Calv/Arm/Kath -- The Prologue of Prologues

[JasonPratt]

CHAPTER 1: THE PROLOGUE OF PROLOGUES

[Note: for the [i]King of Stories harmonization reference at the Cadre Journal, click here.]

[Note: An article on trinitarian exegetics to this particular material will be posted at the Cadre Journal eventually, and link updated here when so.]

[Note: this “chapter” of the overall “book” will be posted in multiple comments, to help provide topical breaks.]

John 1:1-18

This, the prologue of prologues for the canonical Gospels, states in exalted language (much like a hymn) several characteristics of Jesus Christ and His relationship to all other persons: specifically to the Father on one hand, and to all created persons on the other. (Christ’s relationship to the Holy Spirit, however, is only perhaps hinted at in this prologue.) While Christ’s saving relation to created persons is only mentioned with some directness in one paragraph, roughly in the middle of the hymn, that relationship must logically occur within the parameters of His more fundamental relationships to us.

Although there are some known textual variations of at least minor importance in these verses, none of the variations seriously affect an analysis of Christ’s saving relationship to other persons. The same is true of the debate among textual scholars about where the sentence begun in verse 3 should stop and restart (at verse 4?–or earlier in verse three at “what has come into being”?), which was also debated in the centuries before and after the Council of Nicea.

The relevant testimony of these verses, as generally accepted by all orthodox Trinitarian theologians (Calv, Arm or Kath), is that Jesus Christ is the Logos, the Word of God, Who while being in very identity and nature God, is not the same person as God the Father, with Whom the “only-begotten God, Who is in the heart of the Father” (v.18) shares divine identity. In consonance with the Old Testament prophets, the Evangelist of GosJohn (traditionally regarded as the Apostle John son of Zebedee) states the paradoxical claim that while no one has ever seen God, the only-begotten God has been beheld the Father (just as the glory-presence of God, the shekinah, could be seen in the tabernacle-dwelling.)

This creational and ontological relationship with all other reality than the Father, is important to stress: nothing comes into being apart from Christ, but rather all things come into being through (or by) Christ (v.3), even joy (or grace) and even reality (or truth) itself (v.17).

(This notion that even the reality of God eternally comes into being through God’s self-expressive action, is implied several other ways throughout the hymn as well–though it must also be said that not all Calvinists, Arminians or Universalists agree with this ‘positive aseity’ of God. Many prefer instead to claim the ‘privative aseity’ of God, where God simply exists statically without even being eternally self-caused. This would tend to deny that any action at all is intrinsic to God’s essential character and characteristics–a notion far more reminiscent of atheism than theism!–including an effective denial that God is self-begetting and self-begotten. But again, it must be admitted that the majority of Trinitarian theologians, maybe even the great majority throughout history, have believed and taught this ultimately static and fundamentally inactive existence of God. Still, even these theologians will agree that whatever does come into existence comes into existence through and by God, Father and Son in union, which is the main point for our current purposes.)

All three basic Christian soteriologies (Calv, Arm and Kath) also agree that although the world was made through Christ, the world did not know Christ in one or more important way. (v.10) The Evangelist does not specifically state, in this pericope (or portion of scripture), why this failure of knowledge occurred and still occurs; but he will have some things to say about this later. (All three soteriologies acknowledge that there is at least a hint of why in verse 5, however, when the light shines in the darkness, yet the darkness does not comprehend or grasp it.)

Calv, Arm and Kath can all agree that children of God are given authority by God to be heir-children; that this authority is given by God to everyone who receives Him, and trusts in His name; and that this requires such persons being begotten: not by various natural methods, including by the will of man, but instead being begotten of God.

(Some Calvs, Arms or Kaths may in principle, or in practice contrary to their principles, actually disavow the notion that God gives authority to be heir-children of this sort, as if this official authorization from God, by God’s authority, would somehow undermine the sovereignty of God by God granting a real though derivative authority to someone other than God; but none of the basic categories need necessarily make such a disavowal.)

Calv, Arm and Kath can all agree on John the Baptist being a man sent from God as an ambassador or envoy or representative (v.6); and on him not being the Light and/or Logos, but rather testifying about the Light (v.8); and on his testimony (among other things) being that “The One Who is coming behind me has come to be before me!–because he was existing first before me.” (v.15)

Finally, all three groups can agree that the Logos/Word (or Memra in Aramaic), Who was and remains and will be Jesus Christ, birthed Itself flesh (or became flesh); and at least lived among us (perhaps still does) as in a tabernacle; and that the original apostles and disciples used to view the glory of the Word (a view perhaps still available to us today); this glory being that of ‘Only-begotten’ from the Father, full of grace and truth (or full of joy and reality).

