Calvinism and Arminianism: Is There an Alternative?
Note: The following article defends a position that will seem very unorthodox or heretical to many Christians. There are Christian Romantics, such as George MacDonald and Madeleine L'Engle, who would probably agree with what is argued, and some, like C.S. Lewis, who would not agree. Please be assured that I respect those who do not share the following beliefs and in no way wish to ostracize them or suggest that they are un-Christian or un-Romantic.
For the past few centuries most of the Christian church has subscribed to one of two ideas regarding the salvation of humankind. Calvinism contends that certain people in the world are predestined by God to be saved through Christ and receive everlasting joy in heaven, while the others are predestined to experience everlasting torment in hell. Arminianism, on the other hand, places the eternal destiny of humans in the hands of each individual through a person's choice of either accepting or rejecting God's atonement through Christ. There is obviously a conflict between these views, and Christians generally have no problem with accepting one view and rejecting the other. However, when one looks deeper, there are serious issues involving the nature of God which are troublesome if one completely rejects Calvinism or completely rejects Arminianism. The following is a testimony of this conflict within myself and the glorious way in which it was resolved.
Growing up, I was exposed quite a bit to Christian beliefs. During my child and pre-teen years my family attended a small-town traditional Methodist church where I learned quite a bit about God, Jesus, and the Christian life. Starting in my teen years, we began attending an independent charismatic church where I really gained not just a knowledge of God, but an experience as well. I had no idea at the time of what the words Arminianism or Calvinism meant, since these terms were never brought up in a church service. However, as can be expected, there was definitely an underlying Arminianism in the Methodist church (Methodists are unashamedly Arminian), and the pastor of the charismatic church undoubtedly had Arminian leanings, as I'm sure most of the congregation did as well. Of course most of them, like me, probably had no familiarity with the term "Arminian."
When I reached my 20's I began to study some of the basics of church doctrine and history, and became familiar with the Calvinist/Arminian debate. When I was first introduced to the Calvinist idea of predestination, I found it totally shocking that someone could believe that certain people are predestined to spend eternity in hell. I was taught to believe that the choice between heaven and hell was left to the individual person to decide. Either we accept Christ's forgiveness and receive salvation and everlasting life, or we reject him and face unending damnation in hell. So for many years, the case was closed in my mind. I was definitely Arminian. I could not believe in a God that would predestine certain people to everlasting suffering. I knew that we all had free will and that any person who used that free will to accept salvation through Christ would dwell forever in heaven.
Even though I thought I had settled that debate, there were still nagging questions that kept me seeking more of the truth. For instance, what happens to the people who never hear of the salvation message through Jesus Christ? Some Christians said that they would be forever consigned to hell. I could hardly believe that since it violated God's loving and just nature. Some said that we should just trust that the Holy Spirit will bring them a revelation of Christ before they die. This seemed like a pretty weak and incoherent argument to me, without much scriptural basis. Others claimed that these persons would be given some kind of chance after death to accept or reject Christ. Now this is something I wanted to believe, but it tends to make the waters kind of murky. What about people who had been told of Christ's salvation, but it was presented in such a powerless way that it had no affect on them? Would they be given a second chance after death? What about people who had been burned by so much hypocrisy in the church, that they couldn't possibly worship a God whose followers were so crooked and deceitful?
In my early twenties I lived with a roommate who was a native of Taiwan. He had grown up in a tight family unit in which religion was very important. He described himself as a combination of Buddhist and Taoist. We became very good friends and had many discussions regarding the deep issues of spirituality. My friend had been exposed to Christianity many times while he was here in the states, and most of those encounters had been negative. Christians told him things like "you're going to hell" and "you're demon possessed." Needless to say, this hatred turned my friend off from Christianity. Fortunately I was able to let him see that not all Christians were like this. I did my best to respect his traditions and show grace and love to him. One day he asked me point blank: "Do you believe I will go to hell when I die?" My conscience would not allow me to say yes, because though I had been taught that all those who rejected Christ in this lifetime would be forever damned in hell, my heart didn't believe it. I said to him something like, "Well, according to Christian doctrine you will, but I'm really not sure, myself."
