Ad majorem Dei gloriam?

[Prince_Myshkin]

Hi Everybody,

Calvinists typically refer to reprobation as somehow glorifying God, perhaps glorifying God as just.

Universalists are often criticized for being humanists, and violating this “ad majorem” principle.

Which theology validates God: Calvinism, in which anything that God does, by definition, is good and excellent (and we ought to accept this divinely commanded morality) or Universalism, in which God must redeem all to be considered good?

Is it fair for Calvinists to be criticized as cold for accepting double predestination if they indeed trust that it is God’s Word?

Is it fair for Universalists to be criticized as sentimental for preaching UR?

Is there some way that both Calvinists and Universalists have an erroneous picture of God and humanity, for, it seems to me that these tend on the extremes, one making God irreproachably good, the other rendering God subject to whatever humanity thinks is good?

(This might be a false dichotomy - for universalists argue that the salvation of all men indeed glorifies God, but Calvinists might say that it is convenient that God’s glory and universal human redemption happen to coincide, though this is to psychologize, for Calvinists can have subjective reasons for preferring their “hard” truth of double predestination).

[Dondi]

Why did God create us? That is the ultimate question.

Genesis tells us that after God finished His creation, culminating with the creation of Man, he sees it as very good. And this with the supposed foreknowledge that Man was going to fall in spite of being “very good”.

There is nothing in the creation of Man that tells me that God will choose Adam for heaven and Eve for hell. The consequences all being equal. We die because of Adam and Eve’s sin (and isn’t it interesting anyway that Romans 5 speaks of Adam’s sin, when Eve sinned first. But that may just be a cultural thing).

Calvinists strain gnat to extract their doctrine without really thinking things through, simply because they latch onto verses that seem to mean what they think they mean and everything else flows from that.

In my experience in studying Universalislism, I’m actually deeper in scriptures that I ever was before. I’m looking beyond the paradigm of my Baptist doctrinal upbringing and it’s very liberating. And as I learn more, my views change accordingly to what new insights I gain. Whereas, if I were a Calvinist, I would have to keep that lens on if I want to keep that doctrine. But being unihibited allows the freedom to examine all viewpoints.

I would even go so far as to say that I agree with Calvinists in certain areas. For example, when Jesus preached His “Bread of Life” discourse, He said that “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” Whereas, passages like this before used to trouble me, for I couldn’t reconcile this aith an imopartial God if not everyone is drawn to Him. I now only disagree as to when the Father will draw someone. I just disagree in scope.

[corpselight]

Christ said that we know how to give good gifts to our children, so we know what good looks like. That argues to me that God wouldn’t just arbitrarily do anything He likes and then expect us to think it “good” when He Himself through Christ seems to recognise that we have that much perception at least, even if we are evil as Jesus said. (so i’m proof-texting back at the Calvinists here…we can both play that game. They are SUCH a soft target).

I’m sorry, but the logic that Person X is GOOD, therefore all they do is GOOD (even if that is something that violates most of the morality taught in the Bible) and Person Y is EVIL, therefore even if they try to do good, it’s bad is not logic at all. It’s just demonstrably bad reasoning.

Universalists don’t say God MUST save all. Universalists say that God WANTS to save all (demonstrable from Scripture in many places), and that God is capable of getting what He wants (also demonstrable).

Sentimentality would be if we thought everything would just be fine, with no addressing of evil…no hard roads of reconciliation, however long those roads are. Even an instant of realisation and healing as per Ultra Universalist ideas still would address the evil…it just makes the change MUCH quicker than Purgatorial Universalists believe…so Universalists don’t think it’s an easy road, but we believe FIRMLY that God is walking that road, and even though only He can see the light at the end…it’s there, and we walk with Him in confident faith that all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well…even though that road is painful and fraught with temporary loss and suffering.

[Username1]

Is it fair for Calvinists to be criticized as cold for accepting double predestination if they indeed trust that it is God’s Word?

