An Ecumenical Universalism is Systematically Viable
take a look around, ECT's the real minority opinion, existentially
Per my constructive theo-anthropology:
Soteriologically & eternally, our primary natures & beatitude are monergically & universally determined, all consistent with our compatibilist free wills.
Sophiologically & historically, our secondary natures & beatitudes (including gifts, charisms & theotic growth in intimacy) will ordinarily be synergically co-determined, all consistent with our libertarian free wills. Extraordinarily, they’ll be monergically determined via divine election, as consistent with our compatibilist free wills.
Habitual misuses of our libertarian free wills will grow vicious secondary natures that, to varying degrees, may mask or even near eclipse both any virtuous aspects of our secondary natures as well as essential aspects of our primary natures (as imagoes Dei). Vicious secondary natures undergo restorative purgations, whether active and/or passive.
Philosophically & anthropo-logically, this stance coheres with --- not without some nuancing --- accounts of justification, predestination, impeccability, election, monergism, synergism, compatabilist & libertarian free wills, physical premotion and a dogmatic universalism.
This is to suggest that there’s nothing in those concepts that would prima facie make, for example, Báñezian, Augustinian or even Calvinist accounts incompatible with a dogmatic universalism! Any theological incompatibilities derive, rather, from other dynamics that are in play, which include exegetical, historical, patristic, conciliar & anthropological commitments, all which variously & controversially compete.
ECT’s the de facto Minority Opinion, Existentially
I’ve ministered to a few poor souls who’ve been absolutely tormented & near despairing at the prospective reality of a putative eternal conscious torment for themselves or wayward (often deceased) loved ones. Thankfully, in my experience, very few people seem to be afflicted by such a visceral abject horror as I’ve seen on display by those few who’d been seriously afflicted by the notion of ECT.
I’m here to tell you, anyone who truly believes in ECT should be visibly shaken, would thus viscerally recoil in horror and their terror would not be due to some unwarranted case of scruples but to having both their eyes & their hearts, properly, wide open! (It’s here where some will interject with some pious mumbling about hope & God’s mercy, but they will either not have read or will have read & not grasped David Bentley Hart’s game theoretic analysis of the antecendent - consequent will distinction. It’s a potential horror, the possibility of which a true believer will have accepted along with the concommitant & unescapable affective disposition it should naturally elicit).
Anyone who affirms an ECT, whether with an academic sophistry or a superficial parroting, but does so casually, dispassionately & matter of factly, betrays the fact that they don’t really buy it, existentially & earnestly? Rather, they’re just engaging in the same type of superficial identity-signaling that contributes to our ongoing culture wars but not really living as if they truly believe it.
I’m calling most professed belief in ECT to be total fiddlesticks! It’s not the majority opinion, existentially. I’ve only encountered a distinct minority whose affective dispositions are consistent with a total buy-in.