What is Reformed (Calvinistic) Universalism?

[byronarn]

This is question for those who self-identify as Reformed Universalist or Calvinistic Universalist. To you what does the term mean? If you had to give a short introduction to it (you get to define “short”!), what would you say?

To me, its universalism that uses Calvinism as a foundation. It is exclusivist, that is, it believes that no one is saved without faith in Christ. Man is unable to naturally turn to Christ, however, due to our sin. Because of His great love, God has elected to save some- known as the Elect- from sin and consequently punishment in the next life. The Elect are destined for glorification in Christ, destined to be His Bride. Since His Elect are naturally unable to accept the Gospel, He transforms them in order that they may believe and be saved. No one whom he has elected shall die in their sins. His draw is irresistible, and to only a limited number of people.

The reprobate (non-Elect) will suffer in Hell in the next life for their sins. But (this is where we differ from traditional Calvinists) the suffering is remedial and, consequently, temporary. Eventually, all will be saved in Christ Jesus.

So it seems to me that the only difference between Reformed Universists and traditional Calvinists is in respect to the reprobate. They insist that hell is eternal and none escape it who are sent there. We insist that hell is remedial and temporary, that none shall be damned there forever.

[jaxxen]

This is question for those who self-identify as Reformed Universalist or Calvinistic Universalist. To you what does the term mean? If you had to give a short introduction to it (you get to define “short”!), what would you say?

To me, its universalism that uses Calvinism as a foundation. It is exclusivist, that is, it believes that no one is saved without faith in Christ. Man is unable to naturally turn to Christ, however, due to our sin. Because of His great love, God has elected to save some- known as the Elect- from sin and consequently punishment in the next life. The Elect are destined for glorification in Christ, destined to be His Bride. Since His Elect are naturally unable to accept the Gospel, He transforms them in order that they may believe and be saved. No one whom he has elected shall die in their sins. His draw is irresistible, and to only a limited number of people.

The reprobate (non-Elect) will suffer in Hell in the next life for their sins. But (this is where we differ from traditional Calvinists) the suffering is remedial and, consequently, temporary. Eventually, all will be saved in Christ Jesus.

So it seems to me that the only difference between Reformed Universists and traditional Calvinists is in respect to the reprobate. They insist that hell is eternal and none escape it who are sent there. We insist that hell is remedial and temporary, that none shall be damned there forever.

I was in the process of replying when I reread the question, that it pertains to those who self-identify themselves as RU / CU, so I’m disqualified. But, I’ll keep my good eye on this thread and check the answers.

[byronarn]

I was in the process of replying when I reread the question, that it pertains to those who self-identify themselves as RU / CU, so I’m disqualified. But, I’ll keep my good eye on this thread and check the answers.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to be discriminatory. I was just wanting the views of my fellow Reformed Universalists without having to filter out the ensuing debate about whether it is possible to synthesize Calvinism and if it is valid universalism if you do so.

[Nil_Recurring]

I tend to lean that way myself when it comes to God’s work in our salvation. I don’t call myself a Calvinistic Universalist, partly because I’m trying to avoid the term “Calvinist” altogether (personal reasons–most of the people that have declared me a heretic have been Calvinists), but I find that a Universalist viewpoint can be seen as the logical end of Calvinism–God is sovereign and get’s exactly what He wants, and His overall plan is to reconcile all.

I see the elect as people who have been giving an incredible opportunity from God to reign with Christ in His coming kingdom, but also those who have been given a great deal of responsibility in how we treat others and spread the good news.

[firedup2000]

Good description byronarn. And I’m with ya Nil. It is amazing how seeing the non-elect as future brothers changes your present attitude towards them.

[workalot]

I count my world view as Reformed, while I frequently call myself a Calvinist since that’s a term that tends to get the most attention or disdainful reaction from the greatest number of people. I prefer “Reformed” because it is a broader term and takes the person Calvin out of the conversation. There are many viewpoints within the Reformed community.

Universalism is generally not among them. Karl Barth is probably the best known Reformed “UR” theologian, and even he only went so far as to say Universal Redemption is a possibility; and took a lot of heat for that moderate position.

Not being a theologian or attached to a denomination allows me to take at least one step further and say that I can’t imagine that God would save a person, like me and not redeem the millions that have not had the benefit of a lifetime of being under the influence of godly people. Why me, and not that guy across the street. And don’t tell me, it’s because I chose Him, or did something to deserve it. You would have to know me better to know that neither of those is true. I wasn’t even looking for God when he made Himself known to me.

The foundational concept of Reformed theology in my view is the Sovereignty of God. A concept I whole-heartedly embrace. I can’t imagine how you can not link redemption/reconciliation/salvation without acknowledging an almighty God. And if you really believe in an almighty/all powerful God, you have to be willing to go so far as to say He does have the right to choose who He will. He cares too much to leave your salvation up to your good sense, unless you are a far wiser person, than I.