There are a couple of issues brought to light by the above encounter. First of all, it seems to me that if persons who do not hear about Christ in this lifetime are not held accountable after they die, then we would probably be better off not telling them the gospel. For it seems that in the afterlife there would be much better access to the revelation of Jesus than the paltry pseudo-revelation that we impart here on earth due to our hypocrisy and sinful shortcomings. However, Jesus himself commanded us to preach the gospel to all the world and make disciples of all nations. We know he wants us to tell them.
Secondly, I find it very difficult to believe that my Taiwanese friend and I have the same level of accountability with regard to acceptance of Christ's salvation. I grew up in church, and have attended nearly every Sunday. My family were good Christian people who loved God and showed me a good example of what a Christian should be. I have every reason to accept Christ. My friend, on the other hand, grew up in a family with no Christian influence. In fact, if he were to become a Christian, he would be disowned by his family (he explained this to me once). His exposure to Christianity consisted of many hate-filled persons that consequently turned him off from the Christian faith. When judgment day arrives for us, will we be treated as equals, or will we be judged according to the revelation that each of us received?
You can see here that some problems arose with my theology. I had been taught about a loving God whose love and mercy would never end. Yet some things didn't seem to fit with that picture. For many years I just put my questions on the shelf and concentrated on theological questions that could be answered with more certainty. I recognized the sovereignty of God and simply left many of my questions in his hands. Ironically, it was precisely this growing belief in God's sovereignty that led me to my next theological dilemma.
When I was going through a very difficult time of depression and disillusionment in my early 20's, God revealed himself to me in a profound and experiential manner. Somehow the revelation of God's sovereignty was imparted to me in a miraculous way, and from that point I knew that he was in control and was planning everything to work out for good in my life. For many years I simply accepted this knowledge and didn't foresee that it would cause some inconsistencies in my theological paradigm. I certainly don't think this happened by accident, because God knew that I needed time to rest in his goodness, and the reasoning aspect could wait for a later time. That time would come about 10 years later.
In my late twenties and early thirties, I started to delve deeper into theological matters. I began reading material from various expressions of the Christian faith including mystics, existentialists, evangelicals, neo-orthodox, etc. For quite some time my faith was being strengthened as my beliefs were becoming more defined. I had managed to avoid any Arminian/Calvinist conflict, still placing myself firmly in the Arminian camp. However, a friend of mine, knowing that I was Arminian in belief, asked me if I was ever fearful of losing my salvation. I responded that I never really feared losing my salvation because I had such a need for God. Moreover, I just had this sense that he was in control of my life. This is where I began to see the inconsistencies in my thinking. Here I was a freewill Arminian, yet I still had a profound sense of the sovereignty of God in my life. He was in control and I knew that he was working to draw me closer to him. I knew that he had chosen me and called me out. I was beginning to sound like a Calvinist!
After looking more closely at Calvinist and Arminian doctrines, I came to the conclusion that I liked aspects of both. In Arminianism, I liked that everyone could be reconciled to God through a free choice. There was no predestined elect, and all human beings had at least some measure of hope. In Calvinism, I appreciated the recognition of the sovereignty of God in human matters. To the Calvinist, God was in control and no human could thwart his purposes. This was reassuring to me, and it bore witness with the experiential manifestation of God's sovereignty that I had received earlier in life.
For a short time I thought I could take what I liked from Calvinism and Arminianism and just have my own little doctrine that included aspects of both. However, I soon came to realize that there are irreconcilable differences between the two, and it would be impossible to synthesize the two positions.
In order to illustrate this point, let's look at a set of three common beliefs among Christians, all of which can be supported through scripture:
1. God loves all humans and wills for every one of them to be reconciled to him.
2. God is totally sovereign over the universe and his will cannot be thwarted.
3. Some humans will never be reconciled to God and will experience unending punishment and separation from God in hell.
The first statement is one that is standard among Arminians. They believe, as many scriptures testify, that God desires all humans to be saved, and the one thing preventing that is a free choice among individual humans to reject God's forgiveness. Arminians obviously believe number 3. Those persons who freely reject God, they assert, will experience everlasting punishment in hell. Because Arminians hold true to both 1 and 3, they must reject number 2. God's will is for every human to be saved, but since some are obviously not saved, then God is powerless in these circumstances and his will is thwarted by the free will of humans.
