The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Poll: Can I be a Calvinist and a Universalist?

Evangelical Universalism Arguments for Evangelical Universalism
#41

I used to be a Calvinists until I went overseas and realized that people did not actually dislike God (or hate as some Calvinists said). They just did not know anything about him, or if they did, they had never heard that Jesus was God, not just a man.

Even though I have rejected predestination in a Calvinist sense and believe that ultimately all peple will be saved, it does appear that God has predestined some people to believe on this earth. I would not go as far as to say all, but it does appear that God has literally chased some people down.

I have a good friend in SE Asia who was a nun. She walked three days to a temple barfooted, searching for God, when she cut her foot and was bleeding. She picked up a piece of paper,and as she was plotting out the blood with the piece of paper, she looked at it and noticed these words, “Come unto me all you who are weary and burdened.” She was not looking to meet Jesus, nor is Christianity rampet or popular in that area. (In fact, it’s quite scarce to find a Christian where she was.) Yet the paper seemed to have found her.

There are so many stories, and for whatever reason, God does find some people.

#42

It depends on the definition of “Calvinist”.

“So what is the difference between 5 point vs. being a lesser point Calvinist…”

“Most people who claim not to be a 5-point Calvinist do so based on an objection to the “limited atonement” part of the acronym T.U.L.I.P.”

christianforums.com/threads … 429/page-4

#43

"Question: “What is Amyraldism / Four-Point Calvinism?” "

"Answer: Amyraldism (sometimes spelled Amyraldianism) is an off-shoot of Calvinism that holds to four of Calvinism’s five points—limited atonement being the only point to be rejected. For this reason, Amyraldism is sometimes called “four-point Calvinism” or “moderate Calvinism.” Amyraldism is named after Moses Amyraut (Moyses Amyraldus), a 16th-century French theologian who was influential in the development of the doctrine of “hypothetical redemption” or “hypothetical universalism.” "

gotquestions.org/Amyraldism.html

monergism.com/topics/bad-th … -calvinism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyraldism

#44

I have introduced these before - on another thread here. Let me introduce a couple of articles - that bridge Calvinism and Universalism:

Calvinism leads to universalism…
Meet a Calvinist who is also a Universalist

#45

IMO, the consistent Calv must also be a universalist. For that matter, the consistent Arm must be a universalist.

Talbot’s reasoning goes thus, and I agree with him.

The Bible tells us that God is omnipotent.

The Bible tells us that God is not willing that any should perish but that all should (shall) come to repentance.

If God is omnipotent, He can do ALL things. If God is all loving, He must do His best (which is infinite) for those He loves–that means the whole world (for God so loved the world).

The 5-point Calv in effect believes that God is all-powerful but not all-loving. He denies the very nature of God, which is love.

The typical Arm believes that God is all loving, but is not able to save all those He loves–and worse, that God will stop even trying at some point. Love, Paul tells us, never fails. This typical Arm position is inconsistent not only with the omnipotence of God, but with His unfailing love.

Come to think of it, the only belief consistent with God’s goodness, love and power IS universalism. How have we been so blind for so long?

#46

The only trouble with Calvinism is limited atonement, which of course is based on misunderstanding the post-millennial resurrection, lake of fire and the purpose and nature of God’s judgment. If Calvinists would swap limited atonement for limited election, the theology would be sound. There are so many very good Calvinist expositors, some of the best theologians on the planet today except for this very serious misconception.

In response to another posting on this subject, I think it’s a mistake to think we have any choice in the matter whatsoever, however much it may appear to us, subjectively, that we have a will to exercise. I don’t think we can know who the elect are, those from among the dead and living who are raised up at the Lord’s second coming, or that we are among that number, until this is revealed as empirical fact. But I suspect that His elect, those He calls His sheep that hear His voice, will be very intimately involved in the continuing salvation story. I don’t think we should be troubled not knowing who the elect are, or if we are among them. That Christ is risen and will draw all to Himself is quite sufficient. I think His elect would be entirely satisfied with just that, and content to simply trust only in Him.

