The Inescapable Love of God

by Thomas Talbott

Will the love of God save us all? In this book Thomas Talbott seeks to expose the extent to which the Western theological tradition has managed to twist the New Testament message of love, forgiveness, and hope into a message of fear and guilt. According to the New Testament proclamation, he argues, God's love is both unconditional in its nature and unlimited in its scope; hence, no one need fear, for example, that God's love might suddenly turn into loveless hatred at the moment of one's physical death. For God's love remains the same yesterday, today, and forever. But neither should one ignore the New Testament theme of divine judgment, which Talbott thinks the Western theological tradition has misunderstood entirely. He argues in particular that certain patterns of fallacious reasoning, which crop up repeatedly in the works of various theologians and Bible scholars, have prevented many from appreciating St. Paul's explicit teaching that God is merciful to all in the end. This second edition of Talbott's classic work is fully revised, updated, and substantially expanded with new material.

Genres: Theology, Christianity, Religion, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Spirituality, Faith

254 pages, Paperback

First published October 1, 1999

About the author

After 34 years of teaching philosophy at Willamette University in Salem, Oregon, I retired from full-time teaching in 2006. My principal area of interest and the area in which I have done most of my own writing is philosophy of religion--which, of course, overlaps with metaphysics, epistemology, moral philosophy, philosophy of mind, and virtually every other area of philosophy.

See also my Willamette University website for more details and for further information on my publications and various other writings.

Reviews

[Alan Bradley · Rating 5 out of 5]

The "Inescapable Love of God," by Christian philosopher and California university professor Thomas Talbott, is a solid treatment on the subject of 'ultimate reconciliation' or Christian universalism - the belief that in time, over the 'aions' (eons = ages) - whether on this side of death or the other - ALL people - past, present, and future - will eventually be saved or reconciled to God. After all, the Bible does say that in the end, "Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." [There are many, many other "ALL" statements in the Bible about salvation and God's 'reach' - feel free to look them up yourselves]. Christian universalists believe that even after great duress and after great chastisement, if necessary, the most wicked and hard-hearted will eventually and finally accept God - come to belief in His Son - and do so willingly. But universalists recognize that this acceptance/repentance can happen even AFTER one dies, though exactly how and when is not knowable for us on this side of the veil.

Talbott's book is both scholarly and accessible to the average, every day reader. Again, 'Christian universalism' is the belief that, although for the unbeliever there does await after death an experience of painful chastisement and it is not something anyone would knowingly want to suffer, it does have a Godly purpose (remedial, corrective, purifying) rooted in God's love for us and it is not, contrary to popular belief, forever (though it may very well feel like forever). Some people are under the mistaken impression that Christian universalism is the belief that there is no 'hell' or 'Hades'. This is not correct. Also what is incorrect is the mistaken belief stemming from many (not all) of today's English Bible translations' use of the Greek word 'aionion' was correctly transposed by later Bible translators as meaning 'eternal' and that the word 'eternal' (from the Latin 'aeternus') means forever, endless, infinitely. Whether 'aionion' from the Greek or 'aeternus' form the Latin, the word incorrectly translated as 'eternal' does not mean 'forever' in either case. And although there is a TON of scholarly treatments on this subject alone (be prepared to 'go deep' on the subject or don't go at all!) - the meaning of the Greek words aion, aionion, etc. - the reader can go into all that on their own, and I would recommend it if you believe in 'unending torment' as I once mistakenly did. Anyway, Talbott's book amply covers that subject, as well.

I HIGHLY recommend this book as well as Gerry Beauchemin's book on the same topic,
"Hope Beyond Hell." Although I was never really satisfied with the faulty 'endless/forever' translation and use of the word 'eternal' where it often should not have been used in the Bible - the Greek, Latin, and English Bibles were translated by men who, being flawed humans, did not have complete access to ALL (or as much) of the ancient linguistic information we now do - and, to be honest, some of them had 'less than honorable' agendas, or at least beliefs that were slightly skewed/flawed/biased. Sadly, because of the Bible mistranslations and much of the church's sometimes schizophrenic or abusive teaching on this serious subject, it has caused much confusion and unnecessary pain and fear for many people over the millennia.

But universalism was the basic belief and teaching of the vast majority of Christians up to about the 4th and 5th centuries AD. You would be surprised how many well-known and respected Christian teachers/writers/preachers over the centuries were actually universalists, but unfortunately, you don't hear a lot about that these days. Their voices were drowned out by the more powerful, it seems.

For myself, for several years, I have been unsatisfied and somewhat ambivalent about the commonly accepted teaching on a forever, endless hell fire. But in recent months, I have had a change of heart and mind and it has really been a much welcomed life changer! God is LOVE, just as the Bible says. To be clear, like all classic Christian universalists, and as the Bible teaches, I DO believe there DOES await an unimaginably UNpleasant experience of separation from God - popularly called 'hell' in English - for anyone who, despite being lovingly informed to the contrary while on earth, has still rejected or even hated God and His loving offer in his son Jesus Christ, regardless. But this choice of destination is OURS, not God's choice for us. And as Jesus said of those who are sent there, "I assure you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny."

But, only by God's grace and the help of a couple of good Christian friends, I've come to now understand that, as horrific as that place/experience will surely be for the unbeliever or God-hater - and no one should ever WANT to go there and experience it, at least there IS a 'last penny,' there is an end to it.