This second statement, however, is most assuredly affirmed by Calvinists. They believe that God is sovereign over all that exists, including the human will. Some humans are predestined for heaven, while others are predestined for everlasting punishment in hell. So the Calvinists, believing in both the 2nd and the 3rd statements, must reject statement number 1. God obviously does not love all humans if he predestines some of them to be tormented forever.
Now, many Christians who do not examine their beliefs simply go on trying to believe all three propositions. However, this is an impossibility. If you believe any two of them, then the third one must be rejected. To illustrate, let's look at the final possibility. If one were to believe in both number one and number two, then number three must be rejected. If God's will is for all humans to be reconciled to him, and God is a totally sovereign being whose will cannot be thwarted, then the only result will be that all humans will be reconciled to him and none will be subjected to a never-ending punishment or separation.
So, in the final analysis, we can only logically accept two of the three statements. However, there seems to be biblical support for all three of them. How are we to choose?
To make things more clear, let's put it this way. I must reject the apparent message of one of these sets of scriptures as false:
1. II Peter 3:9 - .... it is not his will for any to be lost, but for all to come to repentance. I Timothy 2:4 - .... God our savior, whose will it is that all men should find salvation and come to know the truth.
2. Ephesians 1:11 - (God) accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will. Job 42:2 - I know that you (the Lord God) can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. Isaiah 46:10b, 11b - My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose; I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass. I have purposed, and I will do it.
3. Matthew 25:46 - And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. II Thessalonians 1:9 - These will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, separated from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might...
My own personal dilemma was that I didn't want to reject number 1 or number 2. I really believed that God loved all humans equally and willed their salvation, but I also wanted to believe that God was totally sovereign and that nothing could thwart his purposes. However, in order to believe both, I would be forced to reject proposition 3. I would certainly like to reject it, because I would not want anyone to be tormented forever in hell. But doesn't the Bible clearly state that some persons will experience everlasting punishment in hell?
Through some research, I found that there actually were Christians who believed in propositions 1 and 2, and consequently did not believe in everlasting punishment. Instead they believed that all human beings would eventually be reconciled to God through Christ. These people called themselves "Universalists." Years ago, while studying about 19th century Christian writer George MacDonald, I learned that he was a proponent of this Universalist belief. However, I had always assumed that he held this view in isolation. To the contrary, I later learned that Universalism was a widespread belief in the 19th century, and even among many of the early Christian theologians of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. In fact, it's possible that the belief could have been held by quite a few early Christians, and it was apparently taught in many of the early theological schools. Origen, who is considered one of the greatest theologians in church history, was a proponent of Universalism, as was his predecessor, Clement of Alexandria. Shortly after Origen's death, the church condemned some of his doctrines, but it's interesting that Universalism wasn't condemned until the year 543, about three hundred years after Origen's death.
So we've established that Universalism has a historical precedent, but doesn't it clearly violate the teaching of scripture concerning everlasting punishment for those who have not accepted Christ? On the surface, it certainly does. In the same way, Calvinism violates the teaching of scripture concerning God's desire for all to be saved, and Arminianism violates the teaching of scripture concerning the ability of God to perform his will. In order to personalize this matter, let's put it this way. Which of these statements will I accept?
1. God is not all-loving. He does not love every human being equally. He reconciles some to himself, but predestines others for everlasting torment and separation from him.
2. God is not all-powerful. He does not have the power to perform his will with regard to human salvation. Though he desires all humans to be saved, some will inevitably reject him and spend eternity in everlasting torment and separation from him.
3. God's love and mercy will never end. He will never consign any human to everlasting torment, but will tirelessly labor to bring all humans into a loving relationship with him.
Certainly if I have a choice of accepting only one of these statements, I will accept number 3. Why? Because it is the only one consistent with my basic beliefs concerning God. If God does not love everyone equally, then I don't see the point in believing in him at all. He'd be like a father that plays favorites with his children, which violates any sense of moral decency. Secondly, it would be futile for me to believe in a God when I knew that he was powerless to perform something that he willed. This challenges a fundamental belief essential to Christianity as well as any other monotheistic religion.
