Does universalism go hand-in-hand with Calvinism?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

If God is sovereign and there is nothing preventing Him from saving whoever He wants - regardless of one's beliefs or actions - would it be accurate to conclude that people who think God elects all people are themselves Calvinists, at least in a superficial sense?

Is there a branch of Calvinism that opposes the idea that only those who follow Jesus are among the elect?

[H. Ross Peron]

Well American Unitarianism evolved out of New England Calvinism-its always surprised me how New England went in a few generations from its theology being dominated by Cotton Mather and Jonathan Edwards to having most churches in the city of Boston be Unitarian.

[TDAS04]

Well American Unitarianism evolved out of New England Calvinism-its always surprised me how New England went in a few generations from its theology being dominated by Cotton Mather and Jonathan Edwards to having most churches in the city of Boston be Unitarian.

Yes, and the Puritan-derived UCC is quite liberal, though not as much as the Unitarians.  The Puritans certainly changed theologically over time.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Universalism has little to do with Calvinism other than a shared belief in an omnipotent God, but they have radically different views on how God uses his power with regard to human salvation.

I tend towards a different view of Universalism. Rather than asserting the God will save all, I assert that salvation is freely offered to all, regardless of whether they have heard the words of any particular theology. The idea that someone who never heard of Jesus and never could have heard of Jesus, would be condemned to the fires of Gehenna simply for that fact is not consistent with God being omnibenevolent. Jesus did not call for people to pay homage to him as ruler of the universe, indeed the Gospels represent him as generally being uncomfortable with that. Rather he called for people to follow his message and do good unto all.  That's something anyone can strive for even if one has never heard of the Son of Mary.

(A patient God may well ultimately achieve the universal salvation of all, but since God considers free will to be so beneficial that he tolerates the presence of evil rather than eliminate free will, I cannot think that such a God would compel people to accept a salvation they do not want.)

[DC Al Fine]

Scott is whipping out the DC Al Finebait I see.

If God is sovereign and there is nothing preventing Him from saving whoever He wants - regardless of one's beliefs or actions - would it be accurate to conclude that people who think God elects all people are themselves Calvinists, at least in a superficial sense?

Probably not. Let's look at TULIP for a quick run down of Calvinist theology

• Total Depravity
• Unconditional Election
• Limited Atonement
• Irresistible Grace
• Perseverance of the Saints

The universalist probably denies Total Depravity, and certainly denies Limited Atonement, so no, I wouldn't call them Calvinists.

Is there a branch of Calvinism that opposes the idea that only those who follow Jesus are among the elect?

That's an interesting premise, and I think it gels with the rest of Calvinist thought much better than your previous question. However, I'm not aware of any group that believes that. What you're describing is a relatively nuanced position. The inclinations that lead to universalism and Calvinism are in different directions. People usually don't reject parts of Calvinism, they tend to reject the whole thing or embrace it completely.

Orthodox Calvinists reject this idea though because we believe that the entire point of election is God's grace bringing our depraved souls to belief.

Well American Unitarianism evolved out of New England Calvinism-its always surprised me how New England went in a few generations from its theology being dominated by Cotton Mather and Jonathan Edwards to having most churches in the city of Boston be Unitarian.

I think it's a case of reaction against the controlling force. France was the eldest daughter of the Church, but look what happened to her.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Scott is whipping out the DC Al Finebait I see.

If God is sovereign and there is nothing preventing Him from saving whoever He wants - regardless of one's beliefs or actions - would it be accurate to conclude that people who think God elects all people are themselves Calvinists, at least in a superficial sense?

Probably not. Let's look at TULIP for a quick run down of Calvinist theology

• Total Depravity
• Unconditional Election
• Limited Atonement
• Irresistible Grace
• Perseverance of the Saints

The universalist probably denies Total Depravity, and certainly denies Limited Atonement, so no, I wouldn't call them Calvinists.

The only one of those points that it would be impossible for a Universalist to accept would be Unconditional Election since Universalism posits a Universal Election instead.  Of course Universal Election makes Limited Atonement a non-sequitur since an atonement limited to the elect when all are elect isn't very limited.