In John's Revelation of Jesus Christ, it is written that Jesus 'holds the keys to death and Hades' and it is Jesus who will destroy them BOTH in the end (and if there will eventually be no more death and no more hell, where will all those who have been in hell go or be? The answer: with the Lord forever) But until then, the 'hell' experience is allowed to teach us - because many of us will need to be taught - that God truly IS love and that he IS - and always has been - our very Life and Source, which is a truth we stubbornly may not have believed while living our short lives here on earth. How long is hell? The Bible is not not clear and I think this is deliberate. The Greek word 'aion' and 'aionian' always refer to time (not a timeless, endless 'now' as is mistakenly believed). The 'time,' so to speak, will likely be different for each person, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Call me a heretic, if you wish, but I am a Christian universalist and am never going back. ;)

Talbott's book is excellent. As a brilliant and seasoned philosopher of faith, he uses syllogism to devastating effect showing how both the Calvinist and the Arminian positions are false, leaving only the universalist position as the true. As Talbott illustrates, the Calvinist believes God is sovereign and all powerful, thus he CAN save everyone if he wants to, but for some reason chooses not to. The Arminian, on the other hand, believes God is ALL loving and desires everyone to be saved, but he is not powerful enough to do so! Thus, the Calvinist God is powerful but mean-hearted, saving only some and letting the rest go to hell 'forever.' The Arminian God is all loving and desires only our good - the good of all people - but he is too weak to bring salvation about for everyone. However, the universalist position shows scripturally God to be both ALL powerful and ALL loving - He loves ALL people and will bring EVERYONE to salvation, over the course of time, whether on this side of the veil of death or the other side. Yet he is just, fair, and impartial, i.e., there is the classic and oft-quoted example of the evil Adolf Hitler, for instance: yes, even he, too, will eventually be granted salvation, but not without first undergoing unimaginable sufferings in 'Hades' for his crimes. For how long and what that is like for him, we cannot know - we can only imagine. But we must all remember that we are ALL sinners and our sin - any sin - is an 'abominable stench in the nostrils of God,' to use an ancient analogy from scripture. NONE of us deserves heaven or endless life in God in our own merits, but may only gain it by the merits and accomplished work of the Son of God and his sacrifice on the cross for us all. God really IS love. Love is essential to His very nature. It's who He is. 'God is love' (1 JN 4:16) is not just a 'nice saying.' If the universalist position is false, as many Christians believe today, it means that the God-created Adam and his sin was more powerful than the Son of God - God in the flesh - and his saving work for us on the cross. I simply don't believe that. Do you?

Lastly, I have gained a new understanding of Jesus' warning: "Judge not, lest you also be judged. For the measure with which you judge shall be used to against you." Here the Greek shows 'judge' to mean 'condemn.' So, do not condemn others. For no matter how long it takes and how we may eventually get there, we will ALL end up in the same place, with the Lord God through Christ Jesus, for "there is no other way by which men may be saved." And many of who think they are going to heaven may not be, at least at first. Therefore, do not condemn others but also take careful heed to the Lord's warnings - as well as encouragements - about the afterlife. It is a serious matter, more serious than we may know. Also, the parable about the vineyard and the workers going out at the 6th hour, 9th hour, etc. in Matthew 20 has a new meaning to me now. I have a very interesting and surprising understanding of that parable now. Many other verses have taken on a whole new meaning and new life. Very exciting, very encouraging!

[Jack Foster · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kant wrote of Hume: "He [Hume] awakened me [Kant] from my dogmatic slumber. Talbott awakened me from my dogmatic tempest. Other than the Bible, this has been the most important work I have ever read in any genre or discipline.

[Ali · Rating 5 out of 5]

Universal reconciliation is something I've believed, on some level, since I was very young - though until lately, the exegetical argument for it hadn't ever been proposed to me in full (and I guess I'd never gone looking for it, being satisfied for awhile with the philosophical one). C.S. Lewis's The Great Divorce was my first exposure to the idea, and remains, IMO, one of the best depictions I've seen of not only human nature, but also the way a God of love must necessarily shatter our illusions, over and over, for our own benefit - no matter how many times we try to pick up the pieces of those same illusions and rebuild them in self-defense. He doesn't give up. (Which reminds me once again of the sentiment, made famous by Thomas Aquinas and repeated in various ways by many other great thinkers nearing the end of their lives: "In the end, all my theology reminds me of straw." Mirrored by one of the happy Spirits in The Great Divorce: "We've all been wrong! That's the great joke. There's no need to go on pretending one was right! After that we begin living.")

Talbott does so much more here than simply present a grounded argument for universal reconciliation, from both Biblical and philosophical standpoints. He also confronts every possible objection he can find with a keen understanding of the discrepancies (no strawmen here) and rigorous, reasoned counter-arguments. You can tell he's almost afraid to leave any stone left unturned.

Inescapable Love exposes the various ways in which both Calvinism and Arminianism fail to unite the Christian understanding of God as love and God as all-powerful (i.e. capable of getting what he wants in the end - and if what he wants is to reconcile the entire world to himself, then how can he fail, or be satisfied with failure)? He also draws out the universalist tendencies in Paul's letters that have so often been contested, in rather uneven ways, by Calvinists and Arminians. Most powerfully of all, he argues for hell as corrective in nature... not as a place God has created for eternal conscious torment, but as the inevitable metaphysical experience some souls have when they come into contact with the "consuming fire" of Love itself (the divine nature), which can do nothing else but expose, purify, and ultimately redeem. This clarifies what Paul means by God's "severe mercy" in Romans.

In fact, once it's all laid out, there is so much Scriptural basis for UR that I'm finding it difficult to deny, as Talbott proposes earlier in the book, that the reason Christians have clung to eternal damnation as a doctrine for so long is due to the political history of the religion more than anything else. But there's further exploration and exegesis I'm excited to dive into on that front.

Speaking of which, the Works Cited list in the back of this book is so long I must preemptively apologize to my poor TBR list. You will never stop growing. I will never actually succeed in making a dent in you.

[Michael Camp · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love this book! Talbott takes us on a journey to find the real heart of God and shows us how off many of the Western theologians throughout history (Augustine, Calvin, Edwards, Acquinas, and modern conservative scholars) are. He makes a overwhelmingly persuasive plea that traditional theology is one of fear--where each human is either pre-determined to be saved or damned OR must freely choose (even if they are cut off from a true Christian message), but as a depraved sinner capable of falling away, and where all deserve eternal torment by a retributive, exclusive God.

Talbott makes an impassioned, reasoned case for the universal reconciliation of all humankind that is intellectually and scripturally honest--for example, it beautifully reconciles God's love with judgment and explains in depth why most have misread hell and the afterlife. This book is a breath of sweet air blowing away the stale inconsistencies of Western religious thought.

