Calvinism and Universalism

[Homer]

Both Calvinism and Universalism have been argued vociferously at this site for some time. Although they are both deterministic, their proponents seem to view the other position as a polar opposite. As someone who has opposed both viewpoints, I am surprised with the sympathy that Universalism receives at this site as compared to the Calvinist position.

Steve commented on the "reflections" thread:

One web page alone (http://www.tentmaker.org/books/ScripturalProofs.html) purports to give 100 scriptural proofs of universalism. While some of them may strain the interpretation a bit, there are still plenty there that require some interpretive ingenuity to make them not appear to teach that doctrine.

Which is surprising to me. Steve has vehemently opposed Calvinism, as most of the Universalists seem to. I have the impression that the opponents of Calvinism believe there is not the slightest chance Calvinism is true. I am in as much disagreement with Calvinism as any who have opposed it, but I must say I find it much harder to refute, from the scriptural arguments, than is Universalism. And I must say I find Calvinism more likely to be true than Universalism, though my personal sympathies are the reverse. I believe souls are lost becuse of the teachings of both systems.

I can only explain the difference in the apparent regard for each of these systems, at this site, to be based in philosophical viewpoints and feelings. And I think the reason traditional Christians have so little regard for consideration of Universalism is the perceived paucity of scriptural support for the doctrine.

I hope to review all 100 of the arguments for Universalism at the tentmaker site. So far, and I haven't gotten far, all I have found is philosophical arguments and classic proof-texting. Perhaps I will find better arguments.

I would be interested in comments from all sides of these issues.

[seer]

Both Calvinism and Universalism have been argued vociferously at this site for some time. Although they are both deterministic, their proponents seem to view the other position as a polar opposite. As someone who has opposed both viewpoints, I am surprised with the sympathy that Universalism receives at this site as compared to the Calvinist position.

Steve commented on the "reflections" thread:

One web page alone (http://www.tentmaker.org/books/ScripturalProofs.html) purports to give 100 scriptural proofs of universalism. While some of them may strain the interpretation a bit, there are still plenty there that require some interpretive ingenuity to make them not appear to teach that doctrine.

Which is surprising to me. Steve has vehemently opposed Calvinism, as most of the Universalists seem to. I have the impression that the opponents of Calvinism believe there is not the slightest chance Calvinism is true. I am in as much disagreement with Calvinism as any who have opposed it, but I must say I find it much harder to refute, from the scriptural arguments, than is Universalism. And I must say I find Calvinism more likely to be true than Universalism, though my personal sympathies are the reverse. I believe souls are lost becuse of the teachings of both systems.

I can only explain the difference in the apparent regard for each of these systems, at this site, to be based in philosophical viewpoints and feelings. And I think the reason traditional Christians have so little regard for consideration of Universalism is the perceived paucity of scriptural support for the doctrine.

I hope to review all 100 of the arguments for Universalism at the tentmaker site. So far, and I haven't gotten far, all I have found is philosophical arguments and classic proof-texting. Perhaps I will find better arguments.

I would be interested in comments from all sides of these issues.

Hello Homer, I tend to agree. There seems to be a bias against Calvinism. I suspect it goes, in their mind, to the character of God. They would rather believe that God saves all men than to believe that God unilaterally condemns some. I too find that Calvinism has more biblical support than universalism - depending how one interprets the proof texts of course.

[darinhouston]

Hello Homer, I tend to agree. There seems to be a bias against Calvinism. I suspect it goes, in their mind, to the character of God. They would rather believe that God saves all men than to believe that God unilaterally condemns some. I too find that Calvinism has more biblical support than universalism - depending how one interprets the proof texts of course.

I think that's right, but its more than that -- first, I don't think it's a small thing to be extremely circumspect when a teaching deviates from the generally and widely revealed character of God and less so when a teaching is consistent with it. However, (for me, anyway) it's also that Calvinism seems contrary also to the general teachings of the bible (even apart from the character of God) where there is less general teaching opposed to the concept of UR. There may be difficult texts to reconcile with UR (which we should try to do or reject the doctrine), but there appears to be less general "friction" against the overall teachings and revealed truth of Scripture with UR than Calvinism.

[RND]

Hello Homer, I tend to agree. There seems to be a bias against Calvinism. I suspect it goes, in their mind, to the character of God.

I suspect you may be right! I mean isn't "everything" filtered through the character of God?

They would rather believe that God saves all men than to believe that God unilaterally condemns some.

If God condemns unilaterally then it can be said that God would also save unilaterally as well. That takes the position of "free will" and throws it out the window which is what Calvinism would have us to do. God gives everyone evidence of His existence in some form or another and hence presents a picture if His true character so that an obvious choice can be made.

God has done all He can to demonstrate His love, mercy and kindness. The rejection of the evidence is just as much a "free choice" as it's accceptance.

I too find that Calvinism has more biblical support than universalism - depending how one interprets the proof texts of course.

I think if we allow the Bible to speak for itself we can see the truth the scriptures offer. God won't torture forever and there are some that don't want to be saved.

[steve]

I don't see why Universalism would have to be more deterministic than Arminianism is. I know that Universalists I have read (like Thomas Talbot) seem to be deterministic, in that they believe that God will sovereignly guarantee the eventual repentance of all, whether before or after death. But in reading such things, it seemed to me that he was making an unnecessary assertion, since Universalism might mean little more than that every man will have an opportunity to be purged and brought to repentance after death, just as we have been given that opportunity during our lifetimes. I don't believe that God forced me to become a believer, by the unilateral tampering with my free will, and I don't see any reason to suggest that God would have to thus force anyone else to become a believer, in order to elicit their eventual repentance. If God does indeed allow postmortem repentance, I think it is entirely predictable that every last person, eventually, will have reached his limit of resistance, and will repent—just as many Christians today can see that their conversion came about as the result of many years of divine arm-twisting.

Jonah, by his free will, initially resisted God's command to go to Nineveh. When he finally went to Nineveh, it was by his own free choice. He had, quite understandably, changed his mind. God's dealings with him seemed to put good sense into him, where he had formerly lacked it. For Jonah, it took only three days in his own version of Sheol to turn him around (Jonah 2:2). For some it may take more, and for some less, than this. Whether God will give everyone that chance is what is reasonably disputed here, but whether every man would eventually emulate the repentant Jonah, if given the opportunity, can be reliably predicted without the imposition of Calvinist-style divine determinism.

Actually, apart from the presumption of determinism, which strikes me as an entirely unessential appendage to the doctrine of Universalism, it would seem that Universalism has nothing in common with Calvinism, and everything in common with Arminianism. Both Universalism and Arminianism believe that God really desires all men to be saved, and that Christ made atonement for all. Both, therefore, have similar opinions about the character of God (universal love) which Calvinism rejects. This is, no doubt, why Universalism runs in many of the same circles with Arminianism, but not with Calvinism. The only difference I see between Universalism and Arminianism is that the former includes the belief that God would not create (without being under compulsion to do so) such a system as would ultimately thwart His greatest desires, and will exert every faculty and option available to Him to assure His desired ends. This seems reasonable to me—though I don't know if it is true. I am not sure why it would not be true.

As for the comparison of scriptural cases for Universalism and Calvinism, respectively, it seems that the Universalists have it over the Calvinists by a factor of at least 10, if not 100. Such comparisons can be calculated more than one way (though the results remain on the same side, whichever method is chosen). Take, for example, the number of scriptures available in the support of the opposites of these two doctrines. The opposite of Universalism would be the absolute denial that the dead get a second chance to repent. Where are the verses that make this denial? I can think of (possibly) half a dozen that could be pressed into this service (compared to, probably hundreds that speak of God's love for sinners, His desire for all to be saved, and His sovereign right and power to accomplish whatever He desires).

Now, the opposite of Calvinism is the affirmation that God would want to be a Universalist—that is, that God loves all people and wants all to be saved. This is the fundamental difference between Calvinism and Arminianism, and it obviously shares most of that large volume of texts that are claimed for Universalism. By contrast, Calvinism has, it may be, a dozen passages that appear strongly to favor their case—all of which only do so by importing the Calvinist presuppositions to the task of interpretation.

I know our Calvinist friends will not share this assessment with me—and no one requires them to do so. However, to the degree that my mind is able to process and synthesize every text relevant to the questions, my tally would look something like this:

Verses that seem to strongly support Calvinism: approximately a dozen
Verses that seem to strongly support Calvinism's rival: scores, if not hundreds

Verses that seem to directly state Universalism's premises: the same scores, if not hundreds, included in the above category
Verses that seem to directly state there is no opportunity to repent after death: none. Perhaps half a dozen by implication (I am being generous here).

This tally has not been precisely quantified by me, but reflects my general sense when considering the whole witness of scripture, and provides the reason why, as an Arminian, I am more sympathetic with Universalism than I am with Calvinism.

[SteveF]

I've made the same observation that there are many more verses that support Universal Reconciliation than support ECT , this dosen't prove the point one way or the other but it does show the arguments for UR aren't vacuous.

Steve, I think you raised a good point that I've considered as well: Arminians are Universalists. They believe in Universal love. The only question remaining is, will there be Universally Reconciliation? The discussion continues....

[Paidion]

I have met a number of believers in universal reconciliation, besides Talbott, who think that God will make the universal reconciliation happen. This seems to be a form of Calvinism except that in this form, everyone is elected and predestined to be saved instead of just a few.

