Universalism can bring Calvinism & Arminianism back together

[Alex_Smith]

Personally, I believe that universalism is the cure for the rift between Calvinism and Arminianism. It allows for absolute predestination while also accommodating the idea of universal love of all humanity. Thus it prempts both the Calvinist’s real (legitimate) concern (upholding God’s majesty) and the Arminian’s real (legitimate) concern of not making God out to be “worse than the devil.”

I believe all the “free will” arguments to be just a smoke screen masking the main point that makes one an Arminian. That is, the rejection of reprobation. The Arminian correctly senses the what the Calvinist is teaching cannot be the truth because God would never create even a single man with the sole purpose of tormenting him forever. This simply does not comport with the character of God as set forth in scripture,nor with the heart of the christian.

That is why many Arminians could never become Calvinists. They KNOW that the God of the Calvinst is NOT the God of the Bible.

But when joined with universalism, Calvinist losses it austere severity and becomes a comforting theology of divine assurance.

On the other side of it, I believe that universalism can bring Calvinists toward Arminians because it allows them to really assert a universal saving love toward ALL humanity without jettisoning what is their most important issue, God’s sovereignty. The Calvinist KNOWS that the Arminian God is NOT the God of the Bile because he is weak and limited by the creature and that is not the way the Bible presents God.

Vern Poythress has written that in theological debate it is helpful to “pre-empt” the strong point of the opposition. I believe universalism allows one to do so.

With Aminians we can agree on the absolute love of God while still maintaining the Calvinists strong point of divine sovereignty, and with Calvinists we can also insist on the divine omnipotence of God while still maintaining the absolute love of God, which Calvinists cannot do, no matter how much they claim the are doing so.

Historically, Arminius sprang up as a reaction to the strict supralapsarian Calvinism of Theodore Beza. Supralapsarianism has always been the harshest form of Calvinism and frequently ends up as hyper-calvinism such as in the cases of Herman Hoeksema, John Gerstner and Gordon H.Clark.

So, it seems to me that when dialoging with Arminians, while the Calvinist is arguing against absolute “free will” he is really up against another opponent, hidden underneath, the real opponent, divine universal love and the Arminian can never hear any arguments against “absolute” autonomous free will until the underlying opponent is pre-empted.

Anyway that’s how I see it.

Universalism can actually bring Calvinism and Arminianism back together. I think the doctrine of endless torment is what drove the two schools apart in the first place.

I agree

[amy]

I agree with Bill too.Who is this great mind?

[Luke]

A very tidy piece although I think the author has underestimated the importance of free will for Arminians.

[Alex_Smith]

I agree with Bill too.Who is this great mind?

William Brennan. He started the Yahoo group on “Reformed Universalist”.

This discussion forum is dedicated to the proposition that Reformed Theology and Universalism are compatable.

It is not a platform for debate with arminiams or advocates of the doctrine of endless torment or annihilationism.

Rather it is a place where the calvinistic universalist can share ideas and edify others of like faith.

Unfortunately, the group didn’t really take off, so I’ve invited them all over here, and in the process got to emailing Bill and another member. Both extremely interesting, and may join the forum

What is Reformed Universalism?
Reformed Universalism is a synthesis between Reformed Theology and Universlism. It differs from typical reformed doctrine only with respect to its rejection of the doctrine of endless torment and its adherence to the proposition that death does not irrevocable seal the fate of man.

A very tidy piece although I think the author has underestimated the importance of free will for Arminians.