Oh yes. Cold, arrogant and/or deluded, if you ask me.

J

[Username1]

I’m sorry, but the logic that Person X is GOOD, therefore all they do is GOOD (even if that is something that violates most of the morality taught in the Bible) and Person Y is EVIL, therefore even if they try to do good, it’s bad is not logic at all. It’s just demonstrably bad reasoning.

Well said, James.

If God commands eternal genocide for his ‘glory’ he sure ain’t good, and he sure ain’t God neither. As I have said before, bastardising George MacDonald, to believe in Calvinism is punishment for being able to believe in it.

Cheers

Johnny

[Prince_Myshkin]

Hi Corpselight and Johnny,

I am generally in sympathy with both of you, and find Calvinism to be largely morally and intellectually questionable. However, there are some aspects of Calvinism, I think, or certain Calvinist notions of God, that I think Universalism needs to address to be truly Biblical and theologically coherent.

Take the divine commandment theory (DCT) of ethics. Now, obviously, it would be wrong to say of any good personthat all of their actions must be good. However, if we accept the classical definition of God (which I am guessing you do?), then it becomes much harder to say that God can commit an evil action; otherwise, it would entail a contradiction. Granted, this might be evidence that the Calvinist reading of the Bible as espousing “eternal genocide” (that might be tendentious, johnny , but I think it would amt to that from a universalist point-of-view) is wrong. Yet, even Universalists have to hold to some kind of divine commandment ethics, or how do we make sense of, for example, God’s telling Abraham to kill Isaac? Perhaps that isn’t true, or isn’t a good example because Abraham didn’t actually do it, but on the face of it, the DCT seems about the only way one can explain it.

Also, if God merely wants to save all people, then you might have tied His hands, for Arminians believe that, too, but universalism isn’t necessary on that assumption, b/c some may freely reject God, although I think Thomas Talbott is correct that this becomes more implausible given an afterlife where disillusions those who reject Him. Yet, if it is even possible for some hardened person to infinitely reject God, then the Calvinist construal of the Bible affirming “unconditional election” is necessary (though obviously Calvinists would say that not all are elect). I would say that it is closer to the truth theologically and Biblically that God must save all people, if God is love (doesn’t a loving individual have to act loving? all-the-more-so if one is perfect), and if our free will is not to undermine God.

Anyway, I am not championing Calvinism as much as I am wanting to understand the coherence of universalism and Calvinism as theologies. If you would, look at Calvinism and Universalism as disinterestedly as you can (and, admittedly, this is hard to do with something you strongly believe to be wrong) to see the consistency or inconsistency of each. As deplorable as the bottom-line of Calvinism with eternal Hell for many is, it is fairly consistent given its assumptions (though these assumptions, for instance, that the atonement was limited, may be based on a poor exegesis).

I think the virtue in this is to see where Universalism might be strengthened as a theology (though there are different strains of Universalism) and, if Universalism is T, it can bear a honest comparison, even in its faults, with other theologies. IMO, it is best to be as open as possible to other theologies and assume the least, then, if (I would actually say when b/c I am confident Universalism will emerged unscathed in such an analysis) Universalism is proven T, it is indeed proven so!

So, maybe a more focused ? would be: what do you think the weak pts of Universalism are compared to Calvinism?**

[corpselight]

Hi Corpselight and Johnny,

I am generally in sympathy with both of you, and find Calvinism to be largely morally and intellectually questionable. However, there are some aspects of Calvinism, I think, or certain Calvinist notions of God, that I think Universalism needs to address to be truly Biblical and theologically coherent.

