“Of course God, who imprisoned all in unbelief, will have mercy on all. Of course God, who killed all in Adam, will make all alive in Christ. Of course God, who condemned all in Adam, will justify all in Christ. Of course God, who subjected all to vanity, will set all free.” (Stephen Campana, The Calvinist Universalist ch. 1).
From the book description:
“- From eternity past God intended that the most vivid and profound demonstration of his glory would come in the form of His work of salvation on the cross of Christ.
– God then made man to punish him.
– He made him perfect and thus unlikely to ever need punishing, or, for that matter, a Savior.
– By a happy coincidence, and against all the odds, this perfect man sinned, thus allowing God to fulfill His purposes for both the man and Christ.
– When he sinned, God, who is suddenly confronted with the prospect of being able to fulfill all of His original plans, becomes furious.
What you have just read is not a joke. I wish that it were. Rather, I have simply enumerated the points that comprise the Calvinist theological system, or, as I call it: the Happy Coincidence model of sin and salvation. It reflects what can only be described as an Alice-in-Wonderland reality, in which the only sense is nonsense, and logic is the enemy. This book will seek to explore some of its many logical inconsistencies and, in the process, propose a perfectly viable–and biblical–alternative.”
From the preface:
“Notice the flow of my argument. I am only asking the Calvinist to be consistent with his own theological assertions. I am not trying to convince him that a good God doesn’t torture people forever because its wrong or that God’s total sovereignty over the human will argues against eternal torment because such a thing is absurd and cruel. No, I concede from the start that they accept that God, as far as the depraved human mind can see, operates in a way that is absurd and cruel. I will, of course, try to prove that they are wrong, but only by showing that their own scriptures and their own ideas demand it as a matter of logical consistency.”