I just happen to be persuaded that He loves all of His children, and is willing to eventually bring all of us home. Why else would he lower himself so far as to live over 30 years in the body of a man, suffer and die. Those words are easily said until you dwell on them in some depth, perhaps this “Good Friday” is an opportunity to try to imagine how important you are to God. How powerful his life, death and resurrection is to accomplishing the ultimate Reconciliation.

[dirtboy]

I count my world view as Reformed, while I frequently call myself a Calvinist since that’s a term that tends to get the most attention or disdainful reaction from the greatest number of people. I prefer “Reformed” because it is a broader term and takes the person Calvin out of the conversation. There are many viewpoints within the Reformed community.

Universalism is generally not among them. Karl Barth is probably the best known Reformed “UR” theologian, and even he only went so far as to say Universal Redemption is a possibility; and took a lot of heat for that moderate position.

Not being a theologian or attached to a denomination allows me to take at least one step further and say that I can’t imagine that God would save a person, like me and not redeem the millions that have not had the benefit of a lifetime of being under the influence of godly people. Why me, and not that guy across the street. And don’t tell me, it’s because I chose Him, or did something to deserve it. You would have to know me better to know that neither of those is true. I wasn’t even looking for God when he made Himself known to me.

The foundational concept of Reformed theology in my view is the Sovereignty of God. A concept I whole-heartedly embrace. I can’t imagine how you can not link redemption/reconciliation/salvation without acknowledging an almighty God. And if you really believe in an almighty/all powerful God, you have to be willing to go so far as to say He does have the right to choose who He will. He cares too much to leave your salvation up to your good sense, unless you are a far wiser person, than I.

I just happen to be persuaded that He loves all of His children, and is willing to eventually bring all of us home. Why else would he lower himself so far as to live over 30 years in the body of a man, suffer and die. Those words are easily said until you dwell on them in some depth, perhaps this “Good Friday” is an opportunity to try to imagine how important you are to God. How powerful his life, death and resurrection is to accomplishing the ultimate Reconciliation.

Well put!

[Melchizedek]

I agree that the foundational concept of Reformed theology is the sovereignty of God. This is why I’m astounded that more Reformed believers are not universalists.

[pilgrim]

I agree that the foundational concept of Reformed theology is the sovereignty of God. This is why I’m astounded that more Reformed believers are not universalists.

To believe absolutely and foundationally in a god who is totally sovereign indicates nothing about what He chooses to create or how He chooses to deal with His creation. For answers to these questions, one has to consider other aspects of a particular theology and herein lies the problem.

[Melchizedek]

I agree that the foundational concept of Reformed theology is the sovereignty of God. This is why I’m astounded that more Reformed believers are not universalists.

To believe absolutely and foundationally in a god who is totally sovereign indicates nothing about what He chooses to create or how He chooses to deal with His creation. For answers to these questions, one has to consider other aspects of a particular theology and herein lies the problem.

True. My point though, was that a strong sovereignty at least allows quite a bit of leeway for authority/ ability to overcome human will in soteriological matters. I am well aware of the other problems with Reformed/ Calvinist/ Augustinian theology.
It seems a bit more challenging to come to a universalist perspective from a more Arminian stance, though I think perhaps it ends up being a more robust universalism when it does happen that way.

[pilgrim]

True. My point though, was that a strong sovereignty at least allows quite a bit of leeway for authority/ ability to overcome human will in soteriological matters.

And I agree entirely with that point. But where does that take us? It may lead us ALL to Hell if that is what this sovereign god so desires.

I am well aware of the other problems with Reformed/ Calvinist/ Augustinian theology.

Yes. I’m sure you are far more knowledgeable than myself on such matters but I hope you see that in order to ‘convert’ to UR, it is not a god’s sovereignty that is relevant but his intention towards humankind and this matter depends entirely on these other tenets of reformed theology not ‘sovereignty’.

It seems a bit more challenging to come to a universalist perspective from a more Arminian stance, though I think perhaps it ends up being a more robust universalism when it does happen that way.

I was/am arminianist UR.
I can only speak for myself, but I regarded it as a small step. The nature and desires of God did not need any change. The only change was that my God is now more successful than I had previously thought. I know that you do not believe in ‘free will’. I have an open mind on that issue and, whether humankind has free will or not does not affect my belief that God will achieve repentance and reconciliation of all humanity.

I’ll be away for 7 days but I wish you well.

God bless

[Melchizedek]

True. My point though, was that a strong sovereignty at least allows quite a bit of leeway for authority/ ability to overcome human will in soteriological matters.

And I agree entirely with that point. But where does that take us? It may lead us ALL to Hell if that is what this sovereign god so desires.

I am well aware of the other problems with Reformed/ Calvinist/ Augustinian theology.