Now if someone would republish it with an improved cover and an update from the author in light of recent similar works, they would be doing all of us a great service.

[Jonathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this book, Talbott makes a persuasive case for Biblical Christian Universalism. He not only goes into great lengths, biblically and logically, to explain why it is the viewpoint most consistent with Biblical teaching, but he also delves deeply into both the Augustianian/Calvinist and Arminian viewpoints and carefully deconstructs their teachings and philosophies; in this manner, he brings to light the numerous logical, philosophical and biblical contradictions and absurdities that make both viewpoints intellectually and spiritually unsatisfying.

Talbott also treats the issue of theodicy and does a marvelous job of explaining why an omnipotent God would allow--and indeed, MUST allow--free, moral agents to exist on this earth and why evil and suffering plays a necessary role in humanities' course.

Talbott finishes with pointing to the greater hope for ALL mankind that will make even the greatest of temporal suffering seem like nothing in comparison.

This is a fairly in-depth work. I'd recommend it to those who already have a decent grasp on Christian theology and for those that have already maybe done some study into Christian Universalism and want a deeper understanding of its philosophies and its biblical and logical coherence.

[Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good apologetic for Christian Universalism.

[Billy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book reminded me why I could have never become a Presbyterian pastor.

[W Tyler · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was the first book that I read on the topic of Christian Universalism, and so far it remains the best. I first read it after undertaking a detailed study of the Calvinism/Arminianism debate, in which I became convinced that key passages (especially Romans 1-11) made the most sense when read as supporting the idea that God will eventually save all people. I couldn't reconcile this idea with the biblical passages about hell, or with my own notion of free will (following C.S. Lewis), so I turned to this book to see whether there was really a case to be made. My criteria were that the argument needed to take full account of the core biblical and philosophical issues, and that it could not sweep any inconvenient facts under the rug; anything less would not do. It is apparent that Talbott wrote this book specifically for people like me (educated non-specialists, especially evangelicals, with just these criteria), and his book put my doubts to rest with an unmatched eloquence and philosophical sophistication.

After opening by detailing a bit of his own personal journey, Talbott spends a bit of time unraveling the history of the doctrine of eternal hell. In particular, he sketches the development of this doctrine in the Western church, and makes note of the "legacy of fear and persecution" that this doctrine has led to for many centuries. This does not lend any positive support to Christian Universalism, but it does cast some face-value doubt on the main alternative.

Moving forward, Talbott frames the issue by giving a list of three logicially inconsistent propositions: "(1) All human sinners are equal objects of God's redemptive love in the sense that God, being no respecter of persons, sincerely wills or desires to reconcile each one of them to himself and thus to prepare each one of them for the bliss of union with himself. (2) Almighty God will triumph in the end and successfully reconcile to himself each person whose reconciliation he sincerely wills or desires. (3) Some human sinners will never be reconciled to God and will therefore remain separated from him forever." He notes that while (3) is widely accepted and treated as non-negotiable by most modern Christians, there is profound disagreement among Christians about (1) and (2). By way of definition, those who accept (1) and not (2) are Arminians, and those who accept (2) but not (1) are Calvinists. But if someone were to accept both (1) and (2) - both of which are considered orthodox positions in and of themselves - they would logically have to reject (3); these people, including Talbott, are Christian Universalists. Thus (as in my own case), Christian Universalism can be seen as the logical synthesis of Arminianism and Calvinism, and this seems to undermine the idea that the position must be heretical.

Next Talbott sketches a universalistic exegesis of Paul's epistles. He notes the absence of passages that are unambiguously about hell, and draws out the clear universalistic thrust of passages like Rom. 5 and 1 Cor. 15, especially emphasizing the clear parallel between the death that all experience through Adam and the life that all experience through Christ. He critiques the efforts of those who try to either explain these passages away with poor logic or else interpret them through the lens of other passages that supposedly teach of an eternal hell; Talbott demonstrates that there are at least as many, if not more, passages that seem to teach of universal salvation. Talbott also deals with Rom. 9-11, and argues that in this passage God's justice and mercy are actually two sides of the same redemptive coin; when vessels of wrath are "destroyed", they become vessels of mercy. Following this, Talbott dissects the case for eternal hell, arguing convincingly that Jesus' parables are indeed parables which are not necessarily meant to teach us about the afterlife, and that the Greek word that usually gets translated as "eternal" does not mean "neverending" or denote length in any way, but rather means something akin to "of the coming eschatological age". Thus Talbott interprets the hell texts to be talking about a sort of purgatory, a restorative rather than a retributive punishment, one which leads to life rather than to death. Finally, Talbott argues for the biblical notion that God is Love at bottom, and thus everything He does must ultimately be loving, not just to Christians but to all people. All of this points to a distinctively Christian form of universalism, which successfully preserves the broad outlines of Christian doctrine and eschatology while throwing out the notion that hell must be neverending.

Next, Talbott moves from exegesis to philosophy, and this is where he truly shines. He talks about "the paradox of exclusivism", and about the natures of love, punishment, forgiveness, omnipotence, and human freedom. This section of his book is long and philosophically rich; my main note here is about Talbott's idea of human freedom. He rejects strict determinism, but he also rejects completely libertarian freedom on the grounds that it is most likely incoherent, and that at any rate no human is competent to choose their own eternal destiny. The alternative which he presents is a picture in which humans come to self-awareness in an environment of uncertainty and ambiguity, thus in an environment which allows for some indeterminancy in the way humans behave; but because humans are rational and God cannot deceive us, we must eventually learn about the true nature of reality and thus of God (whether in the here and now, or in the afterlife when suffering the consequences of our sin), and when this happens we cannot but help turn to Him.