[useful idiot]

Is there a branch of Calvinism that opposes the idea that only those who follow Jesus are among the elect?

Barth operated within the Reformed church and interacted with Calvin quite a bit. He held to a potential universalism, though in reality he was honestly an Arminian (and a baptist, so to call him Reformed would be using the term loosely for confessionalists). Arminius would have called himself a Calvinist too, though...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Is there a branch of Calvinism that opposes the idea that only those who follow Jesus are among the elect?

Barth operated within the Reformed church and interacted with Calvin quite a bit. He held to a potential universalism, though in reality he was honestly an Arminian (and a baptist, so to call him Reformed would be using the term loosely for confessionalists). Arminius would have called himself a Calvinist too, though...

Barth's thoughts on soteriology remind me a bit of von Balthasar's, though I may be doing a shallow reading of one or both.

[useful idiot]

Is there a branch of Calvinism that opposes the idea that only those who follow Jesus are among the elect?

Barth operated within the Reformed church and interacted with Calvin quite a bit. He held to a potential universalism, though in reality he was honestly an Arminian (and a baptist, so to call him Reformed would be using the term loosely for confessionalists). Arminius would have called himself a Calvinist too, though...

Barth's thoughts on soteriology remind me a bit of von Balthasar's, though I may be doing a shallow reading of one or both.

Honestly von Balthasar is the easier of the two to nail down, in my opinion, because he sort of tends to say what he means, even when being speculative. Barth could write 20 pages and say nothing at all. It's why you get two starkly contrasting schools of Barthians; ones who portray him as an evangelical who simply didn't accept inerrancy, and another that make him out to be barely different from the liberals he criticized. Whenever somebody tried to pin him down he'd change the subject or say they didn't really understand him.

von Balthasar wrote what was, for a long time, the primary interpretive book on Barth's theology, obviously, and some have suggested that he interposed his own theology onto Barth. Barth praised it, but he also praised interpretations of his work from people who differed from von Balthasar . They were both Platonists at heart, for sure, and I think because of their contexts and backgrounds, when they applied that to their theology they came to many of the same conclusions. Of course they were friends and conversation partners, so that doesn't hurt the amount of overlap.

[YL]

Well American Unitarianism evolved out of New England Calvinism-its always surprised me how New England went in a few generations from its theology being dominated by Cotton Mather and Jonathan Edwards to having most churches in the city of Boston be Unitarian.

Something similar happened to some extent here too: some of the earliest Nonconformist churches in this area evolved into Unitarian ones, for example Upper Chapel in Sheffield, which was originally Calvinist, or Underbank Chapel in Stannington.

[DC Al Fine]

Scott is whipping out the DC Al Finebait I see.

If God is sovereign and there is nothing preventing Him from saving whoever He wants - regardless of one's beliefs or actions - would it be accurate to conclude that people who think God elects all people are themselves Calvinists, at least in a superficial sense?

Probably not. Let's look at TULIP for a quick run down of Calvinist theology

• Total Depravity
• Unconditional Election
• Limited Atonement
• Irresistible Grace
• Perseverance of the Saints

The universalist probably denies Total Depravity, and certainly denies Limited Atonement, so no, I wouldn't call them Calvinists.

The only one of those points that it would be impossible for a Universalist to accept would be Unconditional Election since Universalism posits a Universal Election instead.  Of course Universal Election makes Limited Atonement a non-sequitur since an atonement limited to the elect when all are elect isn't very limited.

I'd argue that Universal Election falls under Unconditional Elections by definition. If everyone is saved, then obviously no one had to do anything to get it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Scott is whipping out the DC Al Finebait I see.

If God is sovereign and there is nothing preventing Him from saving whoever He wants - regardless of one's beliefs or actions - would it be accurate to conclude that people who think God elects all people are themselves Calvinists, at least in a superficial sense?

Probably not. Let's look at TULIP for a quick run down of Calvinist theology

• Total Depravity
• Unconditional Election
• Limited Atonement
• Irresistible Grace
• Perseverance of the Saints

The universalist probably denies Total Depravity, and certainly denies Limited Atonement, so no, I wouldn't call them Calvinists.

