their own experience. I won’t explain all his interpretations, you’ll have to get the book for that, but they are all convincing to me and very well thought out. Some highlights are his counter to the parallelism argument in Mt 25 and how he shows Paul argued that God hardens our hearts as an expression of mercy in Rom 9-11.Part 3 comprises chapters 8-13 and is a much more philosophical part of the book, although it would be erroneous to say the book is neatly compartmentalized like that. He firsts brings up the very important point that no person is an island unto themselves. As Fr. Zosima said in Brothers Karamazov unless you love all of God’s creation, you won’t understand the divine mystery in things. More importantly we can never be truly happy while one of us is unhappy—we are all connected. This is one of those truths that is definitely hard to see in this world darkened by sin and death, but if you see it you can’t unsee it. He then convincingly shows that, per George MacDonald, justice and mercy are not separate, distinct attributes in God, but are one. The huge insight here is that justice for the creature is reconciliation since that is the only thing that truly cancels sin and forgiveness is the only way this is achieved.Chapters 10 and 11 are probably the densest in the book and the parts I liked least, but that may just be due to my adherence to the more ancient Platonic understanding of the concepts talked about here. Talk of middle knowledge, possible worlds, libertarian freedom etc. are foreign to me and to the tradition to which I subscribe but getting out of your comfort zone is good. I also think libertarian freedom is ultimately incoherent, and I’m still not sure whether Talbott does or not, but it is clear that he favors the classical (intellectualist) view. The biggest insight I gained here is that it seems the best explanation we have for the problem of evil is that there must be an initial separation we need to overcome and not even God could have it any other way. I admit that this is the best defense against the problem of evil, but I’m not sure it’s entirely convincing. This doesn’t reflect badly on Talbott though, I don’t think any of us will know the answer to this riddle until we are ensconced in the peace of the Kingdom to come.Next, he shows the futility of the free will defense of hell that is prevalent now due to our less calloused hearts but shows that it is a fiction. This part is really good, and I think a devastating critique of the most popular defense of ECT on offer today. The biggest problem is that it goes directly against the revealed testimony of the NT in regard to hell – it obviously isn’t shown as a place we freely choose – we are held there against our will. He also brings up his interpretation of the lake of fire and the outer darkness – which is basically George MacDonald 101, but is explained very well. The final chapter deals with the problem of how suffering is seemingly approved of in the NT and the objective reality that suffering is NOT good at all. He ends on the note of hope, but not a hope in terms of wishful thinking, but a patient waiting for what we know to be true to finally occur.Talbott’s book is a necessary collection for the universalist or even the universalist critic. It is well researched, well written and organized and it makes for a devastating case against “traditional” eschatological views. The only problems I had with it were its cavalier attitude toward Tradition in the main and Talbott’s adherence to analytic philosophy – but that is how he was trained and just because something is foreign to me does not make it wrong. Once you read this book you will never be able to read the NT the same way, and this book may just bring you a joy you hadn’t had before and your perseverance in the faith will definitely be strengthened. Final note: Talbott is to be commended for his irenic and conciliatory tone throughout – this is increasingly rare in a dogmatically polarized age. I highly recommend 9/10.

I could probably write a book of my own about this book.Since I was small, I had the idea in my head that the church at large did not make sense. I remember thinking as early as ten that the ideas heard from the weekly pulpit did not always fit together; I did not yet have the words to articulate my doubts, nor did I have the supporting material to challenge the ideas that I felt to be inconsistent and wrong in an intelligent and cohesive fashion.My decision in my early years was this; accept the premise that had quietly presented itself in my heart and mind - that is, that the church at large was wrong; about hell, about God, about justice and judgement, about what real victory is, what it would look like - and patiently await the day when the Lord would reveal more to me about this most critical of topics, that is, just how far the love of God Almighty extends.Years went by, and as bad things happened to people I knew - some people bad, some people good, better than me, to be sure - I found myself wondering at the coldness of the church. A person dies, and the church ceased to care. A friend of mine lost his sister to suicide - only after she killed herself did he learn the torment she had endured for years without anyone knowing, the cruelty and misuse - and in his grief he turned to the church, and the church gave him no hope - she was lost to us, gone forever, suicide was not a sin that was pardonable. His grief turned to rage at the emptiness of the 'good news' they presented to him - good news for those that were wise enough / 'good' enough to turn and accept in a timely fashion this offer of 'escape' from judgement, and he forsook the church, and perhaps God, for a season. I don't know, he vanished from our lives and no one in our circle ever heard from him again.I was struck at the weakness of the church's message in this most critical time - at this lowest of points in a person's life. Here we had a soul who saw no hope for relief from torment but death - and the church tells us, that unfortunate soul has now found itself in torment far greater than what they had previously endured here on this earth, and indeed, inflicted by the One that we all say, but (and this is critical) not all of us actually *believe* loves us more than any other, or all others combined, to literally no end. I felt helpless - I knew this could not be right, could not possibly be right, for how on earth could this be thought of as just, fair, or loving? The church, though, whether through callousness, or from fear of an incapacity to adequately defend their position, had not much to say, as they have not for a couple of thousand years.I buried my anger for a while longer, but it burned hot within me, and periodically that anger would come blazing to life as years went by. Midway through my thirtieth year in 2016, matters came to a head as my love for mankind in general crystallized into a fixed idea - it was impossible for me to be content with the salvation of only a few, or half, or even a sizable supermajority of the race. For in my heart, I knew that as much as I loved a family member who was seemingly apostate, or a friend whose religious beliefs made no sense at all, they, too, loved someone as much as I loved them, and they, in turn, would be in the position I had been in previously, if indeed they were saved at some point in their life. What of those who had gone before? What of their loved ones who had died before accepting the Good News?Could they actually accept Christ fully, freely, and passionately, knowing that the window for their friend or family was now closed, and only deathless torment or final oblivion awaited them, and the rest of the race, the elect, the lucky few, the chosen, whichever phrase one would wish to use to describe them... would go on to joy and bliss, forgetting all about the person they had cared about so deeply, so that ten trillion trillion years from now, our joy was undiminished, as their lost one burned alone in hell, with no one to care for or comfort them?The answer is, of course, obvious. It is obvious to all mankind.If I were to tell you that I love you, but if you do not change your ways by this point in time, that I will cease to love you and abandon you to your torment with, let us be honest, not very much emotion or care (ever shown by any in the church who continue to espouse this wicked dark ages idea), you would rightly say to me that I never loved you at all, and I (if I were to be honest) would nod stiffly and confess that the whole love idea was rather perfunctory at the end of the day.So it is with our Lord. Fallen men - some with good intentions, some with only apathy and pride, much like the Pharisees of yesteryear - would then defend the idea of our Lord pushing uncountable number of our brothers and sisters to an end that would make Satan wild with glee as righteousness beyond our comprehension, as His ways are higher than our ways. This last part, I grant - noting with dark humor and not a small tinge of anger, that this particular verse, so often quoted by men who think themselves to be defending the Lord's good name, but are in fact dragging it through the mud and muck of human depravity, was spoken by our God in a chapter and verse illustrating God's *mercy*.The stress finally got to me and I had something of a nervous breakdown, with angry tirades at the rest of the church, broken weeping at the fear that they might yet be right, renewed wrath that the church did not *share* this weeping fear whenever they spoke of this idea that was not good news, but was in fact the worst news possible for anyone who claims to love their fellow man - and I begged the Lord to move me to the next stage of the thinking that had taken hold since my childhood, and that had kept me sane for twenty years.The next several months were horrifically stressful, and I do not exaggerate when I say that many days I woke up with a fearful, aching pain in my chest, worried where my new studies would take me. Verse after verse, one concordance and commentary after another, and all I ever saw was what seemed to me to be cowardice - overly pious nonsense written by men who feigned righteousness and purity, but who in fact did not at all love the Lord - *they were terrified of him*, and refused to speak or engage honestly and passionately with the very real - and *better* - aspect of ourselves, that spark of the Lord, that said *this was no good end*, and blithe acceptance of it was travesty and disloyalty to our King, our Cause, and our race.I then happened upon some resources that seemed to me to at long last acknowledge the fear I felt for those of our race not as fortunate as we, the elect (and renewed my dogged determination that the meaning of being one of the elect was a position of honor for a cause far greater than simple *escape from Judgement*) - it began with a pamphlet by Grace Communion International, which can be found on their website (and is recommended for those who are asking these same questions. Next I found myself at Tentmaker's website, a resource that made me stand bolt upright and roar in approval. I then read Christ Triumphant by Thomas Allin, and Love's Final Ultimate Victory on the Basis of Scripture and Reason, by a writer known only to me as Horatio, and my determination had turned to mirthful obsession; here at last were thinkers who felt as I did, who felt that love could not possibly stop where the church dogma, weak, ineffectual, robbed of the power of the glorious Gospel, said that it did.Finally I came across this book, and each chapter in succession satisfied all the conditions I had set before myself - emotion, rationality, logic, and that most important aspect of Christian thinking that has long gone forgotten - *consistency*.I cannot recommend this book enough. I cannot thank Mr. Talbott sufficiently for writing it, though if ever I have the chance to meet him, I will gleefully buy him and his a feast at their restaurant of choice - and should Mr. Talbott ever be reading this, *I freakin' mean that*.To my comrades and fellow soldiers in Christ who want a fight worth fighting, who seek an end sufficiently glorious for the King we revere, I say to you, *do not ever let go of that conviction*. Embrace it, internalize it, and stride forth boldly *without fear*, for our King is indeed perfect love and he has cast fear out, forever and ever.The fight is already won, and our fears were always groundless. Cry if you need to - I did, our Lord did, and there is no shame in it. There is only shame in *not* weeping - if we are to follow our Lord perfectly, we must love as He loves, and His love *hurts* Him sometimes.Grace and peace and joy unending to all who read this. (o.O)> Eternal and undying thanks to our Lord who loves us enough to have the truth ready for us in its right season, and for being kind enough to let us simmer in thought and doubt long enough to perfectly enrich that glorious moment when the truth is revealed *and the heavens sing for joy*.

I wanted to love this book. I bought it because I wanted to be inspired by the inescapable love of God. I actually didn't finish it because there are far better and more inspiring Christian universalist books to read. It was just a bit boring! The subject is inspiring but the writing dull.

This is probably the best book I have ever read. Beautifully written, clearly and rigorously argued, gracious, even-handed and scriptural to a fault, I really can't praise it highly enough. As someone who would classify himself, to steal Ian Hislop's quaintly honest description, as a "failed agnostic", I have found Thomas Talbott's treatise on the inexorable, all-conquering love of God an immense help on my journey through life, and into the complexities of the Christian faith.Talbott, a retired professor of philosophy, effortlessly gives the lie to the absurd notion seemingly very popular among the current vocal advocates of the "new atheism" that only stupid people believe in God. There is a razor sharp intellect at work in this book, one that, I humbly submit, would run rings around the likes of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, were they foolish enough to engage Talbott on his "home turf", ie the philosophy of religion.Not that Talbott seeks to engage with atheism on philosophical or rational grounds in this book (although he is clear on the rational basis for his own faith). Rather, he seeks instead to address what in my opinion is a far bigger threat to the Christian faith and its acceptance in modern society - the fact that so many professing Christians seem to believe in a God of fear, a God who either annihilates or (worse) punishes unbelievers eternally. Using carefully elucidated and profoundly Biblical arguments, drawn in large part from the writings of the apostle Paul, Talbott demonstrates both the scriptural and logical absurdities of the "orthodox" arguments against Universalism, ie the doctrine that all created persons will one day be reconciled with God in glory.His central thesis - what has come to be known as the "Talbott Triad" - is both beautifully simple and a triumph of logic. Indeed, it is so easy to grasp that I can't see how anybody who professes to view the Bible as the inspired word of God can deny its truth. Very briefly, it is this: the Bible appears to teach a set of three inconsistent propositions - 1) God sincerely desires, or wills, the ultimate salvation of every single human being; 2) God is omnipotent, and is thus able to bring about everything he wills in the end; and 3) some people will nevertheless be eternally lost, or "damned" to use traditional terminology. Logically, therefore, either one or more of these propositions is false, or the Bible is just plain inconsistent in its teaching. Assuming that you believe (and of course this is a matter of faith, as is Christian belief as a whole) the Bible is not ultimately inconsistent, which proposition do you deny? Talbott shows, beyond all reasonable doubt in my opinion, that the Biblical warrant for propositions 1 and 2 is overwhelming, and that for proposition 3 largely illusory, and based in the main on poor translations and weak, incoherent exegesis.As the theologically minded will know, proposition 1) is basically Arminianism, and 2) Calvinism (or Augustinianism if you will). Neither is considered heretical by the orthodox church, although Arminianism is far more prevalent these days. But curiously, if you simply combine proposition 1) with proposition 2) you necessarily get Universalism, which is considered heretical! Go, as they say, figure ...There is more, much more. In fact, the chapter on theodicy - the seeming paradox between an omnipotent and benevolent God and the existence of evil - is almost worth the purchase price on its own.Thomas Talbott is right up there with George MacDonald as my theological hero. I can't thank him enough for his wonderful book, which exposes and refutes utterly the wicked and terribly damaging lie of "eternal damnation". As if a God of love, a God who, as the New Testament clearly states "is love", could ever damn anybody eternally! Shame on any Christian who can believe such a thing of the God of all truth - or to be fair, could go on believing such a thing after reading this book. Because of course, as I have alluded to above, Arminianism is the reigning "plausibility structure" of the modern western church. It takes not a little guts, prayerful reflection and, may I be bold as to suggest, inspiration to shake it off and get to the real truth of Univeralism. But rest assured it can be done; I myself used to hold an essentially Arminian view of scripture, because I was brought up that way. Everybody - my loving parents, my pastor, all the Christian authors and theologians I read - just took it for granted that some people would end up in hell. But this is, quite simply, rubbish. And Thomas Talbott will show you why.

When considering anything one decides to believe, what do we do, sometimes we simply trust someone else, someone we think can be or should be trusted, but what we should do is compare all the evidence, come at the subject from all sides, we shouldn't ignore some evidence, if it is evidence we should see how it fits, like a jigsaw puzzle we may not be able to fit the piece right now, but don't forget it existsThomas Talbott puts everything on the table, and shows by scriptural evidence why certain thinking can't be right unless you choose to leave out scriptures which don't fit your view or twist their meaning - of course nay sayers may say that this is precisely what Thomas does but Thomas studies the scripture itself the original language and acknowledges the Prima facie evidence for all views but he then drills down and shows how only a universalist view truly fits all scripture.The early church actions and edicts often showed that they didn't believe what is commonly held up as truth eitherGod's love is Inescapable, because God does everything necessary to ensure "thy will be done..." God's love is unconditional because Love is God is Love, God will draw all to the firstborn and the firstborn will ultimately be subject to God that God may be all in all

I really enjoyed this book. Probably the best book I've read so far explaining universalism and very clear and in depth I might add. Some real food for thought.

Well argued, well written. This book and "The Evangelical Universalist" complement one another.