It is after these agreements that the chief disagreements among the three soteriology groups begin, in regard to interpreting this portion of scripture.

[JasonPratt]

v.7: “This one [John the Baptist, sent with a mission from God, per v.6] came for a testimony, that he might bear witness of the Light [the life within God, including within the Son of God], so that all might believe through him.” (Or possibly “through Him”, depending on whether the pronoun refers to belief through the witness of the Baptist, or refers to belief through the Light Himself. Either or both interpretations could be accepted in various ways by all three basic soteriologies.)

Arms and Kaths would each have no problem understanding the “all” who might believe, as being the same “all” (particularly all persons) who came into being through Christ as God Himself.

Calvs, however, must qualify this “all”: it means only the elect chosen by God for salvation; or perhaps it refers to the human evangelism represented by John the Baptist which (since we are not omniscient and cannot know for sure whom God has and has not chosen for salvation) must be preached by us to all persons without distinction.

Notice that insofar as Calvs believe rebel angels to be surely non-elect, Christians would not be expected to bear witness of the Light to them in any saving way.

If Arminianistic soteriology is true, then we may or may not be expected to evangelize rebel angels for their salvation, but logically they would still be included in the scope of “all” here. Arminians would either have to accept that rebel angels can still be evangelized for purposes of salvation from sin (although this opportunity will be eventually lost); or else read in an exclusion to the effect that rebel angels may have had a chance to be saved at some point but don’t anymore; or possibly read in an exclusion similar to rationales for why humans before Christ, and after Christ but without Christian evangelization, are hopelessly lost. Note that such a rationale would have to be read into this verse for human sinners in any case unless the Arminian (or Calvinist for that matter) acknowledges post-mortem salvation in Christ to be possible.

(A Calvinistic/Augustinian Christian, whether Protestant or Catholic, could in principle accept that some of the elect, such as pre-Christian faithful Jews, were or will be saved from imprisonment in hades, even if not from punishment per se, during the descent of Christ to preach there.)

Universalists would be required logically to include even rebel angels as receivers of this testimony unto faith/belief in Christ; but this would not be a problem for their soteriology.

(No group would be obligated to preach to rebel angels, or even to rebel humans, if such rebels do not truly exist as real persons, of course; as some among all three groups believe, particularly regarding rebel angels.)

Another possibility for Calv interpretation, and perhaps for Arm interpretation, is that while testimony about Christ may and should be preached to all persons (even to rebel angels, if they exist), this does not necessarily mean an evangelical appeal for repentance unto salvation. It may only mean testimony to various factual statements about Christ (such as that the Word is emphatically God, etc.) Kaths (and most if not all Arms), however, would expect such factual testimony to include the intention of God, in and as Christ, to save all rebels from sin, and so would be obligated as ambassadorial representatives of Christ to truly (and not only formally or facetiously) extend the exhortation to repent and “be reconciled to God” (2 Cor 5:20) to all sinners.

It should be noted that none of these qualified interpretations of “all” can be read out of this verse or its immediately surrounding contexts. At best, the qualifications must be read into this verse (hopefully out from somewhere else).

While there is no need to read a universalistic interpretation into this verse, Kaths could argue from other scriptural evidence along with Calvs that God shall not fail in His purposes, and the grammar here does clearly indicate a purpose of God parallel to another purpose in immediate context (introduced with an identical {hina}): God sent the Baptist {hina} he might bear witness to the Light. As one {hina} purpose was fulfilled (sending the Baptist to testify and prepare the way), so the related parallel {hina} purpose shall also be fulfilled (all will come to believe in Christ). There is nothing in the immediate context to directly indicate this interpretation, though.

So, weighing the positive testimony from this verse:

Calv: -1/0 (Calv positions must be completely read in, but the contexts don’t necessarily require complete eisegetic reversal–unless the {hina} means “so that” in the sense of ‘this was done so that that could be done’, which would imply direct intention of effect. If so, the combination of this with the scope of {pantes} would testify directly against Calvinistic limited intention of God’s saving action, requiring a restricted meaning for {pantes} to be read in.)