The only one of those points that it would be impossible for a Universalist to accept would be Unconditional Election since Universalism posits a Universal Election instead.  Of course Universal Election makes Limited Atonement a non-sequitur since an atonement limited to the elect when all are elect isn't very limited.

I'd argue that Universal Election falls under Unconditional Elections by definition. If everyone is saved, then obviously no one had to do anything to get it.

But under Calvinism, no does anything to get it either.  Salvation is purely the gift of God to those he elects and not only is there nothing one need to do to receive it, there is nothing man can do to receive it since his total depravity keeps him from earning salvation on his own.  Still I see your point somewhat as it depends upon which petal of the TULIP one places the Calvinistic doctrine that not all can or will be saved.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Universalism is its own animal. It's neither compatible with Arminian or Calvinism. If Universalists believe all go to heaven then how do you explain away Total Depravity.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Universalism is its own animal. It's neither compatible with Arminian or Calvinism. If Universalists believe all go to heaven then how do you explain away Total Depravity.

The same way you square Total Depravity with the idea that anybody is Elect, just...more so. Although I suppose it's one of those quantitative distinctions that's so vast as to become a qualitative distinction.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Universalism is its own animal. It's neither compatible with Arminian or Calvinism. If Universalists believe all go to heaven then how do you explain away Total Depravity.

Universalists don't explain away Total Depravity.  Universalists believe that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God will find a way to apply the Divine Grace to all and thus eventually reunite all of us with God.  I'll grant that not every Universalist subscribes to Total Depravity, but that isn't an irreconcilable difference with either Arminianism or Calvinism.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Universalism is its own animal. It's neither compatible with Arminian or Calvinism. If Universalists believe all go to heaven then how do you explain away Total Depravity.

Universalists don't explain away Total Depravity.  Universalists believe that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God will find a way to apply the Divine Grace to all and thus eventually reunite all of us with God.  I'll grant that not every Universalist subscribes to Total Depravity, but that isn't an irreconcilable difference with either Arminianism or Calvinism.

If the Univeralist believes that all go to heaven then that makes Christ's sacrifice not mean something.  They forget sin seperates one from God and without the shed blood of Jesus there is no remission of any sin from original sin to eternity future. Iirc the Universalist doesn't believe in hell. That's why they are not compatible.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Universalism is its own animal. It's neither compatible with Arminian or Calvinism. If Universalists believe all go to heaven then how do you explain away Total Depravity.

Universalists don't explain away Total Depravity.  Universalists believe that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God will find a way to apply the Divine Grace to all and thus eventually reunite all of us with God.  I'll grant that not every Universalist subscribes to Total Depravity, but that isn't an irreconcilable difference with either Arminianism or Calvinism.

If the Univeralist believes that all go to heaven then that makes Christ's sacrifice not mean something.  They forget sin seperates one from God and without the shed blood of Jesus there is no remission of any sin from original sin to eternity future. Iirc the Universalist doesn't believe in hell. That's why they are not compatible.

Christian Universalists simply believe that Christ's sacrifice extends grace to all, Christian or not.  Original Sin may still have a role, but that's not true for everyone who believes this.

I'm not familiar with the Universalist teaching on hell, but whether it's an actual place or not has no bearing on the doctrine of universal salvation.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Universalism is its own animal. It's neither compatible with Arminian or Calvinism. If Universalists believe all go to heaven then how do you explain away Total Depravity.

Universalists don't explain away Total Depravity.  Universalists believe that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God will find a way to apply the Divine Grace to all and thus eventually reunite all of us with God.  I'll grant that not every Universalist subscribes to Total Depravity, but that isn't an irreconcilable difference with either Arminianism or Calvinism.

If the Universalist believes that all go to heaven then that makes Christ's sacrifice not mean something.  They forget sin separates one from God and without the shed blood of Jesus there is no remission of any sin from original sin to eternity future. Iirc the Universalist doesn't believe in hell. That's why they are not compatible.

