The context is wrong!

[Apocatastasis]

It was almost six years ago that I bought The Inescapable Love of God and gave it to my Dad for him to read. He still hasn't read it (although he sometimes claims to have read enough to realize that Talbott is a pompous ass). 
When I got a hold of The Evangelical Universalist a couple of years ago, I brought it over to my Dad for him to read, explaining to him that this was a book that got down and dirty with hermeneutics and exegesis. He never read the book, although he did manage to read the passage by Hannah Whitall Smith that is found at the very beginning of the book. I know he read this much, because he was considerate enough to take out his pen and litter the page with his commentary. The passage begins thus:

....suddenly God seemed to answer me. An inward voice said, in tones of infinite love and tenderness, "He shall see the travail of His soul and be satisfied." "Satisfied!" I cried in my heart. "Christ is to be satisfied."

My Dad got this far and had to interject. He wrote:

Context is wrong. The first "He" is God the Fater. The second "He" is God the Son. The former being satisfied of the effacy [efficacy] of the latter's antoning [atoning] sacrifice for sin.

Of course, my Dad's objection has absolutely no bearing on the point being made by Hannah Whitall Smith. In fact, considering that my Dad is a Trinitarian, his objection is completely asinine, no?

[martincisneros]

And what would please the Father about the propitiatory work of the Son?  The difficulty for your father's theology isn't taken away in the least.  It's sorta compounded with his observation, because the One Who So loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son is SATISFIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Doc]

Y'know, Apo; I don't think I've ever heard an argument against UR that didn't miss the point or was irrelevant somehow....

[sparrow]

Y'know, Apo; I don't think I've ever heard an argument against UR that didn't miss the point or was irrelevant somehow....

True.