#47

Welcome, Horan

Great post–Thanks. I’d see it just a shade differently but not by much. And of course I might also be wrong. :wink:

Cindy

#48

I would with all respect, disagree with most of your post. But I don’t argue Calvinism much any longer - it’s too depressing to think about.
In any case, it’s good to have you on the Forum! You express yourself very well and have obviously thought through many things.

Welcome.

#49

DaveB said:

Amen, Amen, Amen, Amen have I said it enough? :laughing:
Thanks Bro

#50

Well, I agree with all of this, but would only add that God’s mercy is infinitely stubborn. Why would, how could His victory fall short of total? Otherwise, what’s the good news?

#51

Exactly, Horan.

How could it be good news if ANYONE is ultimately lost? The loss of even one would touch ALL of us so very deeply. We are all far more intimately related to one another than very many of us ever realize–even to the smallest degree.

That said, let me share one point of difference. I agree that we don’t (at this time) have a lot of “free will,” but I probably mean something different by this than would be immediately obvious. I believe that God is developing free will in us. I believe it is God’s ultimate intention that we should all become absolutely free. Now, in this life, we are to one degree or another like the small child who, though heir of all, is in practice subject to teachers and no more powerful (or to put it another way, no more free) than a slave. We are slaves to our baser natures, and to the degree that we follow the guidance of the Spirit, we become more free. Once we are completely free of the base/animal/beast/sin nature, THEN we are free. We are free precisely BECAUSE we have made ourselves (through the guidance and power of the Spirit) slaves to righteousness. We MUST practice righteousness in the same way that a good mother MUST nurture her young–not because she is not physically capable of neglecting her young, but because it is morally and emotionally impossible for her to do anything less than her best for her beloved children. To neglect them would be for her to deny her very own nature and her very own desire. Nevertheless, she COULD, theoretically, choose to neglect–she simply WILL not so choose. To put it in rather crasser terms, my dogs long to eat things that I would absolutely refuse to touch with ungloved hands–and then only for the sake of banishing those noxious things from my yard.

Jesus said that He (the Truth) had come to set us free. Clearly then, we don’t start out free. We start out as (imo) slaves to the flesh–to that which we have inherited through our natural evolution. Like the small child, we must grow beyond this immaturity. The only way we can do this is by passing through the Door (Christ) and receiving the Spirit and being led of the Spirit. (All these who are being led by the Spirit of God, these and none but these are the (mature) sons of God.) At this point, we become the defacto “slaves” of righteousness–because we CHOOSE to serve righteousness.

Thus, IMO our “slavery” is as the slavery of the chivalrous knight who chooses to serve his Lady. He could certainly betray her. Nothing prevents him from such a betrayal save his own higher nature. He is not a puppet. He is a slave to his own selfless devotion. There’s a big difference between those two things, I believe, and I see it as a very, very important difference.

To sum up: We are free to the same degree that we are capable of doing (and of recognizing) the good things that we desire to do and of rejecting the evil that we despise.

Blessings, Cindy

#52

That may be Cindy. Ultimately God will be All in All. Calvinists say that only God’s will is free so perhaps, ultimately, ours will be also because ours will be His. Some say that the truth sets us free, not with regard to will, but free from bondage in sin, which is arguably the exercise of our own, self will. At any rate, I don’t see any need to defend a notion of free will, when Jesus Himself consistently prayed that His Father’s will be done. I think Job came to the same conclusion. And if I have free will, so do others, and the door is opened wide for condemnation, as well as the whole doctrine that has God, thought not wanting that any should parish or suffer eternal torment, is powerless to contradict our freedom. I would just pray, Lord, contradict mine, please, to the uttermost! I know that I then go forth and often seek my own way, or seem to, so I have to trust Him to cure me of this.

#53

Free will is what separates us from the dogs and cats and lions and the multitude of creatures that just do God’s will, which we call ‘nature’.

I’m not trying to talk for others but much of what this site is about is to try to look at God in a different way. A different lens so to speak.

