Most of us are familiar with the three basic categories of broad soteriology. Keeping in mind there are variations (including among non-Protestants) these may be broadly classified as:
Katholic (universalistic) == God acts persistently to save all sinners from sin.
Calvinistic == God acts persistently to save some sinners from sin, but does not even intend (much less act) to save other sinners from sin.
Arminianistic == God acts to save all sinners from sin, but does not act persistently to save some sinners from sin.
I have occasionally mentioned that, logically, there is also a fourth soteriology, although I thought no Christian held it. It occurred to me this morning while chewing over something else, however, that while no Christian may formally and explicitly hold this fourth soteriology, I have routinely found most Christians do in fact hold this fourth soteriology in practical practice. Most nominal Arminians in my experience even hold it in an implictly formal way.
I was trying to come up with a name for this fourth option, but since I couldn’t recall any teacher who held it as an explicit example for naming purposes, I tried to think of any special characteristics of it that I could use for building a title. (For example I often call universalism “Katholic” since that’s what “universalistic” means in Greek.)
While thinking about it, I then realized that most times when I see non-universalists appeal to this fourth soteriology, they’re overtly trying to deny universalism or even acknowledging a bit of a handhold for it!
That, combined with its broad technical characteristics (with variations), leads me to call it Anti-Universalism.
Recapping the first three again for easier comparison, and adding the fourth:
Katholic (universalistic) == God acts with original persistence to save all sinners from sin.
Calvinistic == God acts with original persistence to save some sinners from sin, but does not even intend (much less act) to save other sinners from sin.
Arminianistic == God acts to save all sinners from sin, but does not act with original persistence to save some sinners from sin.
Anti-Katholic (anti-universalistic) == God does not even intend (much less act) to save some sinners from sin, and does not act with original persistence to save any other sinners from sin.
The Anti-Kath position doesn’t deny that God may (or even does) save at least some sinners from sin: the scriptures are too clear about at least some people being saved from sin, and besides there has to be something remaining that might be called (without gross abuse of language) “good news”.
But when I hear Calvs or Arms trying to deny universalism, or defending their positions against universalism, they tend to go with this fourth option sooner or later; and pretty commonly I’ll even hear them talk about it as being “the ugly truth” or something of that sort.
I’ve seen Calvs and Arms both go this way, although Arms more often. They approach it from different angles, of course, but the end result is categorically the same.
I’ll give a couple of examples.
One of the big selling points to Arminianism (and its variants) is that we can be sure the gospel really is offered to everyone; salvation really is open to everyone, and so the gospel really is good news for everyone. God isn’t secretly deciding ahead of time or from above that some people will never even have the chance of being saved. If people are lost, that’s their own fault for being sinners. God has done, and does do, everything He can on His side of things–maybe only up to a point, but He doesn’t exclude anyone up to that point.
“Well, what about those who haven’t heard?” The relevant issue here isn’t that sin doesn’t deserve to be punished, but that if God really is doing everything He can to save all sinners from sin, then He may save people post-mortem who die without formally accepting Christ “enough” to “be saved” (however much “enough” is supposed to formally be). But if God saves some people post-mortem, that could open up the possibility for God saving everyone post-mortem which would be universalism. Arminians can get around that within their soteriology (to some extent–Lewis for example just acknowledged the same Arminian principle he held pre-mortem, that eventually God gives up because He’s forced to, not because He wants or authoritatively chooses to.) But if an Arminian is strongly interested in granting even a little leeway toward universalism (which necessarily involves post-mortem salvation for at least some sinners) then we may hear a reply like, “Well God has just chosen that some people will not even have the opportunity to be saved. That’s why we have to go send people!” “But practically no one could be sent before Jesus came.” “Well God has just chosen that some people will not even have the opportunity to be saved, period. That’s the ugly truth, we may not like it, but we’ve got to go with what’s true.”
Calvinists (of various stripes) love to hear this, because this is a formally Calvinistic position. Pointing out this sort of thing is one way how Calvs convince Arms to be Calvs instead. In practice, though, the Arm has taken a Calv position in order to be Anti-Kath.
Another even more common, nearly universal (pardon the pun 
) Arm example: “If God really and truly offers salvation from sin to all sinners, then what about the rebel angels?” “GASP!! ARGGHH!! NO NO NO NO NO!!! God doesn’t offer salvation to demons!” This kind of reply doesn’t usually involve the notion that God has in fact really and truly offered salvation from sin through Christ to rebel angels (as per Colossians 1 for example) but they have refused and at some point God either chose to give up or was eventually invincibly defeated in His salvific goals by the demons. No, usually this kind of reply involves the notion that God never even intended, much less ever acted, to provide salvation from sin to rebel angels at all. An Arminian could go with the former position, but usually takes the latter position instead.
And again, pointing out this sort of thing is one way how Calvs convince Arms to be Calvs instead. In practice, the Arm has taken a Calv position (i.e. that God just outright chooses not to even make salvation from sin possibly possible for some sinners) in order to be Anti-Kath.
Calvinists aren’t quite as likely to take the fourth option, in my experience, but I’ve seen it happen. Typically it happens when Calvinists are challenged on the concept that God is Who is omnipotently and authoritatively and finally and ultimately responsible, first and last and foremost, for sinners not repenting from their sins.
