I’ve read most of the 2nd edition now, but it’s been too long since I read the first – I get the feeling there’s more discussion of various things, mostly on the philosophical side (as before), but I can’t point directly to differences. I know what Tom says in his introduction he changed:
Now that I think of it, the change most apparent to me is also the most personally annoying! I jumped hard on Dr. McClymond several months ago for grossly misreading Dr. Talbott’s original book to make it seem to say that Tom had said hell is an alternate plan to the cross, when Dr. T had made it abundantly and explicitly clear in just those same pages that there is no alternate plan to the cross. Tom himself agreed I had correctly read the details there, and Dr. McCly had straight-up omitted relevant details which showed Dr. T doing exactly the opposite of what Dr. McCly charged.
Then I got to a similar place in the 2nd edition… and now Dr. T explicitly says hell is an alternate plan to the cross!!!
Now, Dr. T does kind of end up saying the same thing – hell isn’t really plan B to the cross, but an alternate way of getting people to the cross – but his wording before then is going to cause problems. Whereas the original wording was much clearer about this NOT being an alternative strategy distinct from the cross.
Incidentally, since my complaint there brings up the topic, I had been sure from things he has written since the 1st edition that he’d be going for a much more ultra-u-ish theology where God just heals and reveals, through the resurrection, all the various problems which lead people to sin against God (beyond just having wrong ideas about Him), after which we could fully expect everyone to make the rational choice to repent of their sins and accept Christ etc. without God having to directly punish anyone (even if the healing process was briefly somewhat inconvenient perhaps).
If anyone else was expecting or hoping that – well, he does still have some things to say along that line, but if anything this edition seems more purgatorial (in a directly punitive sense) than the previous edition. I was naturally pleased of course, being a purga-u myself, but surprised; and I figure I ought to warn anyone hoping for a more ultra-universalistic argument that they may be disappointed with this edition at least on that topic.