Review of The Inescapable Love of God by Thomas Talbott

 

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 hear 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 first 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.