I thought it was well written, especially for an email, which is why I asked him is I could post it

Digging deeper with Google, I’ve discovered he is a Former Presbyterian minister, now evangelical universalist!!! twitter.com/#!/hopeforthelost
myspace.com/wmb6
biblicaluniversalism.org/
evangelicaluniversalism.com/

[Sherman]

UR affirms both foundational assumptions of Calvinism (God’s Sovereignty) and Arminianism (God’s love for all humanity and human autonomy). The problem that both Calvinism and Arminianism have with UR is their one shared assumption - the certainty of damnation of others. Because Calvinists are certain that God damns some people eternally, it must be then that God sovereignly decided this, God loves some but hates others, and that the Atonement must be limited in scope (Jesus must have only died for some of humanity). Because Arminianists are certain that God damns some people eternally, it must be then that human autonomy trumphs God’s sovereignty, love fails, and the Atonement is limited in effect not fully reconciling all whom God loves.

The certainty of damnation of others is in importance either equal to or greater than God’s Sovereignty for the Calvinist and Human Autonomy for the Arminianist. If one challenges ECT, then one shakes the whole of their soteriology; in fact, it shakes their worldview. So though UR embraces both God’s Sovereignty and God’s love for all humanity, it’s very difficult for either Calvinists or Arminianists to seriously consider the evidence for UR. Our traditions do very much influence what we are willing to seriously consider, like the hardened ground in the parble of the sower.

[SLJ]

A very tidy piece although I think the author has underestimated the importance of free will for Arminians.

You may be right on that point! Arminians insist on the right of the individual to choose to reject God. But if the “death deadline” is eliminated, eternity becomes available for the winning of the lost.

Sonia

[james.goetz]

You may be right on that point! Arminians insist on the right of the individual to choose to reject God. But if the “death deadline” is eliminated, eternity becomes available for the winning of the lost.

That’s my type of universalism. I hold to the five points of Arminianism and universalism.

[Sherman]

A very tidy piece although I think the author has underestimated the importance of free will for Arminians.

You may be right on that point! Arminians insist on the right of the individual to choose to reject God. But if the “death deadline” is eliminated, eternity becomes available for the winning of the lost.

Human Autonomy is a foundational element of Arminianism, but in reality Human Autonomy is Very Limited. In the scope of our lives we do not choose our nationality, race, family, parents, physical characteristics, IQ, talents, spiritual disposition, socio-economic status, etc., etc., etc. In the scope of our lives, we have very little (if any) autonomy. And what autonomy we have is quickly taken away if we make radically bad decisions. So of all the foundational elements of Arminianism, human autonomy is the weakest, imo.

The weakest foundational assumption of Calvinism, imo, is their belief in Limited Atonement. The concept of Limited Atonement is not supported in scripture, but is a logical deduction “IF” one assumes 1) the certainty of damnation of some and 2) the Atonement effects the salvation of everyone whom Jesus died for.

[amy]

Alex said…Unfortunately, the group didn’t really take off, so I’ve invited them all over here, and in the process got to emailing Bill and another member. Both extremely interesting, and may join the forum

That is unfortunate their group didn’t take off. Seems, though, that there are more and more people coming out of the woodwork. Love to have them over here!

Sherman said…Human Autonomy is a foundational element of Arminianism, but in reality Human Autonomy is Very Limited. In the scope of our lives we do not choose our nationality, race, family, parents, physical characteristics, IQ, talents, spiritual disposition, socio-economic status, etc., etc., etc. In the scope of our lives, we have very little (if any) autonomy. And what autonomy we have is quickly taken away if we make radically bad decisions. So of all the foundational elements of Arminianism, human autonomy is the weakest, imo.

It sure seems like we have some choice (certain passages would seem to say so), but that people, myself included, can be quite blind in making them. It’s nice that there is a sovereign God able to use whatever limited choice to draw us to Him because he is faithful to do so. “Free” will would seem to imply that we are not blind, not hardened and can rescue ourselves from sin, but it does seem like it is God that does this. I think it’s really important to give God the credit for saving us, breaking us of our pride, but I can see how the Arminian would have a hard time giving God the credit for doing this very important work if God neglects to help save some. Like Sonia says, the whole dilemma is really solved if we believe God is not finished, is faithful to do a work in all of our hearts.

