Thanks ya’ll!
I think, honestly, Jason’s the most persuasive in regards of confronting the most likely of challenges and thus being the most persuasive. I just finished TILOG today. It might have changed my mind on the entire subject. Still thinking about it.
Johnny/Sherman, thank you for your contributions!
I shall get back to you very soon!
Peace!
–Nick
I just realized as well.
Jason, if you could add a brief conclusion tying both the positive case together with the answers you give to objections, I think you might have sold me on using yours.
I hate picking between all of you. I now know how God feels. 
–Nick
How brief? I’m at 700 words right now, and I’ll have to trim something.
I do provide something of the sort you’re talking about in the middle of the beginning, so to speak; perhaps I can restructure (with a bit of redesign) and put that at the end?
I’ll look into it this weekend in between helping Mom do the taxes for her and Dad this year.
(Also, keep in mind that Dr. Bob or one of the other guest authors with professional credentials may still contribute something. 
)
I recommend that in any case there should be a link back here to this or another thread featuring members providing their stab at a 700 word case. (Maybe a new thread so as not to distract with prior drafts and side discussions.) That way, whoever you choose, everyone’s contributions have a chance to be helpful. 
I was thinking jus that, a bit of restructuring and putting that near the end. And I think a link back to here should be good.
–Nick
Or, rather, everyone’s responses put on a different thread for people to peruse. 
–Nick
Hi Nick
Just wanted to say don’t feel bad about binning my effort. Like I said, as a twice failed novelist I’m used to rejection slips. Not that I’m bitter and twisted at all. Honest.
Seriously, I think everybody’s submissions were really good. Interesting that we all approached the subject from different angles: Allan was very eloquent and philosophical, Sherman very personal, and Jason very scripturally strong and intellectually convincing. I tried to walk the tightrope between being scriptural and satisfying to the intellect, but also appealing to your average Joe or Jane Blow. I guess you could say I was a bit Rob Bell, whereas Jason was more Robin Parry.
This does raise the interesting question of who you see your primary audience as - and of course you will know that. Because personally, I think Jason’s piece might work best with somebody who is already a Christian, and is investigating the truth of UR. Whereas Sherman’s and Allan’s and my pieces might, perhaps, appeal a bit more to agnostics?
Anyyway, just my opinion. Good luck with it, it’s a brilliant thing you’re doing.
Shalom
Johnny
I agree with Johnny, my piece is definitely aimed at people who already accept a ton of truth in Christianity. (Although I do try to write with at least one agnostic in mind. 
) But I gathered this was kind-of the point to the site requesting the article: it’s addressed to Christians.
(Actually, I’m a tad confused why there would be any articles of this sort on the site, which seems to be aimed at reviewing media. It would look to make more sense to review one of the various author books there. Or, hey, CoJ. )
Hi Nick,
No worries, I enjoyed the exercise and understand that different approaches touch different people. I seek to be very personal in my sharing of the Gospel because people seem to have less defenses against such. And I love to throw in a few “zingers” like “Jesus failing to save” or “there being no end of evil”, or “the kingdom of evil knows no end”, or “in Arminianism the Atonement doesn’t completely save”, etc. Because of the brevity of the article, I could only hope to plant a few seeds, raise a few points that might instigate further research as such an article did for me many years ago. It was/is a challenging exercise I’ll continue to work on. Thanks again.
Blessings,
Sherman
We’re expanding, and I’m co-editor of spearheading the expansion. And I will be reviewing James Goetz’s new book as well as interviewing him in the future.
–Nick
I had a busy Monday at work, and probably will this morning (at least), too. But I’m hoping I can get the next revision done by tomorrow. (It shouldn’t take long once I start, but I’m a bit dubious if I’ll be able to even stay at the office today–stomach blargh returned last night.)
Running a bit late, but here’s the third draft:
MSWord counts it exactly 700 words, including the scripture refs and the topical titles.
Wow. I look forward to posting this. 
But, sincerely, thanks for all your hard work. I shall keep this post very strongly in mind, and use it in the near future.
–Nick
You’re welcome. Let me know when!
Jason I’m impressed at how much meat you managed to squeeze into such a small package. This truly blessed me.
You’ve actually inspired me to go back to study. I’ve been wanting to properly study theology, church history and Koine for ages. However, not being particularly well off, it would have needed to be a distance learning degree. And every decent course I found required a ministerial reference for admission. Try finding a pastoral reference when you’re an outspoken universalist woman 
. But now, I’ve been reinvigorated to chip away at it again and make more enquiries.
In true British West-Country fashion, I’ll sign off with: Cheers ma dears!!
I know this thread is ancient… well at least middle-aged… 
but thought I’d just ask whether Jason’s article got published anywhere I can link to?
Not that I mind linking to the forum at all, but I’ve found people tend to get stuck at the this-name-is-an-oxymoron stage and not actually read what I’ve linked to!
(It would also be cool if we had a specific place to put everyone’s 700-word summaries, where anyone newer to the site could add their own too. Like Johnny said, it’s a great idea to have a one-page summary you can find at a moment’s notice. Perhaps there’s already such a place and I missed it?)
I don’t know that he ever published it. 
I agree, we should create a sticky thread for members to post their 700 word case. (Or 1000 word maybe. )
However, it’s a rather complex topic, so any short case for it seems like it would be too simple to me. How many people who are now Christian universalists were once non-universalists due to arguments we came to realize were too short and simple to properly reckon with the evidence and/or with the principles involved?
That seems rather common to me. By the same token, I’m leery about trying to give a short EU case, because that seems similarly dangerous or at least open to instant rebuttal for being short-sighted.
Still, I agree we should set up a short-case sticky thread.
Updated to add: AND LO, THE NEW THREAD WAS ACCOMPLISHED, AND THERE WAS GREAT REJOICING AND/OR GNASHING OF TEETH!!!
Very interesting, Nick!
I was really surprised by how the author of the ECT view took so much space to explain his questions with Universalism. The first one, why not continue sinning in this life if we’ll all be saved eventually, at least I think that’s how it went, is one I hear all the time. It’s really revealing about the way we feel about God, that we wouldn’t want a relationship with Him unless he’s going to endlessly torment us. And, anyway, even if the torment isn’t endless it’s probably not something we want to take lightly. If judgement feels like being lit on fire, not that this is what it is literally,how many of us would want to endure it for even a few seconds?
He says we Universalists are mistaken about the difference between retribution and reconciliation. I should think a great many of us would like to say the same to him, that he is mistaken in his understanding of how retribution is for the purpose of reconciliation. How does his view of retribution jive with a God that is love?
If people are free with a sufficient knowledge to condemn themselves, the bible also says, about these same people, that they are blind. Sick people destroy themselves. This is why they are need in of being reconciled.
If we don’t change our minds easily, which I’m sure is the case, surely that is no obstacle for God who has demonstrated that he is quite committed to reconciling all things.
I guess that’s why I’m a Universalist, I don’t have all the questions he has.
Nick has also created a new thread on this forum for discussing the article series.
Members are welcome to comment either here or there (or both). I’ve got links directing each way.
Edited to add: originally my 700 word third-draft final entry above featured a bizarre miscitation of Mark 10:30 for Mark 3:28. I still haven’t got the faintest clue how I did that, but I’ve fixed it now. It can still be seen in my first and second drafts above.
Hi,
I coming into this thread very late, but I just want all of you who took the time to write out your defense to know that you ARE published, right here, for all of us newbies to read. I, for one, and grateful to have each different voice to learn from.
Thanks,
Kelli