The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Poll: Can I be a Calvinist and a Universalist?

Evangelical Universalism Arguments for Evangelical Universalism
#61

Are you saying total depravity is inharmonious with Universal Restoration? If so, then i disagree. Likewise 63% who voted in this threads’ poll think Calvinism & Universalism are compatible.

I’m undecided whether Calvinistic Universalism or Libertarian freewill (LFW) Universalism is the truth. It’s one or the other. I’d probably lean to the former.

As to a “monster God”, that IMO is any God who sends any being to endless torments, whether LFW is true or not.

Re 6 day old babies dieing, many 5 point Calvinists do not believe they go to hell. OTOH, there are LFW Christians who believe such babies go to hell forever, e.g. if they were not water baptized, or sprinklied. So the notion of innocent babies frying forever isn’t exclusive to Calvinism.

#62

That wasn’t the way I understood Horan’s comments, MM–maybe I didn’t read them as clearly. It was my impression that he is a universalistic Calv (which kind of nixes the bit about God ordaining some for eternal torment.) If I’m mistaken, Horan, please correct me. As for MM, I think he may feel (as I might as well) that your address to him of “Sir,” though I think intended as courtesy, might as likely be the stiff address of one foe to another (however respected) foe. At any rate, I love to see us all getting along with one another as much as possible. This is just an attempted “stitch in time,” not a rebuke at all.

I don’t have a problem with Universalistic Calvinism, Horan, though we do differ some in theology. We’re none of us going to agree on everything after all, and it is Christ who saves us, not our perfect theology. (Exceedingly good fortune for all of us.)

So, to the matter of special election. In Romans, I believe it’s pretty clear that (at least in Romans) Paul is talking about the election of the Jews as the recipients of the law, and he is making an attempt at reconciling the Jewish believers with the Gentile believers. There’s a great deal of amazing, soaring, beautiful theology in Romans, but the main thrust of the letter is to reconcile the “election” (the Jewish believers) with the Gentile believers and to exhort them to respect one another and work together rather than bickering over which of them were better, wiser, stronger, more correct in theology, etc. What it is NOT is a treatise on certain human beings having been chosen by God for salvation while others were (whether by direct intent or by default) selected for eternal perdition.

I think there’s also room though, to see Paul (particularly in his “run the race” analogy in (I believe in 1 Cor) hinting that some human beings are chosen to receive the prize of the “high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” The race Paul wants to win has a prize and not everyone wins that prize. Paul exhorts us to run so as to win. Traditionally, the “prize” has been seen as salvation. Reading Paul, I don’t get the idea that he is at all unsure about whether or not he is “saved.” Thus, I have all my life puzzled over what he meant by this analogy. Only since I began to believe in God’s universal salvation of all His creation have I begun to (I think) understand the metaphor’s meaning. I believe that the 'high calling of God in Christ is the calling to be a finder of the lost sheep–whether in this world we see around us or in some world we do not yet see. Some people in this life manifestly die in a state of wickedness. Some seem to die in what we would see as an indisputable state of grace (Paul, for example). Those who die in wickedness aren’t going to be magically transformed at death into model citizens of heaven (imo). They have to grow into full sonship just as the winners of that high calling have done. The high calling is, imo, to become the guides to the lost children. To be older brothers and sisters and teachers of the younger ones. ALL will eventually (and willingly) bend the knee to the Son of God, to the glory of the Father. Scripture requires no less.

Full disclosure–I am no more a fan of Calvin than I am of any other unrepentant persecutor of his/her fellow human beings–and particularly a persecutor of those of the house of faith. That said, I don’t find the doctrine noxious so long as it allows that the “set of the damned” contains no one and nothing at all. God’s glory and His goodness and love requires no less. ALL must be saved for ALL belong to Him. All that He created, He declared to be good. God is not a liar nor is His arm too short to save that which is His. He is infinite–omnipresent. This means there can be no other God. You cannot have two infinite Gods–that would be an absurdity. It follows then that ALL is His–and as all is His, nothing of it–not the tiniest speck–can ever be ultimately lost. Where would it go that He could not find it? In Him we live and move and have our being–there is nowhere to flee from His presence since His presence has no end and fills all infinity. In truth, He IS infinity.