Arm: -1/4 (Could fit fine for a few Arm varieties; but needs varying degrees of eisegetic qualification if devils are persons who cannot (or by God’s choice will not) be saved, possibly up to directly opposing the apparent scope of the testimony. Certainly needs eisegetic qualification if post-mortem human evangelization is denied. While the verse seems to testify to total scope of salvation it does not seem to mention final condemnation, or condemnation at all, even in local context, so a grade of 5 or 6–which would weigh against Kath interpretation–is not warranted.)

Kath: 4 (Fits fine with no qualifications necessary, but does not appear to be specifically testifying in favor of universalistic soteriology. A universalistic meaning could be read directly into the verse by means of extended context plus slightly suggestive immediate context, but there is no need to do so (beyond an ideological insistence on interpreting every remotely feasible verse that way.))

[JasonPratt]

v.9: “This [Light, which was not John the Baptist but which he came to bear witness to, per v.8] was the true Light Who is enlightening every person who is coming into the world!” (Or possibly, “Who, coming into the world, is enlightening every person!”)

The interpretive spread here is the same as for verse 7, except possibly even more difficult for Calvinistic soteriology.

Kaths have no problem understanding “every person” as meaning hopeful evangelism for every person (even rebel angels, if they are persons); and Arms have no problem understanding the same, at least in regard to human persons (maybe even including rebel angels–but maybe not, either, even if they count as persons). Depending on the translation of the grammar, the scope might be restricting to humans (as ‘persons coming into the world’); but then again rebel angels have also been claimed (including in the Gospels later) to come into the world in various ways.

Calvs, meanwhile, must try reading in one of the previously mentioned interpretive qualifications, although the ramped up emphasis on the scope of the enlightening (one way or another, per the translational option noted above) would tend to weigh proportionately more strongly against simply reading in an exclusion of the non-elect. In fact, it might even be considered direct counter-testimony to at least some Calvinistic notions, specifically ones which involve denying that the Holy Spirit acts to “enlighten” the non-elect in any regard.

The notion here is that if the Holy Spirit actually helps a sinner see light, then the Spirit is providing at least a little empowerment to accept truth and repent. But if a soul is given even a little empowerment, then (per Calvinistic and Universalistic salvation theories) we can trust the Spirit to keep persisting at this until the soul is saved from sin, however long it takes, even if the sinner persists in squinting his eyes against the light.

By granting this, the Spirit could be providing the sinner with a real choice to accept or rebel; which looks like an intention of God that the sinner might possibly repent and be saved. Consequently, some (not all) Calvs prefer to deny that God provides any light to the non-elect, in order to avoid even the slightest real possibility for the non-elect to repent and be saved.

Other Calvinistic Christians, if they acknowledge God does actually enlighten even the non-elect, would say that God forces light (not merely provides it, and with no intention for the light to be of benefit to the non-elect: which is why I am calling it “forcing”) in judgment of sin on the non-elect while also choosing never to give them any ability to acknowledge the truth.

But since it seems very pointless for God to insist the truth on the non-elect without providing them the capability to acknowledge the truth, a Calv may go one step further and claim God forces truth on the non-elect eventually while also choosing to give them the ability to acknowledge the truth but never the ability to repent of their sins. This would be similar to an Arminian belief that God shall insist on the truth being known even if sinners have made it impossible for themselves to be saved by God anymore (by God’s authoritative choice in various ways or otherwise).

Calv: -1/0 (At best, a specifically Calv position must be completely read into the testimony here; and it might even have to be read in direct opposition to the data.)

Arm: 3/4 (Fits fine for most Arm varieties, but may need eisegetic qualification if devils are persons who cannot (or by God’s choice will not) be saved. A grammatic translation option would allow such qualifications to be minor in relation to the immediate context.)

Kath: 4 (Fits fine with no qualifications necessary, including with both grammatic translation options; but does not appear to be specifically testifying in favor of universalistic soteriology.)

[JasonPratt]

This might be the best time to digress a moment to discuss what could be colorfully called ‘the devilscope Arm problem’: Arminianistic theology routinely stresses the saving love of God for all sinners and so also the saving intention and action of God for all sinners. But then the question comes as to where the rebel angels fit into this scheme.

If there are no such thing as rebel spirits, of course, then this is not a problem; and some Arminians depersonalize or otherwise deny the existence of rebel spirits. This keeps the total Arminian scope, but leads them into direct conflict with other Arms (and Christians of other soteriological types) who affirm the personal existence of such spirits.