What then, could be the scriptural basis for believing number 3, and therefore rejecting the doctrine of everlasting punishment? Well, there are quite a number of arguments given by universalists and countless pages of text have been written on this subject. The main argument against unending punishment is based on the translation of the Greek word that is often rendered "eternal" and "everlasting" in English. The root word in Greek is "aion" which is literally translated "eon" or "age" in English. From this word, the adjective "aionios" is formed, which has traditionally been translated as "eternal" and "everlasting" in most instances in the Bible. Many Universalists argue that this word cannot signify a never-ending state and point to certain scriptures in which it obviously does not. In contrast, proponents of everlasting punishment point to verses in which aionios most definitely seems to imply an endless state. If the Universalists are correct about aionios signifying limited or unknown duration, then to be sure, the doctrine of everlasting punishment is on shaky ground. However, this seems to be an endless debate and I have yet to find a totally convincing argument on either side.
The stance on this issue that seems the most convincing to me comes from Bible scholar William Barclay. Here is a quote from his New Testament Words regarding aionios.
The essence of the word aionios is that it is the word of the eternal order as contrasted with the order of this world; it is the word of deity as contrasted with humanity; essentially it is the word which can be properly applied to no one other than God. Aionios is the word which describes nothing less and nothing other than the life of God.
We can see here that Barclay believes the word signifies more of a quality rather than a quantity. We also see this in the scripture when Jesus says in John 17:3, "And this is life eternal (aionios), that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." And in I John 5:20 we read, "And we know the son of God is come and hath given us understanding, that we may know him that is true, even in his son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal (aionios) life." In both of these scriptures we see that the word aionios signifies something different than a span of time, be it an age or unending duration. It is more of a quality of life bestowed by God and a life that exists in God. Consequently, this word aionios seems to contain much more mystery and meaning than most would ascribe to it. Barclay goes on to state:
Aionios is the word of eternity as opposed to and contrasted with time. It is the word of deity as opposed to and contrasted with humanity. It is the word which can only really be applied to God. If we remember that, we are left with one tremendous truth -- both the blessings which the faithful shall inherit and the punishment which the unfaithful shall receive are such as befits God to give and to inflict.
When we begin to look at eternity in this context, then we get the sense that perhaps aionios does not necessarily imply an unending state. In fact, there is another Greek word, "aidios," which is used sparingly in the New Testament, and scholars believe that this word definitely means "everlasting." However, this word is never used with regard to hell or punishment or heavenly rewards. What we can conclude then, is that it is difficult to prove the doctrine of everlasting punishment through scripture. Though one might be able make a good case for it, a study of the original Greek brings cause for doubt.
Although the controversial translation of the word aionios may provide some support for the Universalist doctrine, are there any other scriptural reasons to accept such an unorthodox belief? To my surprise, I found many passages which support the idea of all humans being reconciled to God through Christ. We can begin with Jesus, who made statements such as: "And I will draw all men to myself, when I am lifted up from the earth" (John 12:32) and "Father forgive them; they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34). The first statement could be interpreted to mean that Christ will perform a work of reconciliation for every person, and the second statement seems to imply that Christ brings about a forgiveness that supersedes any folly or ignorance resulting from the human will. There is no doubt that Arminians and Calvinists could cite proof texts from Jesus which seem to support their positions, but they are not conclusive, just as the Universalist support texts leave room for doubt as well.
When we get to the theological writings of Paul, however, the Universalist case becomes even stronger. In fact, one could make a good case that Paul clearly teaches the universal salvation of all humans. In Romans 5:18 Paul, while writing of Christ's atonement, states, "as the issue of one misdeed was condemnation for all men, so the issue of one just act is acquittal and life for all men." Then in I Corinthians 15:22 he says, "As in Adam all men die, so in Christ all will be brought to life." These scriptures are so clear that a great burden seems to lie with the Arminians and Calvinists to prove them wrong. Rather than taking Paul at his word, opponents of universal salvation must add some type of disclaimer to these verses and somehow prove that "all" really doesn't mean "all." Of course, one must look at the context of these scriptures. When we look at the context, however, there is nothing to indicate that Paul doesn't mean what is clearly stated. If a scholar is going to disprove the Universalist implication, then he or she must bring a preconceived idea to the context.