Not sure how to tie this up. Let’s just say that I can’t see where you and I differ significantly aside from a slight variance in definition of free will vs determinism. Just for the record, though, I’m right. :wink:

#63

Cindy, I was wondering what your thoughts are concerning non-Christians who have been addicted to alcohol, who have made the decision to stop drinking, have successfully quit permanently, and yet have never become Christians. If they were “slaves” to drink, how could they quit simply by making the decision to quit?

#65

Sir, you’re welcome to disagree with me all day long. It’s ironic that, while you say that I’m demanding that others believe as I do, you are telling me what I believe without asking the necessary questions to do that confidently. I’m not nor have I ever been a Calvinist. I told you already why I came here, and it wasn’t to learn about evangelical universalism, since I’m already very well ensconced in it. I came here because I was enticed by this particular discussion and the question which is the title of this thread. I think Calvinists have got some things right which would be very compatible with universalism if they would explore the matter independently of 1,500 years of tradition. I have no authority to tell anybody what to believe, but we might agree that I have the right to state what I believe, even argue for it, as do you. But if expressing a view that differs from yours must be construed as telling you that you are wrong, than I understand how claiming that a majority here believe as you do would be an appealing tactic.

#66

I guess I haven’t read, though all your postings, Horan. If you are NOT a Calvinist and NOT a universalist, then how do you classify yourself? So let me try to have your position clairified, by asking a couple questions:

What is your position on hell? ETC, annihilation, universalism, etc.?
Are you Protestant? And if so, which of the reformers and/or contemporary / historical theologians, do you most identify with - and why?

If you have answered these questions - in prior posts - then please just provide the links here. Actually, there are a variety of theological and philosophical viewpoints here. Some I would classify as “non Orthodox”, “non mainstream” and “non majority” viewpoints. Which I classify as “minority viewpoints” or “non-traditional” viewpoints. Which is better terms, them my previous ones - in days past (i.e RYO or Roll Your Own and PAC - Pick and Choose theology). I’m pretty Orthodox. But it’s more along the lines of C.S. Lewis, N.T. Wright, Richard Rohr and Eastern Orthodox theologians.

#67

Sir, apparently you didn’t very carefully read the posting which you’ve just quoted. I said explicitly that I’m already a universalist. I’ve expressed nothing else but my confidence that all, without exception, in the fullness of time, will be restored to the loving embrace of God, our Father, through His Son Jesus Christ. Eternal conscious torment is incompatible with our Lord’s character. If I had to confess a reality for hell, I would have to say that we’re already in it. I listen to many people, even some very good Calvinist theologians, not because I believe everything they do, but because I think they do a very good job explicating some things I do believe in. If I were to demand that everybody see things the way I do, I’d have nobody to listen to at all.

#68

Why do you keep telling me what I believe? We’re given to understand that there are none righteous but Jesus Christ. Total depravity is very strong language. I haven’t checked to see if there is direct support for it in scripture, but I suspect it’s inferred. I don’t know how we can be created in the image of God and be “totally” depraved, but neither do I feel inclined to take great issue with it. I’m not very likely to be a 5 point, card-carrying Calvinist, or even to say I am one more or less a point or two. But I think I’ve made it quite clear enough that I do very much believe that all things, great and small, visible and otherwise are willed entirely by God. I don’t believe we have a monster God. Why do you suggest that I do? I believe that each and all, in the fullness of time, will be entirely restored to the loving embrace of God, our Father, through His Son Jesus Christ, whether we’re “totally” depraved or not, age notwithstanding, nor mental competency, nor tribal affiliation.

#69

It’s true that, at this very moment, God does not want a relationship with some people, even if Libertarian Free Will (LFW) were true. Otherwise God would have sent human or angelic messengers to all those who have never heard the gospel to tell them about Jesus.

#70

True. I missed the boat. If I understand Calvinism “correctly”, they theologically embrace compatibilism… And actually, I do like the Calvinist site - Got Questions. Here’s their entry on Compatiblism.

gotquestions.org/compatibilism.html

If I missed the boat - on these questions - please forgive me.

Do you agree with the position of Compatibilism? Or even the position of theological determinism?
And how will universalism play out? Will it be a future of purification and/or correction, as some here feel for non-Christians? Is it everyone becomes redeemed, like those of “Ultra Universalism” believe (i.e. no punishment or correction)? Or is it Full Preterism, like some here feel? See gotquestions.org/preterist.html. Or something else entirely?

