I figured you would all appreciate this. I only post this here because I know there are some strong opinions out there on this issue of Calv/Uni so I place this here for your enjoyment.
I’m more inclined to agree with Olson on this.
splitframeofreference.blogspot.c … ds-to.html
–Nick
I think that the views of Calvinism’s Sovereginty of God can lead to universalism if one takes the view that God desires all to be saved. I don’t think God is driven by love though. I think He is driven by holiness. His love is holy just as His hatred is Holy. I still believe that God has a chosen people in this lifetime who are saved by grace through faith (the firstfruits). But I also believe that God’s Holy wrath will purify those in hell after they do their time (the second fruits). But yeah, I can see how God’s sovereignty can lead to universalism.
Which is why I’ve seen Calvinists complain that Arminianism leads to universalism.
I find this terribly amusing of course. 
(Not least because that’s partly how I came to universalism myself.)
As a Calvinist I do believe that UR makes my theology complete. My Calvinism led me to UR. I believe that God’s personal attributes do not supersede one over the other. Thus He is Just Android Loving at the same time by making a fair judgment over our prsonal sins.
“But my point is that I don’t care about free will except insofar as it is necessary to explain why a God of love allows some people to perish eternally.”
This is Olson’s critical sentence. He is absolutely convinced, presumably on the basis of Holy Scripture, that Hell is populated; hence he must be an Arminian. Arminiansim=Hell.
At this point we reach an ultimate decision. Do we know that Hell is populated? How do we know this? If you tell me that this is what the Bible teaches me, why the hell should I believe this?
I know … I am a grieving father … but maybe that grief provides a hermeneutical key by which to properly interpret Holy Scripture. Is anyone neutral, objective? Dr Olson must be willing to look me in the eyes and tell me that my son may be damned. Is he willing to do so?
I will not be saved without my Aaron. This is a datum with which even the most rigorous, academic systematic theology must address.
Universal salvation is not an academic question.
Father Kimel,
As I have already said to you on your other post, “heaven will NOT be heaven without Aaron!!!” No way, no how!! In my present condition, I Am bold enough to say that I feel the same as you… if my loved ones are NOT going to be There, I ain’t going!! And you’re right, I’d like to see AND hear Dr. Olson try to “explain” to your face his view!! And I’m not a grieving father, however, I AM a grieving human being, and it is possible for me to grieve with you and your wife and Aaron’s siblings, that Aaron is not in your physical life right now. Yes, his memory lives on. That’s NOT enough for me personally. I emphatically believe God WILL reach down to Aaron and bring him Home!!! And I can hardly wait for you to introduce me to Aaron someday!!! What a joy that will be.
Blessings and love to you good sir,
Bret
You’re absolutely right, Father Alvin, universal salvation not an academic question; it is a core issue that lies within the depths of our hearts.
I think your thought about using grief as a hermeneutic tool is a fascinating idea, and should be explored more fully by many. It makes sense to spend time looking at the Scriptures through that lens, since we are told that Christ is “a man of sorrows, acquainted with deepest grief.”
You’ve given me much to consider. Thank you, and again, my deepest condolences and prayers for you and your loved ones.
Alvin,
I think it odd that people don’t put the pieces together, but for some, perhaps the impetus is in fact the death of an unsaved loved one – or the same happening to someone close to them. Otherwise this is an academic discussion and not so close to home. Their hermeneutic and their “logic” works for them, and pulling hell out makes the whole Jenga tower fall. There are other blocks that can be pulled, but the hell block is important. It’s hard, hard to let go of a well-constructed belief system just because one of the foundational pieces is rotten.
Incredibly, wonderfully liberating!!! But still, hard.
Love in Jesus, Cindy
You cannot be saved without him, because he is part of you.
Beautiful and immense soteriological implications here, Allan. We are commanded to love each other as He loved us, yet expected to let go of that love to satisfy a doctrine of man.
The article just did not make sense to me. Calvinism does not lead to Universalism, neither does Arminianism. What leads to UR is combining the two basic principles of Calvinism (God is sovereign) and Arminianism (God loves all). Ultimately Calvinism and Arminianism reject each other’s founding principle. Arminianism affirm that in regards to man’s salvation, man is sovereign, not God. And Calvinism denies that God loves all. And the reason that Arminians affirm man’s sovereignty is because their foundational assumption is that some are ultimately not saved and consigned to Hell. And the reason Calvinists dismiss the concept that God loves all is because of their foundational belief that some are ultimately not saved and are consigned to Hell. Both groups have faith in Jesus for the damnation of “others”!