Yes. I’m sure you are far more knowledgeable than myself on such matters but I hope you see that in order to ‘convert’ to UR, it is not a god’s sovereignty that is relevant but his intention towards humankind and this matter depends entirely on these other tenets of reformed theology not ‘sovereignty’.

It seems a bit more challenging to come to a universalist perspective from a more Arminian stance, though I think perhaps it ends up being a more robust universalism when it does happen that way.

I was/am arminianist UR.
I can only speak for myself, but I regarded it as a small step. The nature and desires of God did not need any change. The only change was that my God is now more successful than I had previously thought. I know that you do not believe in ‘free will’. I have an open mind on that issue and, whether humankind has free will or not does not affect my belief that God will achieve repentance and reconciliation of all humanity.

I’ll be away for 7 days but I wish you well.

God bless

Thanks for those clarifying points. Your last statement is I think a big part of why UR from an Arminian perspective tends to be more robust. While free will presents something of a roadblock to UR from that perspective, once it is overcome, it doesn’t matter whether we have it or not; God is still able to accomplish his soteriological purposes. That is one of the points that I appreciate about Talbott’s book. You’re right that I tend to lean toward the Reformed understanding of God’s sovereignty. It’s not that I don’t think that we have some limited freedom of will, but that it is very limited indeed in light of God’s sovereign plan/ purposes and will, of which I believe the human will is far too feeble in comparison to thwart.

Enjoy your time away, brother!

[scottmuz]

I come from a reformed (Calvinist background) and still attend a Sydney (in Australia) Anglican church (Sydney Anglicanism is very reformed).

My opinion is that Universalism is the way of resolving the Calvinist / Arminian dichotomy.

But it is possible to be a Calvinist Universalist. It all depends on the interpretation the L in the TULIP acronym (thecaveonline.com/APEH/calvinTULIP.html). In all the other letters I am in strong agreement.

The L stands for limited atonement:
<<
This point says that while Christ’s blood–indeed, His entire life, death, and resurrection–is infinitely INTENSIVE in saving power and thus unlimited in one sense, it is not infinitely EXTENSIVE and is thus limited, not universal, in the extent of its application; for while everyone CONDITIONALLY or “provisionally” shares in Christ’s life, death, and resurrection (thus, if everyone believed, everyone would be joined or married to Christ), only members of Christ’s body or bride or flock (ELECT believers) actually share in His blood (Calvinists cite, e.g., Jn. 10:11, 15, 26; 17:9; cf. 6:37, 39; 17:2, 6, 24).

It would seem possible as long as you believe that everyone is part of the Elect (which I do).

So I think I’ve convinced myself that you can be a Calvinist and a Universalist, and that I am one.

But obviously Calvin was not a Universalist and don’t expect many card carrying Calvinists to accept you as one.

[byronarn]

I come from a reformed (Calvinist background) and still attend a Sydney (in Australia) Anglican church (Sydney Anglicanism is very reformed).

My opinion is that Universalism is the way of resolving the Calvinist / Arminian dichotomy.

But it is possible to be a Calvinist Universalist. It all depends on the interpretation the L in the TULIP acronym (thecaveonline.com/APEH/calvinTULIP.html). In all the other letters I am in strong agreement.

The L stands for limited atonement:
<<
This point says that while Christ’s blood–indeed, His entire life, death, and resurrection–is infinitely INTENSIVE in saving power and thus unlimited in one sense, it is not infinitely EXTENSIVE and is thus limited, not universal, in the extent of its application; for while everyone CONDITIONALLY or “provisionally” shares in Christ’s life, death, and resurrection (thus, if everyone believed, everyone would be joined or married to Christ), only members of Christ’s body or bride or flock (ELECT believers) actually share in His blood (Calvinists cite, e.g., Jn. 10:11, 15, 26; 17:9; cf. 6:37, 39; 17:2, 6, 24).

It would seem possible as long as you believe that everyone is part of the Elect (which I do).

So I think I’ve convinced myself that you can be a Calvinist and a Universalist, and that I am one.

But obviously Calvin was not a Universalist and don’t expect many card carrying Calvinists to accept you as one.

I guess it dependss upon how you define the Elect. Is it the sum total of all who will be saved? Most Reformed Universalists take it this way, and go on to claim that everyone is a part of the Elect.

For me, the Elect are those who will be saved in this lifetime, It is only the Church. The Elect is the Bride of Christ, who will reign with Christ in the coming Millenium. The Elect will help bring about the reconciliation of the reprobate in some way, I believe. There are many blessings that will only be enjoyed by the Elect (being the Bride of Christ, reigning with Christ, not having to go through the remedial flames of hell), but eventually every single one of the reprobate will also be reconciled to God. And when the very last one is reconciled and hell is completely empty, this is when God will be All in All.