Calvinism, Arminianism, or Universal Restoration

[public hermit]

Universal Restoration includes major premises of Calvinism and Arminianism, while avoiding their flaws.

This breakdown is based on a sermon by Elhanan Winchester as found in A Larger Hope? by Robin Parry and Ilaria Ramelli (pg. 119)

1. God loves all
Calvinism- No
Arminianism- Yes
UR- Yes

2. The objects of God's love will come to salvation
Calvinism- Yes
Arminianism- No
UR- Yes

3. God desires all to be saved
Calvinism- No
Arminianism- Yes
UR- Yes

4. All God's purposes will be accomplished
Calvinism- Yes
Arminianism- No
UR- Yes

5. Christ dies for all
Calvinism- No
Arminianism- Yes
UR- Yes

6. All for whom Christ died will be saved (his blood was not shed in vain)
Calvinism- Yes
Arminianism- No
UR- Yes

Calvinists hold that God only loves some, that only some will be saved. In other words, God is unwilling to save all. Arminians hold that God loves all, but only some will be saved because human freedom will thwart God's will. In other words, God is unable to save all. Classical Universal Restoration (Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, et al) asserts that God loves all, is willing to save all, and is able to bring all to salvation willingly. In other words, God is willing, God is able, and God will save all. The UR position is the more fitting account of God's love, will, and power.

 

[public hermit]

"After Jesus had spoken these words, he looked up to heaven and said, ‘Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all people, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." John 17:1-3

 

[d taylor]

-
​

I reject all three (Calvinism, Arminianism, Universal Restoration) in favor of Free Grace being the most accurate teaching of scripture.

 

[public hermit]

-
​

I reject all three (Calvinism, Arminianism, Universal Restoration) in favor of Free Grace being the most accurate teaching of scripture.

Can you explain Free Grace and how it differs?

 

[d taylor]

Can you explain Free Grace and how it differs?

I will take your list you made and apply free grace to it.

1. God loves all
Free Grace - Yes

2. The objects of God's love will come to salvation
Free Grace - Yes and No
Not all will receive God's free gift of Eternal Life

3. God desires all to be saved
Free Grace - Yes

4. All God's purposes will be accomplished
Free Grace - Yes
Sin was taken away for every human and death was defeated.

5. Christ dies for all
Free Grace - Yes

6. All for whom Christ died will be saved (his blood was not shed in vain)
Free Grace - No
Not all will receive God's free gift of Eternal Life

 

[public hermit]

I will take your list you made and apply free grace to it.

1. God loves all
Free Grace - Yes

2. The objects of God's love will come to salvation
Free Grace - Yes and No
Not all will receive God's free gift of Eternal Life

3. God desires all to be saved
Free Grace - Yes

4. All God's purposes will be accomplished
Free Grace - Yes
Sin was taken away for every human and death was defeated.

5. Christ dies for all
Free Grace - Yes

6. All for whom Christ died will be saved (his blood was not shed in vain)
Free Grace - No
Not all will receive God's free gift of Eternal Life

Thank you. Sin is taken away from every human, death is defeated, but not all recieve the free gift of eternal life. Who and what prevents that? God, humanity, or both? Is it based on human response?

 

[d taylor]

-​

Free Grace simply believes that people who never receive the Life of God. Will not be able to live eternally , where God is, which requires the life of God to live there. So God has created a place for people who do not have the life of God, to spend eternity.

 

[d taylor]

Thank you. Sin is taken away from every human, death is defeated, but not all recieve the free gift of eternal life. Who and what prevents that? God, humanity, or both? Is it based on human response?

I am sure there are many causes. Just like why does a person die. It may be from cancer, heart problems, stroke, suicide, car accident, etc...

having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart;

 

[d taylor]

-​

Christianity is or has become it own worst enemy. What is a simple message of how to receive God's free gift of Eternal Life. Has been polluted by Christianity itself, adding all kind of requirements to the simple act of faith. So much that many simply do not know the object to place their faith in. Is it repentance of sins, a life lived of obedience, being baptized, making Jesus Lord of their life, etc......

 

[PloverWing]

Free Grace simply believes that people who never receive the Life of God. Will not be able to live eternity, where God is, which requires the life of God to live there. So God has created a place for people who do not have the life of God, to spend eternity.

Can you clarify how this is different from the Arminian position?

