You're [NOT] Damned If You Do & [NOT] Damned If You Don't

impeccability's universalist problem

The distinction between omnipresence & indwelling makes sense regarding creation's shadows & vestiges, where the former - not the latter - would apply.

For imagoes Dei, only distinctions per degrees of indwelling make any sense, e.g. growing in likeness, theosis, epectasy, holiness, intimacy, etc.

That's why Thomists, who properly dismiss a character - based beatific contingency, can't coherently introduce, instead, an indwelling - based contingency.

Impeccability, then, introduces an intractable universalist problem:

Whether with or without sufficient information, by definition, no one can freely & wholly reject God.

Impeccability is correct, of course.

Ergo, universalism is true.