I like you Jeff. Atleast your honest. Believing in Jesus makes you a Christian. So, are you telling me you are a unbeliever? 
yep!
well⌠Agnostic - I think the arguments on both sides are finely balanced - and any God worth his salt would know that taking Pascalâs wager wouldnât be sincere belief.
Seriuosly though - My respect for Universalist thought has come from seeing how the thread can be traced throughout the old and new testaments - so without taking a look at the whole (such as the free e-book creationâs jubilee I pointed you at means you are arguing with scant knowledge of a large body of work - I donât just mean that one book).
I think people here would be more sympathetic if you took the time to read at least one of the works recommended here and then came back with refutations (i.e. rebuttals backed by specific evidence against specific claims made).
I respect Universalist too, but they still canât provide scripture support for unbelievers such as yourself coming to faith in Jesus after they die in their sins. Even if it were true do you want to spend 1000 or 2000 or whatever years in the lake of fire to come to faith? 1 second in hell would be unbearable and unimaginable. 
My prayer is that you come to a saving knowledge of Jesus before you die. 
Tom: Why limit the discussion to Jesus?
BornAgain: Because for Universalism to be true Jesus must of taught it somewhere in the Gospels. This is very important news for Jesus not to talk about at least one time. If you are saying the glorious gospel is that everyone gets to go to heavenâŚthat everyone will be savedâŚthen Iâm saying show me where Jesus teaches it.
Tom: Ah yes. UR is too good to be true for Jesus to have believed it and not shouted it from the house top with overwhelming clarity. This is a separate claim, other than claims regarding UR per se. And since your line of argumentation requires it to be something of a hermeneutical rule, you need to argue it. I can appreciate its intuitive force and how deeply we can sometimes wish Jesus had been so explicitly clear as to virtually check-mate us into a single interpretation of texts, but good luck arguing it. And to the extent your approach requires this as a hermeneutical rule and you fail to argue the rule, you just beg the question.
I donât see at all that it follows that for anything to be true (theologically) Jesus must have believed it, nor do I see that even for anything to be wonderfully important to our salvation Jesus must have believed or expressed himself explicitly on it. Why MUST that be the case?
Youâve got intuitions and presumptions I donât have that make âoverwhelming clarity from Jesusâ a kind of hermeneutical rule. I donât share your view that all true beliefs have to find explicit expression in Jesus. Paul or John are equally fine for me. But in any event, it at least is not obvious that Jesus believed in eternal conscious torment or annihilation (i.e., that he explicitly denied UR). Point is, what Jesus does say about hell is consistent (arguably) with universalismâs being true. So it may in fact be that Jesus explicitly expressed his approval of UR but that the texts (given our distance from then linguistically and culturally) are ambiguous. You may not think theyâre ambiguous or consistent with UR interpretations. But many others of sound heart and mind think they are. Thatâs just what âambiguousâ looks like. So if you want a claim by Jesus re: UR that removes all ambiguity, you wonât find it. But neither are there equally unambiguous/explicit denials of UR coming from Jesus.
On the other hand, Iâm sure there are a lot of things Jesus could have or even wanted to talk to us about but couldnât, at the time. We even have Jesus on record admitting there there was much he wanted to explain to them but could not (because of where they were at the time). Perhaps some truths have to be discovered, grown into, tried on, and even then you never get 100% epistemic closure. Hey, welcome to existence.
Jesus did say the Holy Spirit would lead us into truth. Itâs hard to imagine this being a categorical denial that any of the truth the Spirit would reveal to us would be truth about our âsalvationâ (which seems to be what youâre suggesting has to be the case, viz., that whatever is crucial or relative to our salvation had to have been explicitly discussed by Jesus or else itâs not true because surely Jesus would not fail to say everything wonderful there was to say about salvation). But that leaves very little for the Holy Spirit to do, as it were.
