See Wade Burleson’s blog post here:
I appreciate Wade’s irenic tone in this blog post. However, the claim that a non-Calvinist must be a universalist (which is clearly implied if not outrightly stated) is false.
Throughout Christian history MOST non-Calvinists (the majority of Christians) have NOT been universalists. C. S. Lewis was certainly not one.
Now, if all Wade means is that someone who does not believe in divine reprobation by decree ought logically to embrace something like Lewis’ view (viz., that hell is a damned person’s choice) , then I agree.
But he seems to be saying more. He seems to be suggesting that universal salvation is the only alternative to Calvinism. If that’s what he means, then I can only say that is patently false.
I would like to ask Wade this. Why does he use the phrase “distinguishing love” for what I would call “limited love?” Let’s imagine that I am a doctor who owns and has sole right to dispense a cure for a particular cancer. Two close friends of Wade’s have that cancer. He comes to me and begs me to save their lives with my cure. I agree to give the cure to one of his friends but not the other. Would he believe someone who told him I actually love both of his friends–just differently? I doubt it.
“Distinguishing love” is not the right phrase to describe double predestination–including a divine decree of reprobation (i.e., God decreeing the eternal damnation of some people he is capable of saving because salvation is, as Wade says, unconditional on God’s part)