universal reconciliation? part 1

The Three Propositions

The above link is the first part of Richard Beck's 10 part blog series on the topic of Christian universalism.

He cites Talbott's three propositions:
1) God desires everyone to be saved.
2) God will save who he desires.
3) Some people will not be saved.

Calvinists hold to 2 and 3.
Arminians hold to 1 and 3.
Universalists hold to 1 and 2.

I would consider myself to be an uncommitted Calvinist.  I was raised Calvinist but obviously have a lot of good friends who are Arminian.  I recognize the biblical support for each, and the fact that neither has a fool proof argument.  But I'm biased toward Calvinism.  Perhaps that's the power of Beck's argument for univeralism.  Not only do universalists draw from the same set of propositions as "the rest of us," but they fully recognize that no one theory is going to perfectly tie together Scripture.  It's too big for us.  Calvinism makes sense.  But, ignoring the huge amount of bias against a universal theory of salvation that I carry with me, universalism seems also to be biblically based.  Plus, I hear that people like CS Lewis were universalists.  Automatic bonus points to the universalists... :)

At this point I don't really have any valid reservations with his argument on this specific topic (at least logically/theoretically speaking).  I would love to hear if anyone else does.  The only thing floating around in my mind is the question of whether or not the three propositions are a fair framework to force onto Scripture.  Can we really fit existing doctrines of salvation into that small of a box?

I wish I could get my hands on Talbott's book (the guy that originally came up with the three propositions).  I'm having a hard time finding anything on google about them, and I certainly couldn't expect my calvinist theology book to offer me much help on the issue... haha.

~~

So all my life I was taught that because no one deserves salvation, election makes sense.  No one deserves it, I don't, you don't... so the fact that God saves some of us means he's a merciful God.  But He's still wrathful, so he "has to" not save some.  Now that I think about it...that kinda bothers me a little.  God has to do what? Send people to hell?  Leaving Arminianism out of the picture for the moment and assuming God's absolute sovereignty to be absolute, why would he have to do anything?  Was Jesus' blood not enough for everyone's sins?  Clearly a Calvinist would say, "yes, Jesus' blood is sufficient."  To say anything else is blasphemy.  And yet, God chooses to send some of us to hell.

Of course, these questions that I am asking leave out the clear message of judgement and hell in the Bible.  You can't get away from hell.  It's quite clearly a very real presence in the New Testament, unless there's something major missing from my (and others') understanding of seemingly clear language.  We mess it up, big time.  We sin constantly.  We're stained, and this keeps us from God.  Nothing we do can make it right.  We need Jesus to make it right.  This seems to lend itself well to a Calvinist or Arminian understanding of the matter.  And yet, as I have seen all to clearly, the matter is not so clear, at least not for someone like Beck.