One of the big selling points for Calvinism is that whoever God decides to save from sin, we can be sure He will persist at it until He gets it done, and that He is omnicompetent to get it done. It’s a total victory for God’s grace, 100% successful, no losses. He doesn’t ungraciously lose His patience sooner or later, and He isn’t outright defeated sooner or later. If you’re one of the elect, that’s your good news. It’s not only good news, it’s great news!
But that would be universal salvation unless God on the other hand authoritatively decides that He will not even try to save some sinners from sin. There is no loss here either, because God never even intended to try. He never even empowers sinners with an ability to repent, much less leads them to do so. God may perhaps give some grace and love to the non-elect (or maybe not), but He absolutely does not grant saving love/grace to the non-elect.
The logic to this, however, eventually leaves God as the sole author of sin. Sinners are born with original sin without their choice, but by God’s decree, and by God’s decree some sinners will never have even the slightest real opportunity to repent and be saved by God. Oh, did our original ancestors and/or the rebel angels set up this situation? They did that by God’s decree, too. They had no possibility of choice not to do so. Well, maybe the original humans did (since God eventually saves them), but Satan didn’t–otherwise we could expect God to eventually save Satan! And that would be ridiculously false, right? But then how did Satan and the other angels fall from God’s grace? And if God doesn’t persist in bringing them home, then we can’t really trust that God will persist in bringing His elect home whom He graces either.
In order to protect God as not being the ultimate, first and final author of injustice, Calvinists routinely try to treat sinners as being in fact personally responsible for their sins, as if God does give them a real communion with Him that they willfully refuse–starting with Satan and the rebel angels, continuing with the first human ancestors, and continuing with us today even in our state of original sin.
Arminians (of various stripes) love to hear this, because this is a formally Arminian position. Pointing out this sort of thing is one way how Arms convince Calvs to be Arms instead. In practice, though, the Calv has only partially taken an Arm position in order to be Anti-Kath.
Anti-Katholic (anti-universalistic) == God does not even intend (much less act) to save some sinners from sin, and does not act with original persistence to save any other sinners from sin.
Arm variation == God does not act with original persistence (although maybe with earned persistence if people say and do the right things to convince Him) to save some sinners He intends to save from sin; and God does not even intend (much less act) to save from sin the overwhelming majority of Gentiles (and maybe even Jews) who lived before the start of Christ’s earthly ministry.
Arm variation == God does not act with original persistence (although maybe with earned persistence etc.) to save some sinners He intends to save from sin; and God does not even intend (much less act) to save rebel angels (or at least one of them, namely Satan) from sin.
Calv variation == God does not even intend (much less act) to save some sinners from sin (such as Satan and/or the vast majority of people before Christ’s ministry); and/or God also does not persist in acting to save at least some sinners from sin (in that God acts to empower them with the ability to repent and/or to be righteous from their creation but they choose of their own accord to refuse to repent and/or to be righteous from their creation thus leading eventually to their permanent damnation and/or to their fall from grace.)
Note that if a Calvinist does not keep the first element in some form (that God never even intended to save some sinners from sin) the Calv becomes Arminian either explicitly or tacitly. But either way the point is to avoid even approaching Katholicism (universal salvation).
So, the next time you hear a non-universalist talking about how “hell” is “an ugly truth” that we have to put up with whether we like it or not, press him or her on what this ugly truth is supposed to be.
That some people abuse the grace of God and insist on sinning? But most universalists believe this (although Calvinists strictly speaking cannot. A Calv who tries to go this route is being either a soft Arminian, believing in the earned persistence of salvation, or is taking the fourth option.)
That people who abuse the grace of God will be punished by God? But most universalists believe that (even ultra-universalists, in regard to this life though not in the Day to come. But often even then, in a way.)
So what’s the “ugly truth” that no universalist, as such, believes??
That God is the ultimate first and final author of injustice? That would definitely be an ugly truth, and no universalist would believe it!–but even Calvinists typically try to get around such an ugly belief (becoming Arminians in the process).
That God authoritatively chooses to give up even trying to save some sinners from sin? That would definitely be an ugly truth, and no universalist would believe it!–but those who propose it often go uglier than that, to avoid even approaching universalism.
That God is eventually defeated in trying to save some sinners from sin? That would definitely be an ugly truth, and no universalist would believe it!–but those who propose it are tacitly denying supernaturalistic theism (including trinitarian theism) to be true, or else are self-contradictorily holding both beliefs and deploying one of them to avoid even approaching universalism. (And those who propose it often go even uglier than than that, to avoid approaching universalism.)
That God never even tries to save some sinners from sin, and also doesn’t persist in saving some sinners He tries to save from sin? That would definitely be an ugly truth, and no universalist would believe it!–but those who propose it aren’t even being Calvs or Arms anymore. They’re taking the fourth option and denying the actual strong selling points of both Calvinism and Arminianism, in order to avoid even approaching affirming the strong selling points of both Calvinism and Arminianism.
Which would be: God persistently acts to save all sinners from sin.
Which would be universalism.
(Not with this post anyway. 
)