That is certainly not my view. I am a convinced believer in UR, and I also fully believe in the free will of man. Besides that, I was an open theist long before I ever heard the term "open theism". Until relatively recently, I didn't know anyone else believed that the choices of man, though predictable, cannot be absolutely known before they are made. I hold that everyone will, of his own free will, choose to repent and submit to the Lord. People may refuse to do so for a life time, or maybe even for 1000 years. But can they endure the consequences of their choice and hold out forever? Theoretically, they can, but practically, they can't.

As for Arminianism, I have only one major problem with it, and that is the belief that God "looks into the future" and thus knows all the future choices of man. If I choose to help a neighbour today, and that choice was known yesterday, then that choice was settled (fixed) so that I could not have chosen otherwise. For to know that some proposition P is true, implies that P is, in fact, true. So if yesterday, it was known that I help my neighbour today, how could I have done otherwise? Where is my free will, which Arminianism affirms? In this regard, I think Arminianism contradicts itself. For this reason, I once called Arminianism "inconsistent Calvinism".

[auggybendoggy]

For those who have not read The Evangelical Universalist, I recommend it. Gregory does post at our forum which you can see the link under "views of hell".
Most people I know (on our forum) are inclined toward free will. I am one of the few who actually embraces more of a calvinistic sense of Universalism.

Steve, you seem to understand the position pretty well.

For me (though many of my friends disagree) there is a a great deal of evidence for calvinism but their aim is off when they ignore texts that proclaim God shows no favoritism. I have no problem realizing that Phaora had no choice in the matter as to whehter he would let the people go or not. However like Steve explains I see no reason to believe God forces pharoa to go to hell based on these acts of disobedience.

I do know that GM (Gregory) is one who subscribes to Libertarian free will but that God can still bring about the salvation of all regardless. He talks about Talbott moving him in this direction and then finally caving in to the ideas that Univeraslism brings.

Homer may find this book interesting as it's a case for Universalism from a meta narrative. He shows the fall, Isreal, the Messiah and the church as all telling the story of God's unfailing love for his people. He even tackles the book of Revelation as showing God's universal redemption of the kingdoms. I'm still not sure I understand all his points and I'm reading it again for the third time (my reading's as bad as my writing).

Sincerely,

Auggy

[NJchosen]

My understanding of Universalism is that Christ's death applied to all humanity. Therefore all are saved. So all who profess Christ or not, are all saved because Christ's sacrifice applies to all. Similarly, in Arminianism, Christ died for all, but His death only applies to those who believe. And Calvinism, which teaches Christ died for all whom were chosen by God, His peculiar people, who believe.

Personally I find an enormous amount of issues with universalism. A lot less issues with Arminianism and some with Calvinism. Though I am what you'd call a 5 point Calvinist. What does the Universalist do with those who have ended up in hell? The judgment of the wicked in the end? The distinctions between the righteous and the wicked? Those who still live in sin?, yet if we all died to sin why do we still live in it? and a whole lot more.

I once was an Arminian, but have turned from it. The reason I no longer believe it is because of scripture. In this time I had not been under a Calvinist pastor, nor being witnessed to by them, but I was lead to it simply through scripture. I once believed what others told me about certain doctrines as we may have all been. But if Christ died for all, and all being all of humanity of every age, and His sacrifice is held out as a gift which one can reject or accept, I now see this as a problem with scripture. For God desires to save all, but can't, for when the will of God and the will of Man go head to head, it is the will of Man that wins. Also the idea I learned from CC was God looked into the future to see whom would believe, and chose them. So man choosing God was the reason why He chose them, it was not because of His own Sovereign will. Next, if God had to look into the future to learn anything, then God had to learn something, and if God had to learn something, how can He be omniscient? Last, eternal security began to not make sense to me from my standpoint because if the desire to believe (free will) stems from me then can't I also likewise disbelieve even after regeneration and loose my salvation? Don't I have free will even after conversion? Or is the grace of God irresistible in Arminianism after conversion? I say this to Arminians who believe in eternal security, but reject the Calvinists stance on irresistible grace.

Looking at 2 Cor 5,
"14 For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; 15 and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf."

If "all" is taken to mean "all" universally in Universalism, then all are saved. But its these all who no longer live for themselves but live for Christ because they died to themselves (but not all humanity lives for Him, nor died to themselves). If "all" is taken to mean "all" universally in Arminianism, then the "all" is all those who believe. But I see this as importing a different idea than the text actually teaches. The text says "He died for all" and it is these "all" who died, so they will live for Him, because He died for them on their behalf. This is one of the passages that lead me to turn from Arminianism. In Calvinism, Christ died for all, and these all died to themselves and live for Him, this all is His elect.