#71

A pretty good case can be made that God already has a relationship with each human being, and that in fact every single person knows God already.
That God has always been ‘on the ground’ and is everywhere outside our skin. That we do live and move, literally, in God.

The case is made very forcefully by John Baillie in his 1939 book “Our Knowledge of God”. (Which I found underneath the J. Kik book I found rooting around yesterday).

You can find it used in hardcover for a few bucks. It would make for some good conversation. :smiley:

#72

In Determinism they quit due to environmental forces influencing their thoughts and emotions, e.g. declining health, effects to their job & loved ones due to alcohol addiction. If the forces are greater for quiting than for remaining addicted, then the person quits.

Addiction to alcohol is not the same as slavery to sin. The sinner can no more change his nature than a leopard can change its spots. Whether sober or addicted, he still remains just as much a slave of sin as before.

#73

Let’s just go with this… You said:

And that is cool. My post’s are just that :open_mouth: Post’s. So how can our interaction from this point on be positive?

As to the Calvinist approach, I heard R C Sproul in a sermon say ‘there is no such thing as an innocent baby.’

I almost threw up. It is the very thing that said to me ’ buddy you are not a Calvinist’ So forgive me if I am a bit sensitive.

#74

I suspect somebody just wanted to coin a very nice acronym and came up with TULIP. They might have expressed it as “very depraved” or “really depraved”, but then you’d have VULIP or RULIP, neither of which have very good marketing potential. I can live with the “T”. It’s the “L” that’s most problematic to me, so I’ll propose changing it to limited election, followed by unlimited atonement, which yields TULUIP, though this probably won’t fly very well in the marketplace either. Maybe:

Totally lacking free will
Unlimited, unconditional atonement
Limited, unconditional Election
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints

That’s just preliminary. I’ll work on it and get back to you.

#75

I think i would probably accept that TULI or TULIP without the P. Though i am wondering if election should be conditioned on faith, even though faith is not of ourselves (Jn.6:29; Eph.2:8).

#76

I didn’t hear the sermon, but I would take it in the Calvinist context, because Sproul professes to be a Calvinist. That all are tainted with
sin is a perfectly biblical statement. If that’s a direct quote, the language is bad, because a baby has never, personally done anything of which to
to be found guilty, except for the fact of being human. But Mr. Sproul believes in eternal conscious torment, which makes his theological
system logically untenable and is bound to produce anomalies such as this. We live in a country where it’s a constitutional right to kill roughly
half a million children annually via abortion, and Mr. Scroul would not hesitate for a microsecond in calling this an abomination. It’s difficult to shake off 1,500 years tradition. I really like listening to Albert Mohler and James White, though certainly not because I believe everything they do. But it would be such a fine thing if one of these men might come to understand that hell isn’t biblical. They might be able to fill whole stadiums with atheists queued up for blocks to hear them. At any rate, don’t worry. All the babies will be just fine. The Lord demonstrated that He has a very special relationship to these little ones.

#77

Thanks, I appreciate your sentiment. And I tend to agree. Welcome to the forum :laughing:

#78

Here’s my question, for folks like Horan and Onigen - who are theological deterministic. My mom was Protestant. She was born, with the gift of prophesy. And I noticed her predictions for me - always came true. Now she never advertised, sold tickets or charged money. How does this fit in, with a deterministic viewpoint? She is now deceased - by the way - at age 92.5 years old. If she “sees” something in my future and I make an action to avoid it…is her seeing and my response to her seeing - all part of some deterministic universe?. And if so, then what is the point of prophesy - as described in the Christian Bible? Or even put it in “popular” terminology. What is the point of ESP or intuition, if we live in a deterministic universe?

#79

What would the LFW answers be? Let me know & i’ll tell you if the Deterministic answers are the same or how they differ. As for prophesy:

But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. (1 Cor.14:3, NASB)

24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.

#81

The logic is quite simple:

  1. God is not in relationship with many people now who have never heard.
  2. He is capable of reaching them now & offering said relationship.
  3. He chooses not to make such an offer.
  4. Therefore He does not wish to be in relationship with them at this moment.
#82

You actually think that follows?

Applying the same reasoning to the atrocities that are continuously occurring throughout the world—such as torture and rape of little girls: