Comments due by 11:59pm Saturday, November 23, 2013.
You have read Thomas Talbott's essay "No Hell" for class. Here I want you to critically evaluate the two lines of reasoning he offers to show that appeals to human freedom do not work as a defense of eternal hell. The first line of reasoning refers to the limits of possible freedom. The second line of reasoning refers to the limits of permissible freedom.
What do you make of those lines of reasoning? Does Talbott present a plausible case against a doctrine of eternal hell? Why or why not?
Press each other here. Demand reasons. And as always, be gracious, charitable, and humble. Learn from one another.
These lines are compelling but I feel that if the bible teaches about hell and how it is eternal it is just to hard to go against it. His case is plausible just because of the idea of God being all loving and all perfect and if he is both of those he won't allow anyone to suffer for eternity and save them and bring them to heaven. It is plausible but I just feel that he is not right behind what he says because of the bible and what it teaches.
ReplyDeleteNathan Schutz
I personally feel that both lines are in fact enthralling however I don't completely agree with Talbott's claims. When considering them both and the ideology of hell I feel that they exclude the educational factor the bible gives us about hell and how that our God wouldn't allow us to go to hell because of how loving he is. The bible is not only educating us about hell but it is warning us about it. In order to beware of a certain situation or caution we have to be cognitively aware of it and learn of it. If we had no knowledge of hell then how is one suppose to understand the claim Talbott is tying to make (If God is all loving and perfect then he would never let anyone suffer in hell)? If we think about it, if God allowed everyone into to heaven (faith or no faith) then it would take away the value of the idea about having faith or believing. In order to get into heaven we must believe in God and if we choose not to then we bring the punishment of hell upon ourselves because we have the choice of free will and the choice to believe in God. With after action or choice we make there will be a consequence, whether is rewarding or punishing. I personally don't believe that his claim in completely plausible. Its
ReplyDeleteI should begin by saying that reading Talbott's thought process is rather infuriating for me. First and foremost is his example with the child and the fire. In this instance, he deliberately uses a child which infers that the "sinner or wrong-doer" is a baby deer caught in the head lights of sin and once made known of the consequences will surely jump right out of the fire. If the sinner does not then the only two logical explanations is that they are under some sort of illusion or are not in the right frame of mind, both of which inhibit freedom. This is absolutely true, but only in the circumstance that the sinner is a blameless child who happens to stick his hand into fire.
ReplyDeleteThis is not the case at all. The "sinner" or non Christian will openly deny God. Even if this is a decision made upon false evidence or an illusion, it is one that the person willingly entertains. Unless this person is never allowed to hear about the Christian doctrine, then it is upon that person, (lest they have some mental illness, disability or just cause for not seeking out God earnestly), to seek out God earnestly.
Talbott also makes another point when he says "Once one has learned, perhaps through bitter experience, that evil is always destructive, always contrary to one's own interests as well as to the interest of others, and once one sees clearly that God is the ultimate source of human happiness and that rebellion can bring only greater and greater misery into one's own life as well as the lives of others, an intelligible motive for such rebellion no longer seems even possible." To this I say, correct, which is why there seem to be a lot of avid Christians, but this does not expel the idea that people can still reject God. I say this because the only point at which someone "sees clearly that God is the ultimate source of human happiness", is after the fact. This only can happen in Hell. If hell exists, then it is likely that there is no repentance there. So the only time that a rejection seems illogical, is when the rejection happens in hell.
I'm in congruence with Talbott. I think he makes an compelling case. I've always felt that freedom is essential however, if the harm is irreparable then prevention of such action is of paramount. As Talbott described in the article about the Child & fire. In reality sensible parents will instinctively interfere with cases of this nature, instead of turning away from it for the sake of preservation of free choice of their children. Of course I am speaking of more serious cases such as suicide not just playing with fire, for that I am aware of the disciplinary strategy-learning it the hard way.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, Talbott presents a valid rationale that no intelligible being would choose evil over happiness without the eventual realization of one's sin, harm to oneself and others, thereby abandoning one's rebellious attitude.
It is in my view that no one is truly free, Talbott had touched on this and i concur. Absolute freedom is overrated not to mention lethal in certain situations.