Hell is not essential to Universalist doctrine but it is not entirely antithetical to the idea.  For those who do believe in the lake of fire of Revelation, generally view it as a purifying fire that will continue to burn so long as evil remains within one, which could take as long as it takes. They also take the Greek word "βασανίζω" which in its usages in Revelation is usually translated as "torment" in a more literal sense.  The literal meaning of "βασανίζω" is "test metal with a touchstone" and hence for example interpret Revelation 20:10 as indicating that the beast and the false prophet will be subjected to eternal testing and examination.  Other Greek words traditionally translated in a manner consistent with the idea of eternal damnation are also typically given translations consistent with universal reconciliation. For example "κόλασιν" in Matthew 25:46 is interpreted with an emphasis on its meaning of "correction" rather than that of "punishment".

I'm not enough of a scholar of Koine Greek to render a judgement on the worthiness of these verbal gymnastics.  In any case, they aren't essential to my own views on Universalism, which are not dependent upon the traditional universal reconciliation, but rather upon universal grace.  My view is that it is the Way that Christ taught and exemplified that is sole path to salvation and not paying homage to the person of Christ.  Following the Way is the path of faith.  Paying homage is the path of works.  Following the Way is available even to those who never hear of Christ in this life, tho of course it is easier to follow the Way with Christ's guidance.

[useful idiot]

Universalism is its own animal. It's neither compatible with Arminian or Calvinism. If Universalists believe all go to heaven then how do you explain away Total Depravity.

If the Univeralist believes that all go to heaven then that makes Christ's sacrifice not mean something.  They forget sin seperates one from God and without the shed blood of Jesus there is no remission of any sin from original sin to eternity future. Iirc the Universalist doesn't believe in hell. That's why they are not compatible.

You are correct in saying that it isn't compatible with either, but you're incorrect in how you arrive at that conclusion. Arminius and Wesley certainly believed that a particular measure of grace had been extended to all people, and they believed in total depravity. The Christian universalist could argue that a different type of grace could have been extended to all to either undo that depravity or supersede it. Most Calvinists would probably go so far as to say that total depravity continues after regeneration. All the doctrine implies is that sin has affected the entire person; total, in this sense, does not just mean "very bad." It's an unhelpful label, in my opinion. Wesley differed in that he held that every area could be restored on this side of the grave.

The problem with the universalist, and with the all too common uninformed Calvinist, is that salvation is viewed as a get-out-of-jail free card. You get your ticket punched and regardless of your sanctification or continued cooperation with grace, then you get to go to 'heaven'. They just disagree with how many people get their ticket punched. This is both poor eschatology and soteriology. Salvation is as much a process as sanctification is, in some ways, in the sense that it must be maintained. The Lutheran and Augustinian form of monergism certainly understands it that way; Calvin wanted to but was beholden to faulty logic.

The universalist will run into two issues. First, in an attempt to affirm something true, keeping in line with Arminianism, about God (that he loves all and desires the salvation of all), they lose the explanatory power of the Arminian theodicy. Arminianism (and Calvinists need to understand this) does not oppose Calvinism because it's unfair to humans or because Arminius/Wesley thought that humans deserved salvation or some other such nonsense. It is first and foremost a defense of God's character, explaining how God's love and justice coincide with man's responsibility. The Calvinist holds that God is responsible for both good and evil, though they play with words, and the Pelagian holds that man is responsible for both good and evil, though again they wouldn't frame it that way. Arminianism is a way of explaining how God can be responsible for good while man is responsible for evil. The Arminian would say that God desires that mankind have free will, to such a degree that a world with it, even with the possibility of evil that is entailed, is preferable to a world without it or to a world without humanity. Universalism loses this completely.

Secondly, the universalist runs into the fact that clearly not all people respond to whatever grace the universalist believes God has granted, and in fact most do not respond. The Calvinist and Arminian agree that a response is necessary, they just disagree about how that response is achieved. If you can be a Christian and not respond, either prior to or post-salvation, then you have to throw out nearly all of Christian doctrine related to the person (sin, salvation, sanctification, the sacraments, prayer, charity, etc).

My apologies that this went on for far too long...

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I know both the Arminian and the Calvinist believe in total depravity. That's a Christian no-brainer. Wesley didn't believe in total depravity to my knowledge. I'm going to be looking further into this because I've got some more reading on Wesley to do.

So you know I am not a Calvinist.