If there are such things as rebel spirits, then God may have intended and acted to save them from their sins but they have already finally refused. (I do not know of any Arminianistic scholar who takes this position, but I hear vague suggestions of it from Arminians personally sometimes.) This also would keep the total Arminian scope, since devils would not have been excluded from the intention and action of God’s salvation. The chief problem seems to be a lack of scriptural support for this position (that they had their chance to be saved from their sins but permanently refused it); but of course a lack of mention in the scriptures does not mean a notion is false and/or in conflict with scriptural testimony.

Another way to resolve the Arminian scope in reference to rebel angels, would be to acknowledge that God does act to save rebel angels from sin and maybe even succeeds in doing so, but that eventually God will stop acting toward this goal for one or another reason. This is a slightly modified version of the previous concept, the difference being that the opportunity for salvation has not yet been closed (by God and/or by the spirits themselves) for all rebel spirits. And it similarly protects the total Arminian scope, even if God has prophetically revealed that some rebels spirits will never repent. I do not personally know any Arminians who take this position (scholars or non-scholars alike); but Arminianistic soteriology in itself does not exclude it, and it would fit with some little-known Old Testament testimony about rebel gods coming back to loyalty to God Most High (and shaming their still impenitent worshipers by doing so. But that is a discussion for a whole other volume).

Lastly, and perhaps most commonly, an Arminian could simply posit that rebel angels are outside the scope of God’s intent and action to save sinners from sin. Since this directly contravenes the total Arminian scope, a couple of different workarounds could be attempted: rebel angels are just categorically too different in some way for the scope to apply (I have heard this a lot in my life among Arminians, but have never quite heard why–except from those who hold the theory that rebel spirits are impersonal forces and so cannot be saved anymore than gravity or a rock). Another way of getting around this problem would be to deny from the outset that there is anything in God’s essential characteristics other than God’s authoritative choice behind God’s scope of salvation: God intends to save only human sinners, although all of those, not rebel angels. For this defense the problem was never in God’s scope but in theories of assurance about God’s scope being rooted in God’s essential nature (“God is essentially love” for example).

Calvinistic apologists have problems with each of these defenses of Arminian scope, but especially the latter type of defense–which succeeds by claiming in effect that the rebel angels are sovereignly dis-elected by God! The Arminian would actually agree in principle with the Calvinist on election and even on active dis-election; the only difference would be a question of how limited the limited scope of God’s intention is.

A Calvinist, in other words, could consistently hold that only the rebel angels are non-elect with all humans being elected for salvation, which God will sooner or later surely succeed at (including post-mortem as God sees fit in best relation to other plans of His). I do not personally know of any Calvinists who hold this position, but I have sometimes heard or read things from Calvinists that suggest or hint at it. The point for our current discussion however is that an “Arminianistic” Christian who held this position would be better described as “Calvinistic”: they would only regard themselves as Arminianistic (Arminian, or in sympathy with Arminians if, as in the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodoxy, their communion happens to historically precede Protestant Arminianism) by a category error. (The same would be true about hopefully universalistic Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxy who hope or even, for the latter, outright believe all human sinners will eventually be saved from sin, but who regard God as never even intending to save rebel angels. If someone held this position while denying the personal existence of rebel angels, of course, that would be at least hopefully universalistic or Katholicistic, not Calvinistic: there would be no persons outside the scope of God’s salvation.)

Anyway, some Arm options listed above could fit without problem in (or even be positively supported by) scriptures which seem to testify to total scope of salvation; but only if the existence of rebel angels is denied, or if rebel angels are included in the scope in some fashion. If rebel angels are regarded to exist but are not included in the scope, then some interpretative adjustment must be read into such verses seeming to testify to total scope. The stronger the verses seem to testify to total scope, the more adjustment would be necessary, up to adjusting against the apparent scriptural testimony otherwise!

This, to put it mildly, can result in a mess. And it will be a very common mess as we proceed.

[JasonPratt]

v.11: “Unto His own He came, but those who are His own did not accept Him.”

Neither Kaths nor Arms would have any trouble, in principle, accepting that those who belong to Christ in the fullest possible sense, including that of a saving relationship, did not accept Him when He came to them.