This is true…there are some good things that arise from Calvinism. I agree that the Sovereignty of God for example is worth remembering. I also appreciate them wanting to glorify God and do justice to Scripture. I believe they sometimes take those too far (for example, i think God is far more glorified by the suffering servant imagery than the wrathful imagery…and the wrathful imagery seems to always lead to restoration, which glorifies God more than simply squashing His enemies; also the plain reading of Scripture is misleading because context is vital, or you can justify anything), but it’s still admirable. I also appreciate their faith that the Holy Spirit has preserved the real meaning of scripture…though again i approach that differently. I think He does that through progressive revelation and rediscovery of how ancient languages work and their context in history…not through fallible human efforts in translation.
I also love that in Calvinism God succeeds in saving those He intends to, and indeed if Calvinism realised the elect was the first fruits (ie early the church) and that God (Biblically) intends to save everyone (as per the strength of the words translated into “will” or “desire” in the verses that declare that He wants to save all), then we’d have little important stuff to disagree on (well, ok…inerrancy of Scripture and a literal understanding of Genesis are important, as are how we view the Cherem texts and others are also important, but it’d be nice to get Salvation and Eschatology out of the way).

Take the divine commandment theory (DCT) of ethics. Now, obviously, it would be wrong to say of any good personthat all of their actions must be good. However, if we accept the classical definition of God (which I am guessing you do?), then it becomes much harder to say that God can commit an evil action; otherwise, it would entail a contradiction. Granted, this might be evidence that the Calvinist reading of the Bible as espousing “eternal genocide” (that might be tendentious, johnny , but I think it would amt to that from a universalist point-of-view) is wrong. Yet, even Universalists have to hold to some kind of divine commandment ethics, or how do we make sense of, for example, God’s telling Abraham to kill Isaac? Perhaps that isn’t true, or isn’t a good example because Abraham didn’t actually do it, but on the face of it, the DCT seems about the only way one can explain it.
**
Yes, Universalists can struggle with some of those texts. I did before i became a Universalist…it’s still tricky now as it was then
What WAS God playing at with that command to Abraham, assuming Abraham was literally told to “kill” his son? Offering his son to God makes sense…but honestly…leave that knife at home! this isn’t a pagan deity you’re serving, Abraham…though your faith that God could raise from the dead was well placed.
Still…this reminds me of a humourous thing i heard (i can’t find it) where Abraham is on the way home with Isaac, and it’s very awkward…

have to confess i’m not too knowledgeable about a lot of theories, such as DCT. so i’m just trying to answer from my level of understanding.

Also, if God merely wants to save all people, then you might have tied His hands, for Arminians believe that, too, but universalism isn’t necessary on that assumption, b/c some may freely reject God, although I think Thomas Talbott is correct that this becomes more implausible given an afterlife where disillusions those who reject Him. Yet, if it is even possible for some hardened person to infinitely reject God, then the Calvinist construal of the Bible affirming “unconditional election” is necessary (though obviously Calvinists would say that not all are elect). I would say that it is closer to the truth theologically and Biblically that God must save all people, if God is love (doesn’t a loving individual have to act loving? all-the-more-so if one is perfect), and if our free will is not to undermine God.

It’s sometimes argued that Universalism sits in between Calvinism and Arminianism, so what either gets wrong in the extremes, meeting in the middle it works…
ie
free will for Arminianism works in that God gives us as much time as we need (pre or post mortem, doesn’t really matter…that instant before death can be as long as necessary), if we’re truly free and rational, we’ll eventually see that going with God is better than we thought. Calvinism gets the deterministic thing right (broadly)…though i always feel pure determinism misses the point somehow. but to say that eventually all make a free choice for God still works into that sort of plan, it just is more nuanced than pure Destiny or Fate.
so it sort of marries the idea that people need to freely choose God with the idea that God sees it all coming and “predestines” it.
So i think that’s probably fine.
we typically get most upset with the extreme sides of Arminianism and Calvinism…so free will equaling loss of Salvation is a nasty part of Arminianism (and strikes me as non-Biblical, unless the choice was only offered once, as per Hebrews 6 i think it is)…and Calvinism limiting the elect to a tiny percentage of humanity is pretty nasty too. Oddly, one can marry these extremes…the upbringing i had was “Calvminian” in that God sees in advance who will freely choose Him and predestines them…and then once saved always saved. those who walk away were obviously not sincere in their conversion, so mustn’t be elected.