Talbott finishes with a rousing passage that sums up all he has written about: "Though our present choices cannot alter our final destiny, they most assuredly can affect our chances for happiness in the present and in the near term future; and though a glorious inheritance cannot elude us forever, it most assuredly can elude us for a lifetime, or perhaps even for several lifetimes. So our choices do have very real consequences in our lives; indeed, these consequences are one of the means by which God will transform us in the end and thereby secure our final destiny. When we finally weary of our own selfishness, petty jealousies, and lust for power; when we learn at last, perhaps through bitter experience, that these lead only to ruin and cannot bring enduring happiness, that nothing short of union with God and reconciliation with others will satisfy our own deepest yearnings; when we discover that the Hound of Heaven has finally closed off every alternative to such a union, we shall then, each of us, finally embrace the destiny that is ours."

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read Thomas Allin's book, Christ Triumphant, back in 2015. It focuses on the theology of Universalism, and shows how it was a common way of thinking back in the days of the early Church Fathers, and beyond. But it was quite hard going because of its style of language.
Talbott's book is much more accessible, though that doesn't mean to say it's always easy reading. For me it's an even more hopeful book than Allin's, partly because it uses Scripture as its base far more than Allin tends to do, and this helps to give strong support to Talbott's arguments.
I came out of it feeling far more positive about God's love for all people, and believing that when Paul the Apostle writes the word all he really means it. Furthermore it helps to show why evangelism is still necessary even if a person does hold a theology of Universalism, and that was something I'd struggled with after reading Allin.
I'm sure there are plenty of theologians who will be able to argue against various aspects of Talbott's thoughts, but for me I found his book encouraging, realistic and having great merit.

[Roy · Rating 5 out of 5]

An inspiring book that is a must read for those who find it difficult to accept the orthodox Christian teaching that God would allow countless millions of people to suffer eternally. This is the definitive work on Christian universalism. Talbot bravely challenges the Augustinian and Armenian interpretations of scripture and convincingly shows how universal redemption was taught by the Apostle Paul and the pre-Augustinian theologians. His thesis is astonishing and offers hope that even in the afterlife there is hope of reconciliation for those who have died without committing their lives to Christ. He ends with the idea that hope in a perfect loving God is the only way to overcome unyielding despair. Rewarding but at times challenging to read due to the author's intense philosophical treatment of the subject.

[J.L. Neyhart · Rating 4 out of 5]

A decent introduction to Christian Universalism.

[Lincoln · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is good but like many protestants Talbot is not a Classical Theist and that leaves his argumentative position vulnerable to otherwise weak objections.

The case for universalism is far stronger once we begin from the premise that God is not a being among beings, aka the coolest kid in the Kosmos, but rather God is beyond beings: infinite Being, present in all creation--down to the smallest particle--and transcending them all. God is the Being of all beings. The Lord in whom we live and move and have our Being as 1 biblical author put it.

[George · Rating 5 out of 5]

Satisfying and challenging from beginning to end. Certainly one of the most important books of theology I have read. This book walks the reader through so many important contradictions in popular theology in order to allow a wiser and better understanding of judgment and providential propose to emerge.

[Whitney Dziurawiec · Rating 3 out of 5]

I appreciated Talbott's exegesis on biblical passages surrounding hell. I got a little bored in the middle tho and it got philosophical toward the end which always throws me off but I think I got the gist of it 😅 It's a good primer for anyone interested in what universalism is actually about.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Who Should Read This Book - Readers interested in theology, specifically wrestling with questions of God, hell, love and eternity.

What is the Big Takeaway - God is Love and through this Love desires all persons to be saved and will never give up until all are saved.

And a Quote - “If supreme power lies on the side of supreme love, then none of us, whether Christian, Muslim, or even atheist, need fear that the One who loved us into existence in the first place might wantonly abandon us in the end. Nor need we worry that an honest mistake in abstract theology will somehow jeopardize our future. For if a perfectly loving Creator does exist, then he knows us from the inside out far better than we know ourselves; he appreciates the ambiguities, the confusions, and the perplexities we face far better than we do; and he understands the historical and cultural factors that shape our beliefs far better than any historian does. Such a Creator—so loving, intimate, and wise—would know how to work with each of us in infinitely complex ways, how to shatter our illusions and transform our thinking when necessary, and how best to reveal himself to us in the end” (224)

Thomas Talbott begins this book with some autobiographical reflections. After this, he gets into the meat of his argument with sections focusing on scripture and philosophical argument. He begins by offering three inconsistent propostions:

“(1) All human sinners are equal objects of God’s redemptive love in the sense that God, being no respecter of persons, sincerely wills or desires to reconcile each one of them to himself and thus to prepare each one of them for the bliss of union with him. (2) Almighty God will triumph in the end and successfully reconcile to himself each person whose reconciliation he sincerely wills or desires. (3) Some human sinners will never be reconciled to God and will therefore remain separated from him forever” (p. 38).

You cannot believe all three of these at the same time. Thus, for Christians who believe that most of humanity will be consigned to eternal, unending separation from God (3) they cannot also believe God desires all to be saved or that God will be reconciled to all whom God desires. Augustinians and Calvinists would reject #1 - God only desires to save some humans. Arminians argue that God does want to save all, but is unable to due to human freedom that can forever reject God (thus, Arminians reject #2).

Talbott’s book is an argument that all will ultimately be saved, thus he rejects #3. His argument is broken into two primary sections. First, he argues that the New Testament presents a picture of universal salvation. He focuses on the clearest proponent for this, the apostle Paul. Paul clearly writes that as in Adam all die so in Christ all are made alive. Talbott’s argument is that “all” means the same thing in both cases. From this, he responds to those who may argue Jesus mentions hell more than anyone else, by explaining just what Jesus meant by “Gehenna” (the word translated hell). Through this, he argues that our foundational belief about God is that God is Love (stated clearly in 1 John).

This reminds me of what many other authors have emphasized - we all bring assumptions and presuppositions to how we read scripture. Scripture presents us with a variety of images of God and what God is like. How do we judge (interpret) who God is? Brad Jersak’s Her Gates Shall Never Be Shut does a better job than Talbott of recognizing this. Talbott’s argument from scripture is not exhaustive, nor does it intend to be. I think the point is that every reader of scripture must decide the lens through which we read scripture. For Talbott (and certainly not just Talbott), it is “God is Love”.

