On another forum, a participant noted that most, if not all, Universalists he’s read are monergists affirming the sovereignty of God. And he raised the question of whether or not synergists and the doctrine of man’s autonomy is reconcilable with UR. If one affirms man’s autonomy, then it seems one must assert the possibilty that man could effectively refuse God’s grace and love forever. What say you? Is belief in God’s sovereignty necessary to beieve in UR?
I think at any level the answer would be “yes”.
To give perhaps the most pertinent example: I happen to be one of those people who acknowledge that a derivative creature could theoretically refuse God’s salvation forever. But even then I would still be a universalist. I understand universalism to be, at minimum, God’s constant intention and action to save all sinners from sin. The sinner could at best only attain an indefinite stalemate; no sinner can trump God’s sovereignty and make Him give up. And the sinner could only attain an indefinite stalemate within the context of God’s sovereignty, because God allows and empowers the sinner to do so.
On the other hand, I have a very difficult time believing that God’s sovereign omniscience wouldn’t be able to find a way to lead sinners to repentance and triumphant salvation. I still acknowledge the technical possibility; but the next thing would be to see if God reveals ahead of time that He will eventually be victorious in His salvation of sinners from sin. And in the scriptures I indeed find that testimony.
Put shortly: I am a universalist because I bet on God–not on sinners. 
If that isn’t an affirmation of God’s sovereignty, I don’t know what is.
(But of course it makes a difference what kind of God I believe to be true to bet on vs. sinners. All Calvs and at least some Arms bet on God’s sovereignty vs. sinners, too.)
Long before I came to believe in UR, I had moved away from synergism and was leaning increasingly towards monergism. I had actually come to believe that salvation was a mystery, one that incorporated both God’s sovereignty and Man’s autonomy. It was like AC electricity in that it flowed both ways at the same time, unlike DC; how it does it I do not understand, but I know when I turn the light switch on I get light. I could see both God’s sovereignty and Man’s autonomy in scripture.
Once I studied the doctrine of Hell and found it to be not scriptural though, I’ve come to be much more of a monergist, recognizing that salvation is completely by grace, a work of the Spirit, and something only some of us are priviledged to recieve in faith in this temporal life. And my view of salvation has changed from being about us getting into heaven (for such is accomplished completely by Christ), and instead being about getting heaven into us today which is accomplished through us submitting in faith to the move of the Holy Spirit.
I also find it amazing that the One foundational belief that Calvinism and Arminianism shares is the certainty of damnation for some; they disagree completely concerning the essence of salvation.
I’m a synergist and a universalist…
…gotta run to work. But I’ll hop on and try to explain later today!
Peace,
Tom
God’s Sovereignty is not necessary for UR. Origen believed that God gave man the power of reason but limited power, knowledge and sight while in this mortal shell in order to gain understanding from a limited perception. At death, we are free from these limitations and raised up in the Resurrection of the Dead with our sense of reason intact but now with the insight of His unlimited power, knowledge and sight would cause us to make a choice for the correct option. God doesn’t need to be Sovereign because all men will choose Him. This is not a system of works, and is completely of grace because God never closed the door.
Our Father is sovereign over all creation, and has all power especially the power to bring all his children to ultimate happiness and holiness. If God is no more powerful than the creation, then the Almighty is not God. Humanity has free agency, the ability to chose an action and be subjected to consequences positive or negative but they do not have the ability to resist forever. The all conquering love and grace of God will win out eventually. I respect my brother and sister Universalists who differ from me on this issue.
To make sure we aren’t talking past one another - do we agree on what we mean by ‘sovereignty’? For instance, here is a quote from TheoWiki:
The Sovereignty of God is the biblical teaching that all things are under God’s rule and control, and that nothing happens without His direction or permission. God works not just some things but all things according to the counsel of His own will (see Eph. 1:11). His purposes are all-inclusive and never thwarted (see Isa. 46:11); nothing takes Him by surprise. The sovereignty of God is not merely that God has the power and right to govern all things, but that He does so, always and without exception. In other words, God is not merely sovereign de jure (in principle), but sovereign de facto (in practice).
Does that meet everyone’s approval?
I’m a synergist and I believe in libertarian free will, and in the eventual reconciliation of all people to God. I believe that God seldom, if ever, interferes with free will.
The apostle Paul believed in synergism and recommended it in Christian practice:
Working together (synergountes)with him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain. (2 Corinthians 6:1)
If we do nothing, and believe that God will give us his grace, that will be in vain. He will not make us righteous unilaterally. We must coöperate with His enabling grace.
I have taught UR to believers of both persuausions, and I do not believe either is necessary to understand the mystery of the reconciliation of all. It is a stated fact of many scriptures, and therefore a pillar of truth- a foundation that stands on its own.
Issues concerning free will vs sovereign will and all the shades and degrees and variations thereof, are only analysies of the process whereby the stated fact of universal restoration is accomplished. To me they are subject to that stated fact and cannot mitigate it.
For those who believe in free will, I teach that Jesus will draw all men unto Him and tear down every stronghold and fortress against the true knowledge of God until every argument is rendered impotent before the glory of His love, epitomized at the cross.
For those who are Calvinist I teach that certainly God, who subjected the creation to futility in hope, will set that creation free from futility into the glorious liberty of the sons of God, and that He will make every adversary a footstool for His feet, and reconcile all through the blood of His cross, “For so it pleased the Father to make all the flness dwell in Him and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself through the blood of His cross, whether things in earth or things in heaven.” Who, being sovereign, “causes all things to work according to the council of His will”, and “will have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth”- or else He just isnt really sovereign at all 
God’s sovereignty is essential to any Christian belief however if you are talking about God’s sovereignty to the extent that everything is monergistic than this is a different and specific to Augustinian (I say say this because monergism didn’t even really exist in Christian realms until the time of Augustine) or later on Calvinistic understanding that is not required to uphold universal restoration as a possibility but a Augustinian understanding of God’s sovereignty would possibly need to be upheld to hold UR as a certainty to happen. The fact is that there were many prior and during Augustine’s time who held to synergism while also holding to UR as their speculation of what happens in the end but no one taught it dogmatically. After Augustine though there were very few if any who taught the doctrine of UR (especially in the West) for quite some time but there have always been some strands (especially in the Eastern Orthodox camp) that have held out hope that UR was a possibility even though it was not the official stance of any church that I am aware (that including Eastern and Western).
In my opinion there is no need to accept an Augustinian or Calvinistic monergistic view to ascetrtain from the scriptures that UR is a certainty. Everything we believe is based in the scriptures- our interpretation of what they say may differ.
Once it is determined that the salvation of all is a declarative statement in the scriptures, the method through which it occurs can still be debatable (and is).
Our logic is limited in depth of perspective. The Word of God is not. The deeper we get into it the fuzzier some of the edges get, because we see though a glass darkly, things mortal eyes cannot bring into absolute focus.
In my opinion there is no need to accept an Augustinian or Calvinistic monergistic view to ascetrtain from the scriptures that UR is a certainty. Everything we believe is based in the scriptures- our interpretation of what they say may differ.
Once it is determined that the salvation of all is a declarative statement in the scriptures, the method through which it occurs can still be debatable (and is).
Our logic is limited in depth of perspective. The Word of God is not. The deeper we get into it the fuzzier some of the edges get, because we see though a glass darkly, things mortal eyes cannot bring into absolute focus.