I think whatever school of thought you come from, there is a step of faith…for me it’s that how ever it works out, whether deterministic or not, whether purgatorial or not, i believe that my God wants to save all, and that my God is capable…whether it takes force or time or love or subtle planning…God knows how to save every soul, desires to do it, and CAN do it.

so again, we have a marriage of God’s omnipotence with His omniscience with His omnibenevolence in Universalism…which to me makes it far more holistic a statement of faith and doctrine. but i’m sure the other schools of thought think the same of theirs

Anyway, I am not championing Calvinism as much as I am wanting to understand the coherence of universalism and Calvinism as theologies. If you would, look at Calvinism and Universalism as disinterestedly as you can (and, admittedly, this is hard to do with something you strongly believe to be wrong) to see the consistency or inconsistency of each. As deplorable as the bottom-line of Calvinism with eternal Hell for many is, it is fairly consistent given its assumptions (though these assumptions, for instance, that the atonement was limited, may be based on a poor exegesis).

i’m not convinced that it is consistent…i think it’s really odd that calvinists evangelise at all, given that God elects and God saves. it’s all grace and nobody has a say in it. it’s a divine lottery. Calvinists consistently resort to Arminian language of choice etc. when evangelising. Defenders deny that by saying that somehow that evangelising is PART of God’s plan to save the elect, and that the elect choosing is another part…and that neither party can do differently…only they can. the calvinist could put his Bible away and stop preaching…would that thwart God’s will? they might then say that even the stones would cry out…but that feels circular, and it feels like a misappropriation of what Christ meant by that image…He was talking about praising, not preaching. and we do know that nature does cry out in praise of God.

I think the virtue in this is to see where Universalism might be strengthened as a theology (though there are different strains of Universalism) and, if Universalism is T, it can bear a honest comparison, even in its faults, with other theologies. IMO, it is best to be as open as possible to other theologies and assume the least, then, if (I would actually say when b/c I am confident Universalism will emerged unscathed in such an analysis) Universalism is proven T, it is indeed proven so!

Definitely…we must sharpen this sword, to use a wholly inappropriate metaphor

So, maybe a more focused ? would be: what do you think the weak pts of Universalism are compared to Calvinism?

Ok, let’s have a good think. That is a difficult thing to consider, when you feel you’ve left behind weak points (even with my diluted mutant form of calvminianism) for a stronger position.

[NightRevan]

I have the feeling that both Calvinism and Arminianism both restrict and reduce God’s sovereignty, His infinite creativity and brilliance, and full nature of what it might mean to be omnipotent and omniscient. They both essentially agree that that some form of libertarian free-will in His creatures (as opposed to various forms of compatibilistic/deterministic free-will) will mean (at least given the fallen situation) that some will be lost (however they describe that lostness), that basically God despite His attributes, His nature, character and His sovereignty will be unable to save and rescue some of these. To me this seems to put limits on God’s sovereignty and His attributes, that He is not actually sovereign over and through all things in such a situation, and His attributes (such as omniscience and omnipotence for example) also have limits. It seems to reduce His sovereignty, nature and attributes, to say nothing of His inventiveness and creativity to something we can fully understand and put in a box, which doesn’t fit God as reflected by Scripture, at least to me.

To me, if God as truly sovereign over and through all things, if we are right in deducing the attributes, character and nature that we do and these are true (which of course I and most orthodox Christians would affirm they are, even if how that worked out might be disagreed upon) then I see no problem in the sovereign God working in and through all things with infinite inventiveness, creativity, and wisdom, remaining in ultimate full control of all creation and drawing all to salvation, immortality and their full humanity in Christ without having to effect or take control their libertarian free wills at all (even if for some the path will be longer), or resigning Himself that though He would wish to save all, some He wanted to save would be lost after all. God’s sovereignty, His nature and attributes, His very infinite genius driven by His love is greater then all fallen libertarian free will without having to reduce or interfere with that free will at all as I see it, saying anything less would seem to say that God’s sovereignty over all things actually isn’t so, that it has limits (either denying that He would give libertarian free will due to His sovereignty as Calvinists seem to, or that those with such forms of free will can be lost, either way seems to put limits on God, who doesn’t have any). They way God’s sovereignty fully works is beyond the ability of our minds to fully comprehend I think, and both the above theological systems seem to put limits on it, make it something that works on our level, something we can look at and take apart, rather then something to be truly at awe at.