This begs the question, how different will we read scripture when we read it through the Love of God revealed in Jesus? Proponents of eternal conscious torment have taught us to read it through a retributive God who casts most people to unending hell. We see “hell” in the text and import all we’ve been taught. And when we see passages that hint at universal salvation, we interpret them in ways that mean something else (so the “all” saved in Christ are not actually all people but all Christians…if we even ask the question). We need to learn to read scripture in a better way. When we read it through the Love of God in Jesus, the universal, inescapable love of God becomes clear. Passages once ignored or explained away just click into place. Overall, this reading makes more sense of the whole of scripture as even the justice and judgment passages find a place in which they make sense.

Some may argue that the fact those of us who have come here had to learn from theologians like Talbot (and Jersak, Hart, Gregory of Nysa, George MacDonald) shows this is not a clear reading of the text. But our previous reading was also taught to us. We learned it in Sunday school and from pastors in our youth. It was never the plain reading of the text. Whether we interpret scripture the way we were taught as children or interpret in ways we’ve learned as adults, we’re all interpreting it. For many of us, it makes more sense to interpret it in the way Talbott teaches.

The second part of Talbott’s book is a philosophical argument on the Love of God. This is where Talbott excels even more, it seems he is more a philosopher than a Bible scholar. In the beginning of the book he says he wrote this for a popular level audience, but I think the arguments here would stretch many people. That said, for those who work through them the arguments are sound. Many of these arguments are echoed in the writing of folks like David Bentley Hart. Talbott argues for a version of free will that is not just the ability to choose randomly with no end in sight, but to freely choose towards good ends. When the blinders are removed and we see the ultimate Good we will freely choose it as good for us.

Talbott also shows the absurdity of some answers Christians give when asked about how they can worship in heaven if their friends are in hell. William Lane Craig argues that God may erase from our minds the memories of these loved ones. This is both absurd and horrific. As Hart also argues, this would mean we are not the people who are ultimately saved. Once our memory and connection to these others is broken, we are fundamentally different people. Second, this argument shows how far even most who endorse unending hell have strayed from the tradition. Christians of the past would just say the sight of our loved ones in torture will move us to praise God. The resistance to this by apologists for hell shows how illogical and unloving eternal torment is.

Overall, this is one of the best books on the subject of universal salvation. I think most readers would do better to start with the work of Brad Jersak (Her Gates Shall Never Be Shut). In some ways, this is a good companion to David Bentley Hart’s That All Shall Be Saved. The arguments are similar, but Talbott fleshes them out in much more depth.

In the end, Talbott’s picture of God is compelling, beautiful and ultimately loving. God wants all humans to be saved. God knows how to continually reach out to us, woo us and bring us to the place where we freely choose what is the best for us - to be reconciled to God. This may take ages and ages as we experience the purgation of God’s consuming fire. But ultimately, we all will joyfully know and be known by our Creator:

“When we finally weary of our own selfishness, petty jealousies, and lust for power; when we learn at last, perhaps through bitter experience, that these lead only to ruin and cannot bring enduring happiness, that nothing short of union with God and reconciliation with others will satisfy our own deepest yearnings; when we discover that the Hound of Heaven has finally closed off every alternative to such a union, we shall then, each of us, finally embrace the destiny that is ours (226).”

[Chris Huff · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've read several Evangelical Universalist books now. Most of them say pretty much the same thing, using pretty much the same arguments, and pretty much the same Bible verses. That's not to discount them; some of them are quite good and have helped me to think through the relevant texts. But they have been basically the same book told from different voices.

But Talbot's book is different. Rather than hashing out the same arguments in favor of Evangelical Universalism, he spends much more time seeking to show how unbiblical and illogical Calvinism and Arminianism really are. He seeks to show, through biblically informed logic, that only Evangelical Universalism adequately makes sense of the doctrines we say we believe (that God is both sovereign and omnibenevolent).

I don't mean to imply that this is now my favorite book on the subject. I would say that it's certainly helpful, but not without its flaws. For example, using several illustrations, Talbot sought to show what God "can't" do. I'm always hesitant to say that God can't do something. Rather, I prefer to say that God chooses not to do certain things for His own reasons (because of His character, or His knowledge of a better outcome, etc). But perhaps I'm splitting hairs.

I also didn't understand why Talbot ended his book discussing Pascal's Wager. His view that Pascal was thoroughly positive regarding receiving God doesn't convince me that it isn't still, by its very naming, a wager. I don't see how this can be helpful at all when attempting to share the good news, no matter what one's eschatological views. Paul said that if we hope in vain, then we're most pitied. This flies in the face of Pascal's Wager.

Regardless of these occasional oddities, Talbot's book really is quite interesting. I wouldn't recommend it as one's first read regarding the Evangelical Universalist position, but it does bring several concepts together in such a way as to provide a compelling alternative viewpoint to the traditionalist's view of eternal conscious torment.

[Walter Harrington · Rating 5 out of 5]

For the love of God (literally), read this book.

Yes, I've been waiting this whole time to make that joke.

I was between 4 and 5 stars for this one. The book is great overall, written in a clear and approachable tone. It gets a little philosophical at the end, but I think that's warrented since Talbott is a philosopher and his free will philosophy is an important addition to this discussion. Ge makes some salient points and his case cannot be simply ignored by those who disagree. It should be wrestled with and genuinely considered.

Talbott deals thoroughly and decisively with the Augustinian view of salvation and hell, and I think he makes it clear that that viewpoint is untenable. He then turns to the Arminian view, which is where his free will philosophy comes in, and makes some great points. I only have two critisisms of the book.

The first is that while he deals with the Arminian view, he explicitly deals with a version of Arminianism (for example, that of William lane Craig) that isn't prevelant in my circles (more along the lines of NT Wright). He actually dismisses the Arminian view that I am most familiar with as logically inconsistent and goes on to address the view that he sees as more consistent. While I understand why he does this (and the fact that he doesn’t have the space to address everything), I would have at least liked to know why he views it so inconsistent that he can just dismiss it.