Both Calvinists and Arminianists LIMIT the Atonement! Calvinists limit the Scope of the Atonement. And Arminianists limit the Effective Power of the Atonement.
I was an Arminianist. The reason I came to believe in UR and the sovereignty of God is because of studying scripture. I started to study the doctrine of Hell assuming that it was a rock-solid castle, built firmly upon scripture. As I began to study what scripture actually says concerning the punishment of sin, I found the doctrine of Hell to be a mammoth sand-castle that crumbled between my fingers when I started closely examining it. This freed me to accept in faith the many passages that affirm universal salvation, as well as gave me a greater sonly-fear of God our Father because the passages of judgment are based on how we live, and to whom much is given, much is expected!
I think the challenge that most people face in accepting in faith that Jesus truly is the Savior of all, is the fact that they see the word “Hell” in their translation of scripture; and it is very challenging for them to even think that such might be errant. As you know though neither Sheol, Hades, nor Gehenna means Hell or implies ECT. But when they read Jesus warning of Hell (mistranslation of Gehenna), they assume that Hell must be true because Jesus warned of it! And then they also have the weight of Tradition to overcome. So for most Christians, even questioning the doctrine of Hell is nigh impossible.
Hi Sherman,
Excellent point. I’ve seen this very thing at work many times when in discussion with people from both groups. It has always struck me how my Calvinist and Arminian brothers and sisters, as much as they disagreed on many dearly-held doctrines, could overlook just about any disagreement… except the ECT of some subset of humankind. It’s like Tom Talbott noted in his book… Calvinists and Arminians believe the other to be merely mistaken, while those who believe in UR are not merely mistaken, but heretical. Makes no sense, but it is true nevertheless. It’s almost as if ECT is the cornerstone of faith, rather than Christ and Him crucified.
Love,
Andy
You’re right Andy. The doctrine of Hell is much more foundational to Calvinists and Arminianists than is the doctrine of the Atonement. For them the doctrine of the Atonement is built upon the foundation of the doctrine of Hell. Hell is the default condition of man. Take away Hell, and their whole understanding of God, man, and the Atonement is shaken! With Hell being such a foundational, subconscious-level worldview assumption, it is difficult for most to even consider that Hell is not true - regardless of how much scriptural evidence there is that counters the doctrine of Hell. So yes, for them “ECT is the cornerstone of faith, rather than Christ and Him crucified.”!!!
If a Calvinist meditates too much upon scripture that affirms the universal scope of the Atonement and love of God,then they will be more open, even drawn towards UR. And if an Arminianist meditates too much upon scripture that affirms the sovereignty of God, then they will be more open, even drawn towards UR. In fact, there are many Christians today that would say that their theology is a Cal/Arm hybrid, and say they trust in Jesus for salvation though they don’t really understand how it all works together.
It was studying scripture concerning Hell in the original languages that first opened and ultimately confirmed to me that Hell/ECT is not a reality. Jesus saves us from this Present Evil Age; and “IF” Jesus did not save us and “IF” we continued to exist forever in this Present Evil Age, the such would be Hell! Thanks be to God though that He never set any such thing in order! “IF” God intended for us to live as slaves to evil forever, then He only needed to allow Adam and Eve to partake of the tree of life and continue to exist forever under the dominion of evil. Thanks be to God and His mercy that He does not allow us to continue in such self-destruction but delivers us and saves us by His Spirit. And I trust that all shall ultimately be reconciled to God, that Jesus does not fail to save anyone, but that He truly is the Savior of all (especially, not only we who believe).
perhaps an apt way of putting it would be to say
fatalistically its just meant to be 
Just read this about R. C. Sproul:
R. C. Sproul explains,
1 “Either the Atonement was intended for all or only for some (the elect).
2 If the Atonement was intended for all, then all will be saved (since God’s
sovereign intentions will come to pass).
3 If the Atonement was not intended for all, then it was intended only for
some (the elect).
4 Therefore, either universalism is true or limited atonement is true.”25
25 R. C. Sproul, Chosen By God (Wheaton: Tyndale Publishers, 1997).
I think his logic is impeccable!
I agree as far as it goes . . . but the Arminians have a very strong point in their insistence that the love of God is toward all creation. The free will part is the weak link for them, as is the idea of God’s love not extending to all for the Calvinists. But without the death deadline, there’s no reason to suppose that any will ultimately be lost. IMO, that’s the trip-up that prevents either side from seeing UR. They believe it an incontrovertible fact that death is the end of chances.
The idea of both the Calvinists and the Arminians being right appeals to me. The thing they’re both wrong about is that God’s love ends at physical death. That’s the problem, and it isn’t even scriptural.