hmm…the way i’ve read it, Israel was elected as a priesthood to the world. they were also elected to give birth to the Messiah, another gift to the world.
the church is elected to go into the world and preach the good news…
i reckon if there’s any grounds for believing Calvinism, it’s partial Calvanism, for those that are saved by some divine revelation they can’t ignore (i have friends like this, but Christ’s faithful disciples and Paul are great examples of those who really had no choice after what they were gifted to know)…and i’d mix that with the Arminian view that aside from those privileged souls that had no choice but to accept God’s revelation, there are people who do have a choice.
however, i’m thinking both of these schools of thought have issues. as far as i’ve gotten in TEU, i’ve noticed that Calvinists fall flat by making the GOODNESS of God to be less (because He extends His grace to all, provably, in Scripture, and yet based on a few verses it is assumed that He chooses to eternally torment a group vaguely defined by implication at least as not Elect).
Arminians possibly (i don’t know if i’m convinced yet) fall flat in making God’s greatness smaller by saying He couldn’t eventually have the ability to win over everyone.
either God is great AND God is good, or He is one or the other. Universalism to me appears to follow the more sensible path of saying He is great (so great He always gets His way, by hook or by crook) AND good (because He does not will for anyone to die forever outside His love).
i’m sure i’ve put this badly.
but i agree with that article. it’s well thought out, and i do agree that universalism is less “heretical” (as in it its potential to drive people away from our loving, great God) than ECT-brand Calvinism, sorry if that offends.
but i must say, if i’m out to burn me some heretics…i’d first go after the prosperity gospel blasphemers. they are parasites of the worst order that lead many away from God.