I don’t believe anyone has started a parallel thread on this conversation, but this topic struck my interest so I thought I’d start one.
I feel like this is the new wine / old wineskin problem again. I think fundamental to Luke’s comments here is the calvanist idea that the “chosen” are predestined to be elected to salvation (that’s a mouthful). In other words; predestination = election = salvation. There is mutual exclusivity to all three. One who has not been elected therefore, also cannot be saved. The ideas are inseparable to the calvanist.
To this I respond, to what end was Abraham’s election?
An integral part of Abraham’s election was for the blessing of “all the families of the gound”. This is more often translated as “all peoples of the earth”. The “chosen” have never been chosen to the exclusion of others, but always for the purpose of blessing those who have not been chosen.
This is a fundamental difference with the calvanistic view of election and predestination. I believe we need to break apart the ideas of election and salvation… they are not equivalent. Election implies salvation, but that’s where the tie ends. Election is about those who are elected to share the gospel with the world in this age.
With this in mind, I believe it can be shown that the distinction between “calvanist universalist” and “armenian universalist” starts to fade (and perhaps desolve?).
The arminian states that God wants to, but can’t.
The calvanist says God can, but doesn’t want to.
The universalist says God wants to. God can. And God will.
Luke rightly states what I believe in that “all of God’s actions in the world are bringing everyone eventually to salvation.” I see that scripture does not teach an exclusive tie between election and salvation. Since I’ve come to recognize this, I see all the scriptures about election in a new light. We who are elected in this age (brought to repentance and experience salvation here and now) are the ones through whom God is reconciling the world to Himself - it’s like we’re ambassadors or something
When we try to pour this new wine (new understanding) into the old wineskin (calvanist theological system), it doesn’t work. But when we take scripture at its word, and carefully consider the context of the passages regarding election and predestination, we see that they are not a blessing of the elect to the exclusion of everyone else, but rather for the benefit of everyone
This was really just off the top of my head… and probably not very well formulated. But I thought I’d put it out there for comments… anyone have any input?