There is a lot more that can be said here, but I'll leave you with this. My pastor teaches election from a Calvinist standpoint. BUT he sees those passages that teach what Arminians use for support for human free will, the passages that speak of "all" being understood as "all" humanity (1 Pet, 2 Pet, Matt 24, Ezel 18, 1 Tim, 2 Tim 4). However he teaches both ideas, but from a standpoint that there is a mystery that we cannot understand here. So Ephesians 1 he would preach and sound very much as a Calvinist preacher and when he preaches from John 3:16 he may sound very Arminian, but as there is many mysteries in scripture, the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union and more, he also accepts what he sees as some passages teaching Calvinism and others teaching Arminianism. As for Universalism, that is one thing we agree on, its far fetched.

NJchosen

[steve]

Paidion wrote:

As for Arminianism, I have only one major problem with it, and that is the belief that God "looks into the future" and thus knows all the future choices of man. If I choose to help a neighbour today, and that choice was known yesterday, then that choice was settled (fixed) so that I could not have chosen otherwise. For to know that some proposition P is true, implies that P is, in fact, true. So if yesterday, it was known that I help my neighbour today, how could I have done otherwise? Where is my free will, which Arminianism affirms?

This is the great philosophical conundrum that challenges the credibility of Arminianism. I say "challenges," but I don't say "defeats." I agree that "to know that some proposition P is true, implies that P is, in fact, true." It is true, but is it predetermined—and if so, by whom? Let me play with this idea a bit...

Let us say that I will wake up at 7:00 tomorrow morning. I may or may not know this in advance. Perhaps I have determined it, by setting an alarm. Or perhaps I will awaken at 7:00 despite the fact that I set my alarm for 6:00 and overslept. It doesn't matter whether the fact was consciously determined or not. The fact is (in terms of this illustration) that I will awaken at 7:00 AM. If we were to suggest the possibility that God knows tonight that I will awaken at 7:00 tomorrow, will His knowing this fact require that He must be the one who determined it? Perhaps this would be the only way that He would know such a thing with certainty, but what if He had some other way of knowing, which has not been revealed or explained to us, by which He has access to knowledge, but does not make any determination in the matter. He knows what factors will cause me to wake up at that moment, and not at some other, and they might all be factors that I, or someone else, set in motion, apart from divine intervention...

In such a scenario, it would be true (in one sense) that I am "destined" to awaken at 7:00 AM, and that no alternative scenario can be allowed by the facts. However, it would not (in this case) be God who has determined or destined me to awaken at that moment, but it might very well be I who determined it, acting freely and without coercion. If these concepts be allowed, then proposition P—that I will wake up tomorrow at 7:00 AM—is, in fact, true—though nobody but God knows it at this time. The fact that it will happen may be said to destine this outcome—but not to the compromising of my free will, since it may well be that my free will is the very thing that is producing the fact itself, and thus destining that it will be so.

In this illustration, I have left unconsidered the means by which God might know what will happen. Calvinists might say the means of His knowing was His sovereign decree that it should happen. Open Thieists might argue that God knows the present situation—including my present plans concerning tomorrow, the exact amount of sleep my body will require of me, and/or the trajectory of certain events already in play, but not yet known to me—with sufficient precision that He could accurately calculate the exact time of my awakening. Arminians, like C.S. Lewis and A.W. Tozer, would say that God dwells "outside" time, in the realm of eternity, where all events of the past, present or future are effortlessly seen, though not necessarily caused by Him. These are three theories. There are also the "middle knowledge" people, like William Lane Craig, whose explanations are over my head. I do not know which view is correct, but all of the above would have God able to foretell, if He wished, the time that I will awaken tomorrow.

Now, the time of my waking tomorrow might truly be determined by God (or other factors beyond my control) so that my "free will" may have nothing to do with the outcome. My will in the matter might even be entirely violated. However, the matter of my waking-up may have little or no ramifications of a moral sort, so it hardly matters, in terms of God's pleasure or displeasure with me, at what time my eyes open tomorrow morning or what factors caused it. What may indeed matter to God is the way I respond to being awakened. Am I angry at the garbage truck driver whose noise woke me a half-hour earlier than I was planning to arise? Does my sleep-deprivation make me surly and unkind to those who share my morning space? These decisions are my own, and do carry moral significance.

Because they do, I am not inclined to include them among the things that God may determine or ordain. If He determined them outright, then it is He, and not I, who would bear responsibility for my behavior. Yet, I believe that God knows today what my reactions tomorrow will be, just as He knows the time of my awakening. But, in both cases, the fact is not determined by His knowing it, but the reverse. His knowing it is determined by the fact that it will happen a certain way. That I may attribute tomorrow's actions to my own free will, to divine determinism, or to weakness under duress does not change the fact that, when tomorrow morning comes, it will see certain events, and not others. I have no confident theories about how God would have access to this information, but I believe it is not contrary to logic to say that His knowing of it does not add or subtract to the functioning of my will in "real time."