An Arminian might have a little trouble, though, putting into practice the bluntly present-tense affirmation that those who (in the past) rejected Christ are still fully His own. Hadn’t any of them, maybe even most of them, already died by the time GosJohn was written?–and even if not, surely we must consider them all dead now. So having died in their sins, wouldn’t that mean (if some versions of Arminian soteriology are true) that Christ indeed has disowned them already, in principle if not yet as a historical occurrence (at the final judgment)? An Arminian might have to read a distinction into the meaning of one of those uses of “His own” compared to the other, or else interpret a reduced meaning of “His own” for both uses.

Another option would be to appeal to differences between English and Biblical Greek grammatic tenses, where the apparent present tense in Greek might only be making a rhetorical emphasis of some kind about an obviously past-tense situation. (One common example of this is when Gospel authors sometimes use present-tense in narrating past events for various effects.) However, this appeal would still introduce the question of why the Evangelist thought it rhetorically important to use present tense for stressing something here.

The simplest option for Calvs, meanwhile, would be to read a merely ontological meaning of “His own” into this verse: the non-elect still belong to God ontologically, of course. It isn’t as though they ever exist dependently on anything else than God!–much less do they begin to exist independently like God. (Arms, as just mentioned, have a similar option, though their understanding of ‘non-elect’ is somewhat different.)

Previous context in the GosJohn prologue, regarding the ontological status of Christ (as God) compared to everything else in reality, lends some support to interpreting “His own” in this merely ontological way; but, on the other hand, if the Arminian has understood the enlightening of every person by Christ (and/or the Holy Spirit) just previously in verse 9, to involve a real possibility of salvation for every person, it will be much harder for the Arminian to read in a reduction of the meaning of “own” here at verse 11.

Calv: -1/3 (Fits fine, once a contextually plausible meaning of “His own” is read into the verse–although this would also depend on having read specifically Calvinistic doctrine into verse 9 first, on much less immediately contextually plausible grounds! Without this restrictive qualification being read in back at verse 9, the verse in local context would otherwise be testifying directly against Calvinistic soteriology.)

Arm: -1/4 (Could fit fine with no qualifications necessary, depending on the Arm variant; but might require reading Arm doctrine into the verse in various ways, too, in order to avoid reading this as a direct testimony against Arminianistic soteriology.)

Kath: 4 (Fits fine with no qualifications necessary, but does not appear to be specifically testifying in favor of universalistic soteriology.)

[JasonPratt]

v.16: “For we all received from that which fills Him, and joy for joy!”

Calv, Arm and Kath all three can agree that all persons (even the Calvinistic non-elect) receive something from Jesus Christ as God. All three can even agree that all persons receive blessings in a way (even the Calvinistic non-elect). All persons receive reality through Jesus Christ, for example, as verse 17 goes on to say (though this is not always translated so directly).

The term there in v.17 is actually “truth”, of course. But truth is that which corresponds to the actual facts, and given the strong creational thrust of GosJohn’s prologue–even in regard to {charis} and {alêtheia}, which themselves come into being through Jesus Christ–“reality” seems a good way to help get across the strength of what is being said in v.17.

Especially since, according to at least some Calv versions, the non-elect do not receive even truth through Jesus Christ! But even those versions of Calvinism must agree (or else contradict supernaturalistic theism, including trinitarian theism) that in some way even the non-elect must receive reality, although not truth, through Jesus Christ.

Other Calv variants would agree that even the non-elect have the truth forced upon them (whether God empowers them to accept it or not–but even if He empowers them to accept it to some degree He does not empower the non-elect to repent of their sins and accept the truth in loyalty to God and to God’s glory). But the verb here, {elabomen}, is absolutely not a verb that fits the notion of something being forced unwillingly on anyone. On the contrary, it is a verb that describes grateful reception by someone–by {hêmeis pantes}, “we all”–as though we are accepting it into our hands. (Catholic and High Protestant communions routinely consider this verse to be pointing to the Eucharist in fact, still tenting among us which we attentively gaze upon as the glory of the only-begotten from the Father full of joy and reality, per verse 14.) But then again, “we all” could only mean the Calvinistic elect (and indeed must mean at least that.)

Why is this digression concerning v.17 important? After all, it doesn’t say there that all persons receive truth through Jesus Christ, or anything else for that matter!

No; but verse 16 does say that “we all” have received from that which fills Him. What fills Him? {charis} and {alêtheia}, as stated back in verse 14. Even more pertinently, what fills Him is Life which is the light of men; thus we all have received from the Life which fills Him. Received what? {charis} and {alêtheia}.