Secondly, and similarly, he doesn’t address the annihilation view of hell, except for in a comment in a footnote or two. Again, I understand why, but I would have liked to hear his exposition on it.

Other than that, this was a good and challenging read. I would recommend it.

On the whole, I think the christian universal reconciliation is extremely strong from a philosophical standpoint, but it’s harder to be convinced from a biblical standpoint. Not to say there isn’t strong biblical warrant for it, but rather there is strong biblical warrant for all three views of hell (at least the ones that are held by people with a high view of scripture).

[Joel · Rating 5 out of 5]

The biblical arguments are strong and focus most on Paul and the Johannine statement "God is love." The philosophical arguments are the most impressive, though, especially the argument about the nature of love. How can God give supreme happiness to his beloved without also giving supreme happiness to those whom his beloved loves? This reminds me of the end of Turgenev's Fathers and Sons :

"Evgeny Bazarov lies buried in this grave. Two feeble old people come frequently from the nearby village to visit it-- a man and his wife. They walk with a heavy step, supporting each other; when they approach the railing, they fall on their knees and remain there for a long time, weeping bitterly, gazing attentively at the headstone under which their son lies buried: they exchange a few words, brush the dust off the stone, move a branch of the pine tree, and pray once again; they can't forsake this place where they seem to feel closer to their son, to their memories of him... Can it really be that their prayers and tears are futile? Can it really be that love, sacred, devoted love is not all-powerful? Oh, no! However passionate, sinful, rebellious the heart buried in this grave, the flowers growing on it look out at us serenely with their innocent eyes: they tell us not only of that eternal peace, that great peace of "indifferent" nature; they tell us also of eternal reconciliation and life everlasting..."

[Luke Merrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very robust, biblical and logical explanation of an ultimate redemptionist or christian universalist worldview. I found Talbott’s use of scripture to be very respectful while also not being afraid to point out where past biblical theologians have made major errors. Both Augustine and Calvin were highlighted as examples of where theology can go wrong and inform activity in negative ways. In short, Calvin sought the murder of heretics while Augustine philosophied how exactly human flesh could burn perpetually in Hell.
I was pleased to find out that Talbott and I share the same critique of the theological landscape in that most systematic theologies are internally inconsistent or unwilling to follow through with their logical conclusions. This leads to all sorts of logical contradictions that, when left unanswered, wreak havoc in the minds of non-christians and those considering leaving the faith: either God is not powerful enough to save all people, or he is not loving enough to want everybody. What a sad state of affairs.
This makes Talbott’s presentation of a God who is all loving and all powerful all the more wonderful - in the end, through one way or another, God will succeed in his redemption of all creation.

[Ken Reese · Rating 5 out of 5]

I did not come to faith through the culture context of the American perspective of the church. I had something unexplainable happen, and I've searched for answers ever since. This book helped clarify what I read in the Bible. Logos is an incredible tool which allowed me to critically examine the claims of this text. I'd suggest people do the work and come to their own conclusion.

[Joshua · Rating 5 out of 5]

This portrait of God seems better than any I've encountered elsewhere. I would like to think that it's true.

It would be nice if Talbott addressed biblical evidence for the possibility of postmortem repentance more thoroughly, but maybe he's done that elsewhere.

[Chad Lynch · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book

Third (or maybe it’s fourth) time reading it, love it more each and every time.

A more philosophical approach to Apokatastasis.

[Tanner Foster · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Michael · Rating 1 out of 5]

I hated this book. I feel like I could write a critique of its every line. This was a textbook exercise in motivated reasoning. I came in not knowing what to expect, but it's basically an attempt to 'logically' prove that there is no hell, while also proving that there is a god, and he is the particular god that Talbott happens to prefer. I say 'attempt', because this book doesn't succeed in proving anything. It has the forms of logic, but it's a hot mess of inchoate syllogisms from start to finish. He does a little dabble in inductive reasoning ("Look at this example that has nothing to do with anything") and from that builds a deductive framework ("Since that, therefore this, which means this and this, so therefore this and that voilà!").

I think Talbott could have 'proved' his points with whatever text were on hand. He (sort of) used the Bible, but give him a Bhagavad Gita and he could deduce the Protestant Trinity.

Not only does he come across as tone deaf when it comes to suffering, but listening to this book was like being gaslighted for 11 hours (which is no surprise given the title of the book). Whatever beliefs you think you have, whatever values you hold, whatever trauma you've experienced, Talbott smoothly dismisses them all, because in the end, you just haven't understood god properly, you're sinful and need a new heart, and your trauma is all for a good purpose and ultimately you'll thank and praise god for what he let happen to you.

Theological gaslighting.

Here's just one example, emphasis added:

Nor should we, even in the interests of theodicy, lose sight of how genuinely tragic the sufferings of the most helpless among us can sometimes be over the short run. As a matter of faith, if you will, I am prepared to endorse two points: first, that all children who suffer in the present will at some future time freely embrace their past sufferings and rejoice in them; and second, that such suffering also completes the suffering of Christ in a special way and in a way that nothing else could. For nothing, it seems, arouses compassion and melts the hearts of others in a comparable way. Pictures of white racists attacking innocent black children virtually guaranteed the end of segregation in the United States; pictures of mangled children in Vietnam and a host of subsequent wars have brought home, in a way that nothing else could, the sheer horror of modern warfare (it goes on for more)

Calling someone's sufferings 'the short run' is a devious way of playing down their experiences. He also feigns concern by talking about the 'horrors' of modern warfare and mangled children. If this is all just 'the short term', and they're going to 'rejoice in them' eventually, it's disingenuous to describe them here as horrors and then reframe them as the object of rejoicing.

All children who suffer in the present will at some future time freely embrace their past sufferings and rejoice in them.

I'm not sure I can adequately address this train wreck of a concept. I keep trying to write something, but words fail. I think this kind of thinking has permeated religions, and I wonder what all harm it has done.