I suspect much of what is true regarding our salvation never got discussed by Jesus. I see the mysteries and blessings of salvation as something like the digits of Pi which are infinite (and which weâll eternally/infinitely explore and enjoy). If someone asks me, âWhatâs Pi?â and I answer, âWell, itâs 3.14â do I speak falsely because I didnât include MORE digits in my answer, especially if 3.14 is enough of an answer for the present moment? Did I fail to speak truthfully because I didnât say all that COULD be said about Pi? Must I answer, â3.141592653589793238462â even if Iâve committed a billion digits of Pi to memory? Why stop there? When does ANY answer become sufficient? Itâs very difficult to say.
Now, you may believe that UR is just too good to be true for Jesus to have believed it and to have failed to declare himself explicitly. You just âseeâ that as obvious. If thatâs your gig, then UR isnât a viable option for you. But itâs viable to others who donât accept your constraints, so apart from good arguments to accept your constraints on the determination of theological truth, itâs difficult to get excited about your line of approach.
Tom
Hey Tom.
I appreciate your response. I really do. Itâs not the fact that UR is to good to be true. Itâs a fact that you or any other Universalist canât provide scripture support for unbelievers coming to faith after they die in their sins. Sure, you can take some scriptures lift them up individually take them out of context and say âsee I told you soâ, but Iâm asking for chapter and verse where unbelievers come to faith in Jesus after they die in their sins. If you or any other Universalist can show me some scriptural support of this happening I will accept the truth of the word of God.
BTW, Salvation is definitely not a mystery. Salvation is very simple. Jesus explained it very, very, well in the Gospels and His Apostles explained it likewise in the epistles. So, if unbelievers could just die in their sins and come to faith after they dieâŚdonât you think Jesus would of at least hinted about it? But, He does not. Instead, He says the opposite. Mark 16:16" Those who believe and are baptized will be saved; those who believe not will be damned."
*âAll that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and **him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.â **- John 6:37
"And this is the Fatherâs will which hath sent me, **that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. **
And this is the will of him that sent me, **that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." **- John 6:39-40 *
"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
"It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." - John 6:44-45
I used to have trouble with these verses, for they present a strong case for Calvinism, which I reject, for it would place God in a position of having respect of persons.
But it does make logical sense in the light of an UR view:
If we take John 3:16 to heart, then the reconciliation of the world to Christ is universal. Christ died for all. âFor God so loved the world (kosmos)â, which constitutes all of creation (and we can get into how Christ will redeem not only the souls of men, but of all of literal creation later).
So verse 37 above has to include âallâ as a universal containment. âAll that the Father has giveth Me (Jesus)â. And by that logic, the âallâ that shall come to Him, He will no wise cast out.
Following this up with verse 39, âall which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last dayâ confirms that nothing is lost, since it refers to âall that the Father giveth Meâ, which is âallâ, and âwill raise it up on the last dayâ. This phrase is vital to the argument, for it is repeated twice more in following sentences.
Verse 40 points to the responsibility of those whom the Father has given to Christ, âthat every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.â This clearly speaks of resurrection to life.
Then down in verse 45, we have the draw of the Father, âNo man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.â So now we are faced with the question of who exactly will get drawn to Christ? If you are a proponent of Eternal Torment (ET), then you are left with the logical conclusion that God only draws those who He intends to save, and those whom He doesnât draw will be damned with never-ending torment, or at least will not inherit eternal life, as stated back in verse 40.
But then we come to verse 45 where we read, âAnd they shall be all taught of God.â This is a direct reference to the Isaiah 54:13. And if you look at the context of that chapter, in the verses leading up to verse 13, you will find nothing but mercy, not only on the part of Israel, but of the whole world:
*"For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be calledâŚIn a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with **everlasting kindness **will I have mercy on thee, saith the LORD thy Redeemer.
For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.
For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the LORD that hath mercy on thee." - Isaiah 54:5, 8-10 *
What a great promise of universal restoration!