The greatest example to me is the cross and the resurrection, who would have guessed (a scandal for the Jews and folly for the Greeks) that this was how God would save and rescue all the world, how He would become King and bring the promised forgiveness of sins, restoration and the new age, yet this was how He worked through all things to bring about the defeat of sin, evil and death, and bring life, forgiveness, freedom and new creation. God’s wisdom and sovereignty work far beyond the dreams and conceptions of humans, His thoughts truly are not our thoughts, and they aren’t our ways, He is not limited to the restrictions that either theological system would unintentionally seek to place on Him, in my opinion.

[corpselight]

I have the feeling that both Calvinism and Arminianism both restrict and reduce God’s sovereignty, His infinite creativity and brilliance, and full nature of what it might mean to be omnipotent and omniscient. They both essentially agree that that some form of libertarian free-will in His creatures (as opposed to various forms of compatibilistic/deterministic free-will) will mean (at least given the fallen situation) that some will be lost (however they describe that lostness), that basically God despite His attributes, His nature, character and His sovereignty will be unable to save and rescue some of these. To me this seems to put limits on God’s sovereignty and His attributes, that He is not actually sovereign over and through all things in such a situation, and His attributes (such as omniscience and omnipotence for example) also have limits. It seems to reduce His sovereignty, nature and attributes, to say nothing of His inventiveness and creativity to something we can fully understand and put in a box, which doesn’t fit God as reflected by Scripture, at least to me.

To me, if God as truly sovereign over and through all things, if we are right in deducing the attributes, character and nature that we do and these are true (which of course I and most orthodox Christians would affirm they are, even if how that worked out might be disagreed upon) then I see no problem in the sovereign God working in and through all things with infinite inventiveness, creativity, and wisdom, remaining in ultimate full control of all creation and drawing all to salvation, immortality and their full humanity in Christ without having to effect or take control their libertarian free wills at all (even if for some the path will be longer), or resigning Himself that though He would wish to save all, some He wanted to save would be lost after all. God’s sovereignty, His nature and attributes, His very infinite genius driven by His love is greater then all fallen libertarian free will without having to reduce or interfere with that free will at all as I see it, saying anything less would seem to say that God’s sovereignty over all things actually isn’t so, that it has limits (either denying that He would give libertarian free will due to His sovereignty as Calvinists seem to, or that those with such forms of free will can be lost, either way seems to put limits on God, who doesn’t have any). They way God’s sovereignty fully works is beyond the ability of our minds to fully comprehend I think, and both the above theological systems seem to put limits on it, make it something that works on our level, something we can look at and take apart, rather then something to be truly at awe at.

The greatest example to me is the cross and the resurrection, who would have guessed (a scandal for the Jews and folly for the Greeks) that this was how God would save and rescue all the world, how He would become King and bring the promised forgiveness of sins, restoration and the new age, yet this was how He worked through all things to bring about the defeat of sin, evil and death, and bring life, forgiveness, freedom and new creation. God’s wisdom and sovereignty work far beyond the dreams and conceptions of humans, His thoughts truly are not our thoughts, and they aren’t our ways, He is not limited to the restrictions that either theological system would unintentionally seek to place on Him, in my opinion.

nicely put, Grant totally agree.
personally i feel Universalism is a more holistic vision that doesn’t restrict God at all…whereas Calvinism and Arminianism have to put limits on God’s abilities, love or just how far He’s prepared to go to save people…