I included the quote about the so-called 'end of segregation' because I think it shows that Talbott is out of touch and probably doesn't understand racism issues either. Segregation didn't end (has it?) because white people were moved by some pictures (this is the implication, because black people certainly didn't need pictures in order to act against segregation, so who did?). White people have never been the catalyst for changing racism, we just like to think we are. Anyway, that's just a sorry side point in a sad and disappointing book.

Did I mention he mentions C. S. Lewis on every page? [eyeroll slash groan]

[Squire Whitney: Hufflepuff Book Reviwer · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 stars!

“Consider, by way of illustration, the proposition that God is omniscient. Many Christians have believed that, although this proposition in no way expresses the complete truth about God, it nonetheless does express a truth about the very essence or nature of God. . . It is thus logically impossible that . . . God should ever believe something false or fail to believe something true. Or consider the proposition that God is holy and righteous. If this too expresses a truth about the essence of God, then it is logically impossible that God should ever act in an unholy or unrighteous way. And similarly for the proposition that God is love. If this expresses a truth about the very essence of God, then it is logically impossible that God should fail to love someone, or should act in an unloving way towards someone, or should do anything else that is incompatible with his love.”

“In fact, what I have here called “a crisis of faith,” and at the time regarded as such, was not a crisis of faith at all. For it was precisely an unshakable faith in the love of God—a faith that my mother in particular had instilled within me—that made my doubts about Christianity and the Bible possible.”

Perhaps the best optimal place for someone studying universal reconciliation, The Inescapable Love of God serves as an effective blend of philosophy, reason, and scriptural analysis to argue for universal salvation, the belief that every human being will eventually (whether in this life or the next) come to God, repent of their sins, and be saved. To any Christian who believes that Christian Universalism is deeply heretical and impossible to make a reasonable scriptural case for, I would challenge them to read this book and then research Talbott’s claims. One might still disagree with Universalism after reading The Inescapable Love of God, but one would be hard-pressed to still regard it as entirely unscriptural. There is so much misinformation and confusion about Christian Universalism out there—especially as it gets confused with more unitarian types of Universalism—and few people entirely grasp what it teaches.

Talbott has a deeply philosophical mind and a style reminiscent of C.S. Lewis (my favorite Christian writer!). So many of his arguments simply made me stop and ponder his ideas for a hours. I particularly love the way that he paints universal reconciliation as a logical alternative to Calvinism and Arminianism. After all, contends Talbott, one has to logically reject one of three propositions, all of which on the surface seem to be taught in scripture—either that God sincerely wills the salvation of all people or that God will “successfully reconcile to himself each person whose reconciliation he sincerely wills,” or that some individuals will end up forever separated from God. Despite their contradictory nature, all three of these propositions seem (on the surface) to be taught in scripture. Everyone must on some level or another reject one of these ideas in order to have any kind of coherent and noncontradictory belief system, which gives rise to three distinct camps: Calvinism (the belief in God's absolute sovereignty and in eternal Hell but not in God's desire to save everyone), Arminianism (the belief in both God's desire to save everyone but also in eternal Hell, given that human freewill restricts God's sovereignty in regard to salvation), and Christian Universalism (the belief in God's absolute sovereignty and also his desire to save everyone, thereby making eternal separation from Him inconceivable). To those who contend that universal reconciliation ignores clear portions of scripture, couldn't we contend that Calvinists and Arminians do the same thing? With this established, Talbott lays the foundation for his case for universal reconciliation—as he then proceeds to illustrate how a Universalist reading of scripture is not merely plausible but actually in his opinion makes far more textual, logical, and philosophical sense than either a Calvinist or Arminian reading does. He explores every case in scripture where eternal torment seems to be implied, arguing that we are either misunderstanding the text or that it has been mistranslated. Talbott also highlights numerous Biblical passages that are often overlooked, as they seem clearly to point to an eventual reconciliation of all human beings to God!

Another of my favorite points that Talbott raises is that a universalist understanding of Hell actually depicts God being as far more opposed to and victorious over sin than a traditional understanding of Hell does. According to the believer in universal reconciliation, God will entirely stomp out sin and eradicate it from His creation—whereas, according to the traditionalist, God will merely relegate sin to one part of creation. One of my foremost misgivings that had made me uncomfortable with the idea of universal salvation before my first reading this book had been that the ideology had seemed to me to undermine the potency of sin and its potentially debilitating effects on the human soul—as I had believed that, by choosing oneself over God again and again and again, one can kill off any potential for good inside them and destroy their ability to even care about anything beyond themselves or come to Christ. And, while this might nonetheless be still an understandable objection to at least some degree, Talbott’s argument that universal reconciliation actually depicts God as being more victorious over sin than traditional understandings of Hell do certainly gave me a new way to process this.

Perhaps what most sets The Inescapable Love of God from other books that argue for universal reconciliation would be the way that it so effectively blends philosophy and scripture. Whereas Robin Perry’s The Evangelical Universalist is almost entirely scriptural, and David Bentley Harts’s That All Shall be Saved is almost entirely philosophical, Talbott strikes an effective balance—which is part of what makes it such an accessible starting point for someone studying the topic.

To be fair, this book is not perfect. As is natural in any philosophical work, I disagreed with a fair number of Talbott’s arguments. For instance, I felt that he too often used the depiction of God as a loving Father to illustrate his points—when, in fact, scripture teaches that only those who have already accepted Christ have become children of God. To be fair, there are some verses that suggest that perhaps everyone is a child of God in at least some vague capacity, even before they accept Jesus—but I wish that Talbott would have at least made a case for this in order for his illustrations to carry greater weight. Also, while Talbott successfully pokes some substantial holes in Calvinist and Arminian ideology (to the extent where I now have a bit of a hard time buying Arminianism, which I'd previously upheld), I felt that he overstated his case by claiming that these ideologies are thus "logically incoherent." To assert that a belief system is logically incoherent is a lofty claim that I do not feel he quite achieved (especially in regard to Calvinism, which I find repugnant but nonetheless still mostly coherent). Finally, at one point, Talbott posits the potential existence of purgatory, even for believers, without doing much to back this assertion up scripturally. It's a shame, because The Inescapable Love of God comes very close to being a 5-star book, but parts are simply too messy.