Emi
While I see Tallbotts point I am still not buying into the concept that “all sill be redeemed”. While I do look at the side of this by asking what about children and those who have never or never will be told about a personal relationship with Christ, how do we justify that variable when one looks into the idea of eternal hell.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing more troubling than of “if you don’t know, you don’t know” when looking at eternal hell. Therefore, while people of faith spend large amounts of valuable time and energy others are perishing. So, as persons of faith are we not missing the mark when we are trying to figure out who will and who will not be in eternity? Are we not commissioned and commanded by Christ Himself to go and tell other about Christ?
This is a matter that goes way beyond doing good or doing bad, it is an issue about eternity and that we each have a part in sharing the Gospel with others and by debating and arguing we are wasting such precious, valuable time.
This all leads me to the words of a Fanny Crosby Hymn which states-
Rescue the perishing, care for the dying,
Snatch them in pity from sin and the grave;
Weep o’er the erring one, lift up the fallen,
Tell them of Jesus, the mighty to save. Refrain:
Rescue the perishing, care for the dying,
Jesus is merciful, Jesus will save.
Though they are slighting Him, still He is waiting,
Waiting the penitent child to receive;
Plead with them earnestly, plead with them gently;
He will forgive if they only believe.
Down in the human heart, crushed by the tempter,
Feelings lie buried that grace can restore;
Touched by a loving heart, wakened by kindness,
Chords that were broken will vibrate once more.
Rescue the perishing, duty demands it;
Strength for thy labor the Lord will provide;
Back to the narrow way patiently win them;
Tell the poor wand’rer a Savior has died.
While reading Talbott's argument "No Hell" I began to kind of wish that this was actually the case. Since we are all born into sin we can not help but to live our lives with sin in it. Luckily for us Jesus came to earth and lived a perfect life and died on the cross so that we could be forgiven. We are forgiven if we believe in God and take him as our Lord and savior and ask him of forgiveness. But all of the people that do not take him as there savior and ask of his forgiveness are sent to an eternal hell. They seem to have gotten what they asked for because they denied God their entire life and then end up paying the price of not getting to spend eternity with God, but to spend eternity in hell.
ReplyDeleteTalbott points out that he agrees with people entering hell, but because of Gods love they can eventually all be saved. Now this actually seems like a pretty sweet deal for all of the nonbelievers and all of the people that never had a chance to have a relationship with God. This also seems like it would be nice for any backsliders that just seem to not be on the right track with God. They would all go to hell and pay the price of suffering and eventually be reconciled back to God and go to heaven.
But the problem with that is...It goes against the bible. The bible clearly states that living your life away from God will result in eternal hell."Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matthew 25:46). It also seems unfair to all of the people who did choose to live for God and did believe in him and ask of his forgiveness. So overall I think that Talbott brings up a point that would seems plausible to a someone away from God, but false to someone that is living for God and believing what the bible says.
Elliott Westerbeck
I find two flaws in the argument.
ReplyDeleteFirst, to claim that Universalism preserves freedom is problematic. If we're using freewill to explain a reason for all the pain and evil in the world, and everyone is going to be saved in the end, then why would God have given us free will that can cause such pain.
Second, to suggest that people don't choose to do something self-destructive if they are fully aware of their best interests is not realistic. Suicide happens, and while Talbott refutes this, people know the negative effects of smoking, drug abuse, and overeating and still do all of those things. I'm pretty sure the nature of hell is that we choose something that isn't what is the best for us but we would be doing it because it is better than to surrender our will to God.
I feel like both arguments are not flawless and that free will does not cause pain and suffering in the world and if God knew that it would cause it then he would not have given us freewill. Freewill gives us the power to make our choices and most choice gives us happiness and allow us to choose to have a healthy relationship with God if we feel that we can have one with him.
ReplyDeleteFor Talbott to exclaim that humans will not choose something that will harm themselves or others if they are aware of their best interest is not true. Some people feel that they know what will happen when they do things but they still do it like smoking or they still commit suicide because they feel that is the best choice for them instead of wanting God to take their lives in his hands.
Ashley Davies
I my views, everyone does possess free will or we would all be robots. If God does exist, why would there not be punishment for those who deny God all their lives? Why do they deserve to go to heaven? I totally agree with Tyler on this matter. We are given choices and those who still chose to do the wrong thing will suffer the consequences. Plain and simple.
ReplyDeleteVictoria Players