Have fun and enjoy everyone here. I’m with Cindy and many here as to free will. The will is free within the context that the creator YHWH wants it to be free. But at the end of the day, it is free, and that is the blessing. :laughing:

#54

Well Sir, I remind you of your having said that many Calvinists think they have all of God’s views figured out, that It comes with the territory. As well as that may be, it appears that you’re every bit as certain that you have Him figured out, and that you simply dislike the view that differs from your own. As well, there’s something about your phrasing that seems to indicate that I’m sort of an odd man out on this site. I’m very doubtful you can put such an issue as free will to a vote, such that a majority might decide on the matter, but it can easily be the case that I don’t belong here and that my views are inappropriate.

Interestingly I was listening to and watching debates and lectures featuring Calvinist speakers, thinking how great it would be if they would stop looking at universal restoration through their stereotypes, and examine the matter afresh. So I wondered if there was such a thing as Calvinist Universalism, since it seemed to me a more natural conclusion and, except for the hell part, a good fit. So I did a search on it and found this exact web page, this exact discussion, and joined this board just to add my two cents to it. So I’ve done that.

#55

Well, I would once again say welcome and hope you find some different ways of viewing the bible. :smiley:

Fortunately (or possibly unfortunately, depending on where your ego is) there is a incredible group of folks here from many different backgrounds that have had to wade through theological ideologies, and have found a community that is at least tolerant to most any idea that is willing to look at God in a different way. I appreciate your view, but the Calvinist mindset has been debated time and time again here. Please take the time to search the site and see that many who originally held your view, may well have possibly changed their position. :wink:

#56

One of my favs among the archives is this:
wizdum.net/book/moral-argument-a … inism-1809

The first 5 paragraphs are wordy introductory stuff; the good stuff starts in paragraph 6 which begins thusly:
"To return; the principal argument
against Calvinism, in the General View of Christian Doctrines, is the moral
argument, or that which is drawn from the inconsistency of the system with
the divine perfections. "

#57

Wow, quite a presentation… My point is not to dis the Calvinist view, because I myself once held it in great regard (I still love Calvin’s Institutes) until I found this site and the incredible minds that are here. We are advancing in time / and in society/ and in understanding… :open_mouth:

#58

Sir, what is it about me that you don’t like? Your comments to me continue to maintain an air of casting subtle aspersion. If you want to say that’s my ego getting ruffled, very well. And if you want to believe your will is free, God bless you. No doubt God knows if you’re right or wrong about that better than I do. But a majority opinion on this web site won’t convince me of anything. In thousands of years this issue of free will versus determinism hasn’t been settled. As I said, I came to this site primarily because of this particular page whereupon we’re having this discussion. If I were a minority of just one in the whole universe I would still believe that absolutely everything, from the numbered hairs on our heads to the ordered squadrons of the saved is ordained in every detail by the providence of God, and easily find Biblical support for this. I have no objection to being clay in His hands and only hope to be made more compliant. I’m confident, freely willed or otherwise, that He’ll do just that. I mean nothing against you Sir, but I very strongly suspect that a doctrine of free will was whispered in Eve’s that fateful day, and that there is only much to be lost and nothing gained by ascribing veracity to it. But your mileage may vary and you’re welcome to it. But don’t assume that I don’t have an open mind, though I can hardly claim credit for it, just because my view differs from yours. You kind of need to have an open mind to embrace both Calvinism and Universal Restoration at the same time. And where I came from, you very much need to have an open mind to even believe in the promise of Jesus Christ. I wonder what I did to deserve it? Where is the evidence for my having exercised even micron of my own, free will? For the love of God, I can’t find it anywhere, but only the grace of God.

#59

horan said:

Look horan, How can I explain that I understand, and at a point in my past agreed with your position and that I realize that you have that theology but I disagree with it, and I don’t want to have bad juju between you and I. :laughing:

Look, I assume you came here because you wanted to know about evangelical universalism… :laughing: :laughing:

So ask questions as opposed to trying to tell folks how they are wrong. :smiley:

#60

Moving on… horan said:

Unfortunately that can not happen, because of total depravity… The six day old baby that dies or the mentally challenged person who can not choose Christ or the tribe that has never heard of Jesus, the Calvinistic view is that they will be forever tormented in a place called hell.

Thus we have a scenario of a monster God… If you want to believe that go for it. I believe in a God that is loving and merciful and willing to send His son so Israel’s sin will be taken care of and thus all of humanity will benefit. :smiley: