Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T07:04:22.664Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Talbott's universalism, divine justice, and the Atonement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2004

JOHN KRONEN
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, The University of St Thomas, 2115 Summit Avenue, St Paul, MN 55105
ERIC REITAN
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Oklahoma State University, 308 Hanner Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078-5064
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Thomas Talbott has argued that the following propositions are inconsistent: (1) it is God's redemptive purpose for the world (and therefore His will) to reconcile all sinners to Himself; (2) it is within God's power to achieve His redemptive purpose for the world; (3) some sinners will never be reconciled to God, and God will therefore either consign them to a place of eternal punishment, from which there will be no hope of escape, or put them out of existence altogether. In this paper we explore two attempts to reconcile (1)–(3) by appealing to divine justice. We argue that both versions fail for the same reason: in order for the appeal to God's justice to effectively reconcile (1)–(3), the demands of God's retributive justice must be taken to be so exacting that they call forth a very strong doctrine of the Atonement. And such a doctrine of the Atonement removes justice as an impediment to saving all.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press