We will all be taught of God! âEvery man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.â Everyone who is taught (which is all) of the Father shall come to Christ, ergo everyone will be raised up on the last day, ergo, everyone will be saved in the end.
Praise God for His Mercy and Kindness!
Dondi.
All due respect⌠The scriptures you have provided teaches nothing of UR.
Then what does it teach?
BornAgain: Itâs a fact that you or any other Universalist canât provide scripture support for unbelievers coming to faith after they die in their sins. Sure, you can take some scriptures lift them up individually take them out of context and say âSee I told you so,â but Iâm asking for chapter and verse where unbelievers come to faith in Jesus after they die in their sins. If you or any other Universalist can show me some scriptural support of this happening I will accept the truth of the word of God.
Tom: Hi BA. Well, what I tried to say was that when it comes to some of this stuff, the predicament you describe as a weakness peculiar of universalists is in fact the case all views face, including your own, whatever it happens to be. Any eschatology that makes ultimate claims about the final destiny of persons has to interpret âtextsâ. Thatâs all weâve got. Some are more clear than others and tend in âthisâ direction. Others in âthatâ direction. The best any universalist can do is all YOU or anyone can do, and thatâs try to adjudicate the textual evidence within the scope of overarching theological commitments (like what one might suppose a perfectly benevolent being to be like based on broad Scriptural portrayals of God, or whether one is influence by other theological priorities, etc) as prayerfully and carefully as possible.
So when you say itâs a fact that no universalist can provide you a chapter and verse that explicitly spells out in unambiguous terms (âA, B, C, etc.â) the universalistâs hope, I say, âSo what?â I mean reallyâbig deal. The same is true of annihilationists AND traditional eternal conscious torment. Everybody is bailing SOME water and nobodyâs has the sort of overhwhelmingly clear and explicit textual basis for his beliefs that you keep harping universalists donât have. Dude, you donât have that kind of evidence for your view either. Pull up a chair and join the rest of us for a drink.
But there in fact ARE some passages which, while not spelling out universalism in precisely the terms you insist upon (i.e., it HAS to say, âThis guy was a sinner, died without Christ, and nowâlook!âheâs come to faith; see?â), do make claims which by definition EMBRACE (so many of us think) the very situation youâre looking for. Col. 1 comes to mind, Phil. 2, and certain peculiar features of Rev. 20, i.e., descriptions of the New Jerusalem AFTER the Great White throne judgment and the Lake of Fire (gates that remain open, nations/people entering, etc.). Indeed, Col. 1 looks to me as clear a universalistic hope as any I can imagine. I donât know what else Paul could say in Col. 1 to make the scope of his claims and eschatology any more universalistic.
Now, youâll dispute these âtextsâ and will want to interpret them in other ways no doubt. I realize that. But itâs completely unfair of you to say that universalists have not a single shred of Scriptural evidence upon which the base their hope. The claim begs the question of the interpretation of the very texts weâre disputing. What if in response to your interpretation of Col. 1 and Phil. 2 I just said, âSee, I told you so, youâre taking things out of contextâ (as you say in response to all the passages we offer)?
It is what it is Bro. 
And what it is is less than perfectly clear. Thatâs why we can even be debating it.
BornAgain: BTW, Salvation is definitely not a mystery. Salvation is very simple. Jesus explained it very, very, well in the Gospels and His Apostles explained it likewise in the epistles.
Tom: I agree of course. Believing and coming to share salvation is not a complicated matter. It IS simple. All I meant to say is that the depths of this blessing, the beauties of experiencing God and growing in faith, include forever exploring its riches and wealth of meaning without ever exhausting it. We âwith ever increasing gloryâ grow and progress, eternally. Be that as it may, my other point was that Jesus seems to know MORE about salvation and redemption that he is able to impart to us and he leaves us in the care of the Spirit who will lead us into all truth. Iâm not sweeping universalism under this particular corner of the rug, Iâm just saying that your hermeneutical âlawâ that claims that nothing important about our salvation can be true unless Jesus explicitly believed AND taught it looks pretty impossible.