 

[d taylor]

Can you clarify how this is different from the Arminian position?

-​

Well one difference is Free Grace believes once a person believes in Jesus for Eternal Life, they can never lose the Eternal Life they receive from God. No matter even if they fall away from the faith and become an unbeliever, they remain a born again child of God.

 

[Der Alte]

​

Well one difference is Free Grace believes once a person believes in Jesus for Eternal Life, they can never lose the Eternal Life they receive from God. No matter even if they fall away from the faith and become an unbeliever, they remain a born again child of God.

Which is contradicted by Hebrews 10:26-31.

Hebrews 10:26-31
(26) For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
(27) But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
(28) He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
(29) Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
(30) For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
(31) It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.​

Some folks might try to argue that this does not refer to a "real" Christian but someone who has only heard the gospel. But note vs. 29 this definitely refers to someone who has been sanctified by the blood of the covenant then treats that blood as an unholy thing and insults the Spirit of grace.

 

[d taylor]

Which is contradicted by Hebrews 10:26-31.

Hebrews 10:26-31​

(26) For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,​

(27) But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.​

(28) He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:​

(29) Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?​

(30) For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.​

(31) It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.​

Some folks might try to argue that this does not refer to a "real" Christian but someone who has only heard the gospel. But note vs. 29 this definitely refers to someone who has been sanctified by the blood of the covenant then treats that blood as an unholy thing and insults the Spirit of grace.

-​

You should remember past discussions better. We went over this about 2-3 months ago and i do not care to do it again.

 

[Der Alte]

​

You should remember past discussions better. We went over this about 2-3 months ago and i do not care to do it again.

Your argument was not convincing. It might be if you could find some accredited scholars or ECF who can demonstrate, from scripture, that my conclusion is incorrect. Someone just saying "You're wrong and I'm right! Am too! Nuh huh!" is not convincing.

 

[d taylor]

Your argument was not convincing. It might be if you could find some accredited scholars or ECF who can demonstrate, from scripture, that my conclusion is incorrect. Someone just saying "You're wrong and I'm right! Am too! Nuh huh!" is not convincing.

I do not care if i did not convince you, I will not lose any sleep over it.

 

[Andrewn]

Universal Restoration includes major premises of Calvinism and Arminianism, while avoiding their flaws.

While we can assume general knowledge of the fate of those who are saved, the NT tells us very little about the future of the unsaved.

The discussion about "free will" further complicates the issue." I might not have been a Christian if I had been born in a different culture. In other circumstances, I might have been born a psychopath and committed crimes. I could have been unelected, as Calvinists would say. Or I might have had the mental age of a child.

Predestination theology in Calvinism is clearly unrealistic. But the assumption of "free will" in Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Arminianism is also unrealistic.

Then the Good God would send me to torment for all eternity?! What is the point in creating me in His image in the first place? Something doesn't make sense, and we know little from the Bible about how God will deal with the unsaved. Perhaps this is intentional: Bible writers did not want us to understand these mysteries. Yet, as a human being, I like to speculate.

 

[Der Alte]

I do not care if i did not convince you, I will not lose any sleep over it.

Excellent! You post what I consider to be false teachings and I will refute it. My offer still stands if you can support your position from scripture, scholars, ECF etc. please do so.

 

[public hermit]

While we can assume general knowledge of the fate of those who are saved, the NT tells us very little about the future of the unsaved.

The discussion about "free will" further complicates the issue." I might not have been a Christian if I had been born in a different culture. In other circumstances, I might have been born a psychopath and committed crimes. I could have been unelected, as Calvinists would say. Or I might have had the mental age of a child.

Predestination theology in Calvinism is clearly unrealistic. But the assumption of "free will" in Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Arminianism is also unrealistic.

Then the Good God would send me to torment for all eternity?! What is the point in creating me in His image in the first place? Something doesn't make sense, and we know little from the Bible about how God will deal with the unsaved. Perhaps this is intentional: Bible writers did not want us to understand these mysteries. Yet, as a human being, I like to speculate.

I agree with the points you're making. The idea that we are free in such a way that we can be held solely responsible for our choices fails to take into account a host of attending factors over which we have no control. What is more worrisome to me is the idea that God would gamble and create creatures knowing that it is highly probable that God would not be able to fulfill the intended telos of at least some of those beings and that failure would include their everlasting suffering. But if we take the Arminian position at face value, the risk God took was even greater since it was possible that every single being God created would end up in everlasting suffering since it was possible that none would choose salvation. No God who is love would take that kind of risk. The stakes are way too high; such a God would be foolish and cruel not loving and wise.