If there were only one or two passages from Paul that indicated the salvation of all men, then we might dismiss the idea as a fluke. However, Paul seems to take the Universalist line in a variety of ways throughout his letters. He says in I Corinthians chapter 15 that in the end God will put all enemies under his feet, with death being the last to be destroyed. If all God's enemies are defeated, where is there room for rebellion against God? How could separation from God exist? And in I Timothy chapter 4, Paul states that God is the savior of all men, especially believers. This indicates that believers may have some special status, but God ultimately saves all. Then in Colossians chapter 1 verse 20, we read: "Through him (Christ) God chose to reconcile the whole universe to himself, making peace through the shedding of his blood upon the cross - to reconcile all things, whether on earth or in heaven, through him alone." This seems to leave no room for alienation from God! There are many more examples that could be given. It's also interesting to note that in all of Paul's writings, he never once mentions anything about "hell." This certainly doesn't disprove its existence, but it does seem odd that in all of Paul's writings on Christian doctrine, he never mentions something that eventually became a fundamental belief. Then later on in church history (around the 4th century) we have the formation of creeds such as the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed which lay down required Christian doctrines. In neither of these documents is there any mention of hell or everlasting damnation.
Now we can see that there is both historical and scriptural support for the Universalist doctrine of salvation for all humankind. We've also seen that belief in one of the alternative views, Calvinism or Arminianism, brings up some logical inconsistencies and forces us to reject our basic understanding about the nature of God. But still some might argue that Universalism is just some kind of "pie in the sky" dreaming. It just seems too good to be true. Others would argue that some people simply deserve eternal damnation and justice requires it. Besides, people like Hitler, Charles Manson, or Osama Bin Laden could never be deserving of heaven, could they? Then some would argue that there are many persons whose will is so stubborn that they will never accept God's forgiveness and reconciliation.
Let's consider the arguments in reverse order. Many Arminians take the third viewpoint and insist that some persons, even if God gives them a second chance after death, will be so hard-hearted and self-willed that they will reject God forever and therefore be in their own self-made hell. To those who argue this, I offer the following question. Which is more powerful: the human will or God's love? Is the love of God powerful enough to penetrate even the most stubborn will? Sure, it might take a long time, and many people will have to go through the painful, purging fire of God's love. You might call it "hell" if you want to. But whatever the method, I dare to believe that love never fails.
Of course, some will argue that, because God loves us, he gives us
the freedom to choose not to be reconciled to him and spend forever out
of relationship with him. Many Arminians (including C.S. Lewis) argue
that anyone could
travel from hell to heaven if they choose, but they refuse to let go of
their illusions and God respects their free will to reject him.
Now
this may very well be true temporarily, but ultimately I have a
difficult
time believing that any person who is truly free and rational will
continually
choose to reject God forever (for more on this argument, see Thomas
Talbott's book The Inescapable Love of God).
Moreover, is the nature of God's love such that he would actually
allow us to reject him forever and
be eternally tormented? As a comparison, think of a loving father
who
has an adult daughter. The father basically lets his child do as
she
wishes since she's now an adult. She may live a lifestyle that he
doesn't
approve of, but we would all agree that a loving father would still
allow
her to live her life as she chooses. However, if the man's
daughter
is standing at the edge of a cliff wanting to commit suicide, what
would
the loving father do? Would he stand by and watch her jump
because
he loves her, thereby respecting her free will? Of course not.
If
he truly loves her he would do whatever he could to get her away from
the
cliff and stop her from jumping. He would, of course, be violating her
free
will in order to do so. In the same way, I believe God allows us
free
will to an extent, but when it comes to a matter of everlasting life or
everlasting punishment (death), that's where he usurps our free will.
And his love will be so powerful that we will ultimately be
unable to resist.
The second argument is one often cited by both Arminians and Calvinists. "We may not like the idea of hell, but even though God is merciful, he's also just," someone might say. This statement, I would argue, is the result of a faulty understanding of justice. For example, let's say that a man who stole a bicycle was brought before a judge. The judge found him guilty and handed out the sentence -- death by lethal injection. Without a doubt, any person with a decent sense of justice would say that the sentence is way too harsh. In the same way, what if a man rejects God and becomes an atheist. He dies the next day. His sentence? Never-ending punishment in hell. Even if God were simply a "judge" and not a "father," this still seems unjust if we are willing to admit it to ourselves. Instead, we ascribe to God some sort of multiple personality scheme where sometimes he's "just," or more appropriately "tyrannical," and sometimes he is loving and merciful. The truth is that mercy and justice go hand in hand and are highly compatible with each other. God's justice and mercy are simply tools of his love. The pains that result from our sin and the corrective measures that God brings are a necessary facet in his passionate pursuit of us.