Moreover, we either give {charis} for {charis} received from Christ, or we receive {charis} for {charis} we give.

It cannot be that we fill Christ with {charis} (much less with original self-existent Life!) from which we receive in return–unless supernaturalistic theism is false, and besides that would run against the whole ontological thrust of the GosJohn prologue, including just afterward in verse 17, where {charis} comes into existence at all through Jesus Christ. The {charis} must come first from Christ to us, and then we give it.

The other contextually plausible option of action-direction is that we receive {charis} from Christ when we give {charis} to other persons who, like ourselves, have been created by Christ: a notion that has strong relationship with statements in the Synoptics concerning mercy and forgiveness.

The idea that we shall be given mercy / forgiveness / {charis} if we give this to other persons, is not one that Calvs, Arms or Kaths would disagree with each other about, of course (in principle at least).

Kaths have no problem affirming that we all have received, not only reality from God (though and as Christ), and not only joy, but also truth and grace from God: saving grace, the greatest joy of the sinner.

Arms would have no problem affirming this either; even rebel angels at one time received joy (or grace) from God along with reality (or truth)–back before they were rebels. Some Arms might even allow that God has at one time given (or will up to a point continue to give) saving grace even to rebel angels.

Calvs must absolutely deny that God even intended to give theologically significant grace to at least some sinners: to the non-elect–which would include at least some rebel angels before their rebellion. God never even intended to save them from their eventual sin, and certainly did not persist in giving them theologically significant grace or joy. Meaning, in Calv terms, they must never had had that grace, not even non-elected rebel angels before their rebellion–otherwise there would be a denial of the Calv principle of persistence of divine grace that is given: beyond rebellion to salvation. However, the immediate context doesn’t seem to weigh in itself against the notion that only God’s elect not God’s non-elect (sooner or later) receive theologically relevant grace and truth (or joy and reality). Even in immediately subsequent context (v.17), where grace and truth come to exist through Jesus Christ, that wouldn’t mean everyone comes to receive it, especially if God does not give the grace to receive it (despite such grace, like all grace, coming to exist through Jesus Christ in the first place).

But prior local contexts must have Calv positions read strongly into them in order to avoid porting their apparent context over here, concerning God’s (apparent) intention to save all sinners from sin.

Does the “we” in “we all” here at verse 16 provide local support for reading an exclusion in favor of Calvinistic elect into locally previous verses? No, because all three branches of soteriology (broadly speaking) can easily agree with the “we all” referring to loyal Christians here.

Calv: 4 (Fits fine with no qualifications immediately necessary, since immediate contexts are definitely talking about Christians loyally receiving Christ’s grace and truth; and that could be only God’s elect. This depends on Calv soteriology being strongly interpreted into prior local contexts, which would otherwise imply contextually that God intends everyone to receive all grace and truth that come to exist in Jesus Christ; but those problems should not be held against a decent fit here. (If the “we” was missing from “we all”, on the other hand, there would a direct contextual problem here for Calvinists.))

Arm: 4 (Fits fine with no qualifications necessary, but does not appear to be specifically testifying in favor of Arminianistic soteriology.)

Kath: 4 (Fits fine with no qualifications necessary, but does not appear to be specifically testifying in favor of universalistic soteriology.)

[JasonPratt]

Exegetic averages for this portion of scripture (out of four relevant points of possible dispute):

Calv: 0.25 to 2.75
Arm: 1.25 to 4
Kath: 4

Keep in mind that even though (by this reckoning) Calv doesn’t fit as well on the average as Arm, some Calv variants may have more strength here than some Arm variants; or Calv soteriology broadly may have a few points where they’re stronger here than Arm soteriology broadly. Also, even though this reckoning shows a solid favor for Kath soteriology, it’s a kind of ‘positive-neutral’ favor: no specifically positive testimony for Christian universalism (broadly speaking) but no problems either.

Also keep in mind that this is only one small portion of the scriptures (and of course is only my own accounting of it); there may be other places more strongly testifying for Calv or for Arm (or for Kath!) over against other options, and it might be very appropriate to interpret some things here by light of what is said elsewhere (whether Calv, Arm or Kath)–even possibly against what appears to be testified against a position here!

[Note: this ends the chapter; the thread is now unlocked for forum comments. ]