I'm my opinion, which I don't think is far off the mark, if at all, the Calvinist (Augustinian) account presents a God whose love is arbitrary and, hence, such a God is not by nature love. Calvin notoriously evades the scriptural notion that God is love and focuses solely on the sovereignty of the divine will. In short, Calvin's God is a tyrant worthy of fear but not worthy worship or love.

I think the force of the OP breakdown concerns three accounts of God's nature. The three accounts are not so much about what happens to the unsaved. They each present an image of the love, will, and power of God. What happens to the unsaved is simply a consequence of God's nature. I agree that the scriptures are ambiguous regarding the the outcome of the unsaved. This is why it's important to consider the nature of God.

Is God love? Does God will the ultimate good of the creatures God creates? If so, is God able to bring to fulfillment the divine intention for those creatures? Which of the three accounts is commensurate with our understanding of God's nature? And, which account results in the greater glory of God given God's nature? Hands down, UR comes out on top. I think we can admit that the reality of what will be is outside our epistemic ken, while simultaneously admitting that, as far as these three accounts go, UR is by far a better account. Those two are not somehow mutually exclusive positions. And since the scriptures are ambiguous, I think it's our responsibility to ask ourselves why we would settle for either of the two lesser accounts. The answer that tradition has set the standard is insufficient. Reset things back to the 3rd century with a different political atmosphere and the classical UR position could have become the standard.

 

[FireDragon76]

Universal Restoration includes major premises of Calvinism and Arminianism, while avoiding their flaws.

This breakdown is based on a sermon by Elhanan Winchester as found in A Larger Hope? by Robin Parry and Ilaria Ramelli (pg. 119)

1. God loves all
Calvinism- No
Arminianism- Yes
UR- Yes

Lutheran: Yes

2. The objects of God's love will come to salvation
Calvinism- Yes
Arminianism- No
UR- Yes

Lutheran: No, people can still reject God's love.

3. God desires all to be saved
Calvinism- No
Arminianism- Yes
UR- Yes

Lutheran: Yes. It's Scriptural, obviously so.

4. All God's purposes will be accomplished
Calvinism- Yes
Arminianism- No
UR- Yes

Lutheran: Yes, though Lutherans aren't necessarily Occasionalists, as in some Islamic or Calvinist theology. God causes all creatures to be energized in their will, without causing them to do evil, and is therefore not responsible for evil.

5. Christ dies for all
Calvinism- No
Arminianism- Yes
UR- Yes

Lutheran: yes

6. All for whom Christ died will be saved (his blood was not shed in vain)
Calvinism- Yes
Arminianism- No
UR- Yes

Lutheran: No. It is still possible for those called by God to reject God's grace.

The Augsburg Confession appears to condemn the "Anabaptist" doctrine that there will be an end to the suffering of the condemned. It's debatable if that speaks to Apokatastasis per se, however. Apokatastasis wasn't really part of the consciousness of western Christianity at the time of the Reformation. Justification in relationship to "Heaven and Hell" was what was most pertinent.

Among contemporary Lutherans, you will find a minority that have a universalist opinion, even in conservative denominations, however.

 

[public hermit]

Lutheran: Yes



Lutheran: No, people can still reject God's love.



Lutheran: Yes. It's Scriptural, obviously so.



Lutheran: Yes, though Lutherans aren't necessarily Occasionalists, as in some Islamic or Calvinist theology. Older Lutheran theology/piety sounds more Calvinistic at times, however (case in point is the 17th century hymn, "If you but trust in God to guide you".



Lutheran: yes



Lutheran: No. It is still possible for those called by God to reject God's grace.

The Augsburg Confession appears to condemn the "Anabaptist" doctrine that there will be an end to the suffering of the condemned. It's debatable if that speaks to Apokatastasis per se, however. Apokatastasis wasn't really part of the consciousness of western Christianity at the time of the Reformation. Justification in relationship to "Heaven and Hell" was what was most pertinent.

Among contemporary Lutherans, you will find a minority that have a universalist opinion, even in conservative denominations, however.

Thank you for giving a Lutheran perspective; that's helpful.