Ultimately, The Inescapable Love of God makes for a thoroughly thought-provoking read—as well as an insightful introduction to Christian Universalist ideology! If you are a believer in universal reconciliation, then read this book. If you are a Calvinist, then read this book. If you are an Armenian, then read this book. Just, read this book. You might not ultimately agree with the premise, but Talbott's ideas are important to ponder.

[Jack Naylor · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very strong defense of universal reconciliation from a scriptural and philosophical basis. It is also very accessible for those with minimal theological background, with only a few sections on libertarian free will that may tangle some people up. As regards the biblical witness, I found Talbott to be a fair-minded interpreter. I especially liked his reading of the word 'eternal' in the parable of the sheep and the goats and treatment of Paul's more universalistic passages (1 Cor 15:28, Romans 5:18, Phil 2:10). Yet, there are still some difficult passages for the universalist reading,g, like 2 Thess 1:9, where it feels harder to avoid the connotations of the phrase 'eternal destruction.' I additionally struggled with his interpretation of Romans 11, as it remains quite possible to read the conclusion of the chapter as merely referring to the members of eschatological Israel. This is not necessary for his whole argument, however.

His best points are made in the chapter on God as love, where he helps put to rest the notion that God would have any final sense of hate toward part of his creation. Certainly, part of the reason this resonates so greatly is that he simply lets the implications of 1 John 4:8, 16 speak. God is essentially loving and can reflect nothing else; whether in his wrath or justice, he still pursues the good of the other through love.

I remain of the belief that hell is possible on the basis of obstinate final resistance to God (though this book effectively challenges libertarian free will and eternal decision), but Talbott certainly offers a host of incredible points in his favor and elevates his position out of the foolishness many people associate it with.

[Kathleen Schwab · Rating 5 out of 5]

I originally found this book while reading a blog by a young man who suffered from scrupulosity, a type of OCD where the person develops intense fear around the concept of hell. He credited this book with restoring normalcy to his life, and I thought it must be a powerful read.

It is powerful, and information packed. I previously read Love Wins by Robb Bell, and was disappointed with that book because it seemed to skim over ideas and issues, and was light on the history behind Christian thought. Love Wins brought up questions, but then didn't explore possible answers - Bell seemed content to ask a question and leave it at that. The Inescapable Love of God takes a very different approach. The author first explains and examines the history of his own opinions about hell, including which scripture passages, Christian leaders, and books influenced him. He also does a pretty detailed overview of Christian beliefs about heaven and hell starting from the first century and continuing through the modern era. He supplies the names of the main types of thought on the subject (Calvinism, Arminanism, and Universalism), and also the range of opinion within each camp. While he is won over by Universalism himself, I think he gives a fair hearing to all the systems, and he respects Christians who see things differently. The result is a book that presents all the options in one place. Sometimes the text can be dense and slow moving, but I chalk that up to the amount of information packed in here. In both information and attitude, I can't recommend this book highly enough.

[Adam Barger · Rating 4 out of 5]

Four stars for this philosophy of theology approach to God’s restoration and salvation plan. Though very dense and challenging, I found Talbott’s writing to be methodical and very clear on most topics. If you have an interest in soteriology and an open mind for unfamiliar ideas outside the American mainstream, give this a read. If you’ve pretty much figured out this whole Christianity thing and you’re content with your Piper and Sproul, then pass on this, because you ain’t ready. Just kidding, sorta.

Talbott does a masterful job laying the groundwork for a compelling view of restorative justice in light of God’s love. From Talbott’s perspective, God is love, and that fact forms the basis of several of Talbott’s arguments for universal salvation. The highlights for me include the restorative justice view as constructed against the retributive justice model and the unpacking of libertarian free will in relation to rejection of God.

Lowlights:
-the overly complex writing style, though not an issue within philosophy circles, which made this a slow read for me.
-a somewhat jarring organization (a challenge for me to connect the dots across several chapters).
-a fairly weak, though interesting, treatment of the problem of evil

Overall, I recommend this book to any open-minded Christian. Whether traditional, progressive, or anywhere in between, all Christians can learn something from Talbott’s work.

[Alex Strasser · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an incredible and well-argued book in favor of Christian universalism (that all are saved in the end through the work of Christ). He completely demolishes many popular objections to universalism, including various biblical arguments (though not all of them, in my view). I will definitely be rereading this to consider the arguments more carefully. The success of the philosophical argument does seem to rely on a pretty specific conception of freedom and rationality of which I am skeptical. For example, he says that for a choice to be free, the choice must not just be reasonably informed, but must be fully informed, for it to be a free choice. This seems to me to be much to strong a condition, one that rules out all of current choices as being free.

In general, he makes very clear and precise arguments, some of which are compelling. I highly recommend this book in exploring the question of the salvation of all in the Christian tradition. He engages heavily with biblical, church historical, and philosophical arguments for and against the salvation of all. Ultimately, the author sees universalism as the only way for God to be victorious over all and defeat evil in the end. While I was not fully convinced on a first read through (or, rather, listen through via audiobook), perhaps a careful reread of the physical book, which I definitely plan to do, will change that.

[Derek Kreider · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was first drawn to Calvinism because the philosophical incomprehensiblity of libertarian free will pushed me there - and it was easy to find scripture to support the position. Of course there are some big sacrifices, like one’s intuition about responsibility, love, God’s character, etc.

I am coming to see more how universalism makes more philosophical sense (biblically, not sold yet). I always thought universalists were basically liberal Arminians, but as seen in this book as well as Hart’s, they have a robust understanding of the constraints of the will - and without throwing off intuitive and biblical notions of fatherly love, the character of God, responsibility, God’s sovereignty, etc. I am finding more and more how much it’s been a caricature of universalists that they are just emotional thinkers, when really, they seem to be more robust philosophically, without killing the emotions like Calvinists do. And honestly, it’s easy to move from Calvinism to universalism because they hold the same view of our need for God’s grace, with the only difference that God chooses all instead of just some.