If God is sovereign in the Calvinist sense, then universalism should be true.

Thanks to popculturepooka for that lucid opening.Intro to CalvinismPro's explanation of Calvinism is mostly correct except that he appears to think double predestination is the Calvinist position when, in fact, it is a minority position.Double predestination is the idea that God predestines both the elect to salvation and the reprobate to damnation. Most Calvinists think God predestines the elect to salvation, but passively allows the reprobate to fall into damnation. Damnation is the default fate of everyone unless God intervenes to change their hearts. Most Calvinists will say that God predestines some to salvation, but refrains from predestining others, who naturally fall into damnation.[1]I say that for information purposes only. I'm one of the few Calvinists who subscribes to double predestination, so this correction shouldn't be an area of contention in this debate.I. The problem of arbitrarinessPro concedes (at least for the sake of argument) that God's ultimate goal is the demonstration of his glory, and he demonstrates his glory in the display of both his mercy and his wrath. But it strikes him as arbitrary that God doesn't put one more person in the "mercy" category and one less person in the "wrath" category. As long as both mercy and wrath are displayed, God's glory is satisfied. It could be satisfied even if all humans were saved because God could demonstrate his wrath on demons. Presumably, any person who could have received mercy without sacrificing God's glory, but who does not, calls God's goodness into question. Since Calvinists believe many people will be damned, then Calvinism calls God's goodness into question.There are three problems with this argument:1. We're not in a position to say why God didn't save one more person.In any situation where God's glory is manifest raises a similar question. If God's glory is manifest in the stars that fill the heavens, why not one more? We can't answer questions like that.Surely Pro would agree that God had a reason for creating humans. There was some good in it. So why not one more human? And concerning evil, why not one less evil? Why not one less degree of suffering?It's an interesting question--why God chose a certain number of this or that to display some aspect of his character, but the Bible doesn't answer questions like that. The most we are given is that God predestined some to salvation "in accordance with his pleasure and his will" (Ephesians 1:5).2. It pits God's goodness in saving people against his goodness in displaying his wrath.Since the display of God's glory is a good in itself, then anything God does to display that glory is good. So the display of God's wrath is also good, no less so than the display of his mercy. It doesn't make sense, then, to call God's goodness into question just because he didn't display more mercy and less wrath. We could just as easily ask why he didn't display more wrath and less mercy. There is a hidden assumption Pro seems to be making--that the display of God's mercy is good, and the display of his wrath is not good, but is just a necessary evil. But it's not a necessary evil. It's actually a good because it reveals God's glory.3. It ignores the fact that everybody who is damned deserves it, but nobody who is saved deserves it.Since everybody sins, God's goodness shouldn't be called into question for punishing anybody. God is under no obligation to save anybody, so he would be perfectly good even if nobody got saved. Since he would be perfectly justified in condemning everybody, his goodness shouldn't be called into question just because he doesn't save everybody. Saving sinners is a supererogatory act, not something that is morally required.[2]This moral dimension is frequently ignored in discussions like these. People think of salvation the same way they think of saving a drowning man. If you see a man drowning, and it's within your power to save him, then you have an obligation to save him. But there is no obligation for God to show mercy to a sinner who deserves punishment. In fact, God detests acquitting the guilty (Proverbs 17:15), which is why atonement was necessary instead of arbitrarily pardoning people without payment.II. Calvinistic UniversalismThis argument strikes me as being almost identical to the first argument except that the object of God's wrath is different. Pro argues that the display of both God's mercy and wrath could be demonstrated even if all people are saved. God's mercy could be demonstrated in saving all people, and his wrath is demonstrated by the crucifixion of Jesus for sins. Since under Calvinism, God could save all people without compromising his glory, the fact that he doesn't creates an "intractable problem of evil."I have two responses:1. It again neglects the fact that people are sinners who deserve damnation and nobody deserves salvation.I already addressed this in I.3 above.2. It could be that God's wrath being poured out on the reprobate enhances our appreciation of Christ's sacrifice.People sometimes wonder why Jesus only had to suffer temporarily for everybody's sins, whereas if we had paid for our own sins, it would've required eternal punishment. From appearances alone, it seems that God's wrath is more severe when poured out on sinners than it was when poured out on Christ. But it is because of Christ's infinite worth and value that makes his atonement sufficient.Granted, Christ's atonement does display God's glory in the demonstration of both his mercy and his wrath, both are more fully demonstrated by God punishing those who are actually guilty of sin. It shows the elect precisely what they are being saved from, which, in turn, shows how merciful God was in sparing the elect. And it shows the severity of God's wrath in a way that may not be quite as illustrative in the crucifixion of Jesus.Moreover, this would explain why there are fewer people who are saved than who are damned. Exceptions are always fewer than the norm, by their very definition. If there were more people saved than damned, then being damned would be the exception. But that would give a distorted picture of things since being damned is the default situation people are in, whereas being saved is an undeserved act of grace.I am just speculating, but if there's even a possible reason for why God would choose not to save all (or even most), then that solves the "intractable problem of evil."III. The sovereignty of God in salvationPro and I agree in our view that the Bible is the word of God, so if it can be shown that the Calvinist view of God's sovereignty is true, then that should settle the matter. Even if we didn't know the solution to the "problems" Pro raised against Calvinism, we would have to conclude that there is a solution.God's sovereignty in salvation is shown in John 6 and 10. Jesus explains that the reason some believe and some don't is because some are givien to Jesus by the Father and some aren't. So it's all up to the Father.In John 19:26-27, Jesus explains: "But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." So you have to be Jesus' sheep before you can believe in him. We become Jesus' sheep by the Father giving us to him, as it says in verse 29. In John 6:37, Jesus said, "All that the Father gives me will come to me." So a person's coming to Jesus is determined by the Father giving them to Jesus. It's all up to the Father.ConclusionA lot of people are really turned off by Calvinism, and they even have strong negative emotional reactions to it. With that in mind, I ask the readers to exercise special care in not being swayed by your own biases. Try to be fair. It may be harder in this case than in most others. [1] This is the position R.C. Sproul takes in Chosen By God. http://www.amazon.com...[2] http://plato.stanford.edu...