BTW, I did try sharing this with a friend, when it came up in a discussion, because it made so much sense to me. I didn’t even get a one word response. Nothing. Had lunch with her and she acted like she’d never gotten my email. I know she did. She’s got plenty to say about how the Calvinist is all wrong. I guess that’s a positve sign she can’t find anything to say? That or she can see how passionate I am and doesn’t want to open a can of worms. Probably the latter.

[Alex_Smith]

I think the author has underestimated the importance of free will for Arminians.

Arminians insist on the right of the individual to choose to reject God.

I agree, however, here’s an interesting reply to Arminians:

(http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2009/12/universalism-summary-defense.html), Richard Beck"]I grew up in an Arminian tradition. Since college, however, I’ve grown disillusioned with free will soteriological and theodicy systems. For three interrelated reasons:

]Moral Luck: We begin life in very different places, morally and religiously. Some people get a head start on Christianity. Others are raised in different religious traditions. Further, our life journeys can be highly variable, religiously and morally. A child might be abused by a church leader. A missionary might never show up at your village./]

]The Timing of Death is Unpredictable: The death event is arbitrary in its timing. Some people live to a ripe old age and get to repent of past sins or find the time to explore Christianity (if they were born into another religion). Other people die young and never get the chance, through no fault of their own, to repent or explore Christianity./]

]Free Will is a Non-Starter: As a psychologist I’ve come to believe that human volition (will) is very circumscribed and anemic in its powers. Humans have the capacity for choice, and perhaps freedom within a certain range, but at the end of the day human choice is finite and limited. It can only do so much./]

Given that our moral and religious journeys are qualitatively different (e.g., moral luck: some people get head starts), that death is random (which can arbitrarily lengthen or shorten your religious and moral journey) and a realistic view of human volitional powers (there is no radical form of free will) it was difficult for me to maintain the Arminian stance of my religious heritage.

if the “death deadline” is eliminated, eternity becomes available for the winning of the lost

Which is why I’m so excited to discover that Augustine, Luther, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Clemens Of Alexandria, Eusebius Of Caesarea, Athanasius, Gregory Of Nazianzus, Firmicius Maternus, Victorinus, Ambrose, Hilary Of Poictiers, Epiphanius, Jerome, Synesius, Cyril Of Alexandria all didn’t have “death as a deadline”!

[Hairy_Tick]

I just happened to watch a video on YouTube concerning this issue.

youtube.com/watch?v=GCMyWA1gLXQ

Explains it really well, in my opinion.

[SLJ]

Which is why I’m so excited to discover that Augustine, Luther, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Clemens Of Alexandria, Eusebius Of Caesarea, Athanasius, Gregory Of Nazianzus, Firmicius Maternus, Victorinus, Ambrose, Hilary Of Poictiers, Epiphanius, Jerome, Synesius, Cyril Of Alexandria all didn’t have “death as a deadline”!

It would be nice to have a list of relevant quotes and refs. We have a little on Augustine on another thread, maybe we should make a sticky topic for pro-universalist quotes by famous ancients.

Sonia

[Alex_Smith]

I’ll try to watch YouTube video after work, sounds interesting.

Good idea Sonia, will do.

[Alex_Smith]

I just happened to watch a video on YouTube concerning this issue.

youtube.com/watch?v=GCMyWA1gLXQ

Explains it really well, in my opinion.

Yeah, I thought it was good too, so I’ve subscribed to Alice’s channel and requested her as a friend on FB, as I’d love to talk to her more about UR.

[Alex_Smith]

It would be nice to have a list of relevant quotes and refs. We have a little on Augustine on another thread, maybe we should make a sticky topic for pro-universalist quotes by famous ancients.

Hmm, so should I put it in “Evangelical Universalism->Discussion Affirmative”?

I made the list above after I came across a stack of awesome references to Jesus going to Hell to preach and save (tentmaker.org/books/mercyand … t_ch3.html Search for “ST. IGNATIUS”)