Who Here Is An Arminian But Still Believes In Evangelical Universalism?
0 voters
See poll!
My guess is that the vast majority here are under #1, free will universalism.
See any or all discussion on freewill for why i think so ;
Yeah, I don’t understand the question. Soteriologically, Arm, Calv, and Kath (to give universalism/katholicism an equally punchy nickname) are mutually exclusive.
Arm = God intends and acts to save all sinners from sin (with maybe some exclusions mumble mumble 
) but quits for at least some people, at some point and for some reason. (The reasons and timing vary a lot. Actual “Arminians” differ from Wesleyans and modern Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox non-Kaths and Cumberland Presbyterians and this type of Lutheran and that type of Anglican etc. etc. on these details.)
Calv = God will surely succeed in saving whomever He intends to save from sin, but He doesn’t even intend much less act toward saving all sinners from sin.
Kath puts both the gospel assurances together: God intends to save all sinners from sin, and won’t stop nor be defeated short of success. Total scope + total persistence.
In that sense, that’s my answer: I’m Kath, not Arm (anymore) nor Calv.
If you meant libertarian free will vs. compatibilism vs. determinism: not all Arms believe in robust libertarianism, and not all Calvs believe in determinism. While Kaths (universalists) can and do work with any of the three (aside from questions of theological incoherence while trying to do so).
Sorry I was going to put down in relations to free will but didn’t think about it as I assumed that everyone would understand what I meant. My bad but yes I meant libertarian free will in Arminian sense.
Doesn’t seem that I can edit the poll but keep in mine when voting that if you are an Arminian that believes in libertarian free will or a Calvinist that believes in compatibilist free will.
By the way those who hold to a non deterministic/libertarian free will position,are there literature/books that have evangelic universalism compatible with non deterministic/libertarian free will?
Tom Talbott has a book. Some chapters of it can be read for free online:
books.google.ca/books/about/The … edir_esc=y
Tom is also a member of this site where he has posted a lot of his thoughts re universalism & freewill.
Additionally there are many other books & writings from authors that support freewill universalism.
I thought Talbott was a free will advocate but wasn’t sure. Thanks for clarifying that!
Dr. T certainly isn’t deterministic, but he leans more toward sin being simply healed off (to the extent of people being simply rewritten) rather than anyone needing any disciplinary punishment post-mortem, and he’ll talk as though free will simply isn’t any problem at all, but rather that once a will has been truly freed it will necessarily choose the good. Others of us are less optimistic about this being a certain result.
Winchester’s classic works, some of which can be found on site in the Helpful Materials category (and elsewhere online), are much more free-will oriented. Kaths of his period however tended to think of post-mortem punishment as not only being (to some extent) literal volcanic fire, but also as a set period punishment that repentance doesn’t affect. One of his contemporaries, Stonehouse, took this so far as to try to mathematically calculate exactly how many years of punitive sentence each variation of “eon” phrasing represented! (Stonehouse’s work has a lot of interesting things, but he was… eccentric about some topics. 
Still his was the largest and most detailed book I’ve read on the topic generally. Not larger than Dr. Ramelli’s Tome, but her topic was more focused.)
God’s Final Victory, mentioned by Qaz, is a recent philosophical argument. I thought most of it was quite good, and the authors cover a LOT of different options for and against universal salvation (ultimately concluding for). I don’t recall clearly how much they think free will can be a problem for repentance though.
I’m keeping my vote on 3, meanwhile. Libertarians sometimes but not always think I’m being compatiblist, and comps sometimes but not always think I’m being lib. I am definitely not deterministic, but I don’t regard compat and determ as being the same thing.
The Ramelli tome surely goes into Origen’s views on freewill as it relates to universalism. An internet search would also find other writings on this subject. If it took thousands of eons to win every soul, God would eventually obtain His desire.
If every freewill choice has a 50% chance of going either way, it would be mathematically impossible for one to reject God forever. Although once everyone is saved, what happens to freewill then? Does God take it away to keep everyone safe and saved, or does He allow His created beings the chance to rebel again?