BornAgain: So, if unbelievers could just die in their sins and come to faith after they die, donât you think Jesus would of at least hinted about it?
Tom: Some of us think he did. But youâve made it clear that you wonât accept âhints.â You demand absolute, unambiguous, explicit descriptions of real people in hell getting saved.
BornAgain: But, he does not. Instead, he says the opposite. Mark 16:16, âThose who believe and are baptized will be saved; those who believe not will be damned.â
Tom: See? Weâre back to TEXTS and interpreting them. You interpret this text and use your own take on it as an example of the overwhelmingly clear and explicit teaching of Jesus regarding the afterlife and a personâs final destiny. You might not even think youâre interpreting Jesus here. For you itâs as simple as ââŚhe saysâŚâ and that settles its meaning. But itâs not obvious to me that this verse canât be read as being perfectly consistent with the ultimate reconciliation of all persons.
Tom
Tom.
I believe the bible is very clear about what happens to you after you die. God is eternal. Man is eternal. Heaven is eternal. Hell is eternal. When you die you will spend eternity in one of two places. Heaven or Hell. No in betweens. No purgatory. No purifying process. Heaven or Hell. Where you spend eternity depends on your response to the Cross of Christ. Receive Jesus by faithâŚspend eternity with God. Reject Jesus by unbeliefâŚspend eternity separated from Him. Which do you choose? It is what it is brother.
Thanks for that, Dondi. Also, the word for love in John 3:16 is in the aorist tense, which means it should more correctly be translated loves, rather than loved (per the rules of Greek grammar as opposed to English). God didnât love the world at some point and then suddenly stop!
Jeff is correct. You arenât even reading the answers people give you. So far, you have no respect on this board, though people are kind enough to humour you with answers regardless if you read them.
It matters not if Jeff is agnostic, it just demonstrates again, you really donât know what you think you know.
BA: I believe the bible is very clear about what happens to you after you die.
Tom: No one can be in doubt of your confidence.
BA: Where you spend eternity depends on your response to the Cross of Christ.
Tom: No universalist need deny this. I certainly donât deny it.
BA: Receive Jesus by faithâŚspend eternity with God. Reject Jesus by unbeliefâŚspend eternity separated from Him. Which do you choose? It is what it is brother.
Tom: Well, youâre proving all my arguments for me. I donât know what else to say. You want to make how clear things are to you âTHEâ standard that everybody is measured by. If you have no doubts about X, then no one can have any legitimate reasons for doubting X. If you have reasons to doubt X, then no one can have any legitimate reasons for having no doubts regarding X. You ARE the epistemological prism for the entire human race, infallibly assigning truth values to every important theological claim that can be made.
Wow.
Tom
Tom
I wish my posts were as balanced and reasoned as yours - I always enjoy what you have to say and the way you say it.
BA, maybe we should just ask you this. Do you believe youâre infallible when it comes to
(a) Deciding which theological truths are more important than others and which are THE most important? and then
(b) Believing the right things about the most important theological issues?
So, is it POSSIBLE that you could be wrong about any significant theological issue/doctrine?
Tom
I will say one thing for Born Again (aka âBAâ 
) Heâs certainly livened things up a bit here recently!
Iâm certainly glad of seeing the quality of the posts in response to his, even if not his posts!
Hey, thanks Jeff! You guys all rock too. Wish I could visit and comment more. If I were infallible like BornAgain, then I guess Iâd have a duty to visit as many theological web sites as possible and dispense the truth about which I couldnât possibly be wrong.
I reckon itâs Robin (Gregory MacDonald) Parry testing us to make sure weâve all read his book
[deleted] I was replying to another post and had many pages open and responded to the wrong post.