Take the typical parent/teenager scenario as an example. The teenager is told by the parent to be home by midnight, but instead he stays out until 2:00 a.m. Consequently, the parent "grounds" the teenager for two weeks as punishment. The parent is handing out a just punishment, while at the same time she is being merciful as far as the big picture is concerned. For she knows that allowing the teen to escape punishment will cause him to pursue more risky and destructive behavior that will end up hurting him and alienating him from her. So in the larger context, isn't she more merciful if she doles out the just punishment? In the context of love, we would have to say "yes." Mercy and justice may seem like opposites when we look at them side by side, but when we place them in the context of love, they are bound together harmoniously to serve God's redemptive purposes.
The first argument, that Universalism is just too good to be true, is one that certainly permeates the minds of many Christians that have contemplated the issue. I'm sure that there are many persons who would embrace Universalism if they could only have confidence that it's true. Most of us have been taught the everlasting reward/punishment dichotomy ever since we can remember. In many ways it just seems to make sense that if there is an everlasting heaven, there should be an everlasting hell as well. It fits in with our black/white, us/them, friend/enemy mentality. However, we must go back to our basic beliefs about God. If we truly believe that God is all loving and all powerful, then the only conceivable outcome is that all of creation will be reconciled to him. No matter how "free" the human will may be, it cannot ultimately usurp the power and love of God! Moreover, we need to break out of our tendency to see other human beings as enemies. It doesn't matter how many heinous acts that a Hitler or Stalin might commit, those persons are still loved by God and are marked for redemption.
Why don't we dare to dream of a world where everything is made right, all persons are happy, all creation lives in harmony, and all the enemies that have kept humans in slavery are destroyed? Is this a good dream? Is this a pure dream? If it is, don't you think God dreams the same thing? Don't you agree that he has the power to make this dream come true? Let's choose to believe that he does. Let's choose to believe that he loves every human being equally. Let's choose to believe that God came to the earth in human flesh to redeem all of humanity. Let's believe Jesus when he said, "I will draw all men unto me."
In conclusion, what can we say about Calvinism, Arminianism, and Universalism? I hope that I have at least made a clear case that a Universalist interpretation of Christianity is as legitimate as the other two interpretations. It is apparent that in scripture you can find many passages to support each doctrine, and at the same time there are compelling scriptural reasons to reject each one. My contention is that when one accepts both the absolute sovereignty of God and his infinite love for all humans, then the Universalist doctrine is the only one that makes sense. There are many different ways that we can read the Bible. We have countless denominations that claim to stand on the inerrant "Word of God," yet they come to different conclusions on many important matters of faith. We need an organizing principle, a spiritual paradigm in order to properly discern the truth that God has imparted to us through scripture. My paradigm is simply this: Scripture is a love letter from a sovereign God concerning his unceasing love for all humanity. This is why I am a Universalist. This is why I desire to love God with all my heart, mind and soul. This is why I want every person in the world to learn of God's salvation through Christ. I'm not trying to save them from everlasting damnation. Instead, I'm seeking to do the will of my father out of love for him. He longs, he yearns for every heart to be reconciled to him and he has given us that ministry of reconciliation. So until every human soul is in a loving relationship with God, our mission is clear.
Wes Williamson
Note: There are certainly many arguments for and objections to Universalism which have not been covered in this article. I would encourage anyone interested to simply conduct a web search with a search engine such as Google or Yahoo. Using search terms such as "Universalism," "Universal Reconciliation," and "Universal Salvation" will direct you to many web sites, both pro-universalist and anti-universalist ones. In addition, I would recommend a book called The Inescapable Love of God by Thomas Talbott, which provides a compelling philosophical and biblical case for Universalism. There is also an excellent book called "Universal Salvation?" in which Arminians and Calvinists debate the merits of universalism with Thomas Talbott. See the website at www.universalsalvation.net.