I’m sure Talbott is presupposing Christ as the means or agent of salvation, even though it is not explicitly stated in the argument. The argument aims to address the scope and efficacy of salvation within the context of the Calvinist/Arminian tension. It’s quite effective in that context, but might not be so elsewhere.
Sonia
I wrote:
Well, Prince Myshkin did ask for succinct! 
Secondly, I propose that universalism is so obvious that not only unitarians but also agnostics and atheists can be expected to get it. For example, “the Great Agnostic”, Robert Ingersoll, wrote: “I want to thank the Universalist Church . . . . They at least believe in a God who is a gentleman . . . they believe, at least, in a heavenly father who will leave the latch string out until the last child gets home.”
In other words, even someone who denies the existence of any sort of deity or any sort of supernatural can be expected to acknowledge that, if a deity were to exist, it would be unworthy of the deity to not save all of his creation.
I’m reminded of George MacDonald’s statement in “Justice”: “Strange that in a Christian land it should need to be said, that to punish the innocent and let the guilty go free is unjust!” Even a unitarian, even an atheist or agnostic, even a small child can see that. One need be infected with academic theology to not be able to see.
Ultimately, every truth goes back to the Holy Trinity and God the Son incarnate. But some things are so basic, so clear, so obvious that one need not first believe in the Holy Trinity to see them.
I think even a trinitarian could see that as an insult, not a well thought out response. Good grief.
I did not mean it as an insult. Please forgive me. I mentioned unitarians only because that was the example given in the post to which I was responding. It is not meant as an attack on anyone (whether unitarian, atheist, agnostic, or child). I simply mean that one can be far from Trinitarian belief and still recognize the clear rightness of universalism.
Once again, I sincerely ask for your forgiveness for giving offense.
Looks like I was the one who misunderstood; I’m sorry. Let us proceed forth! 
I’m a lurker mostly and often read some thoughts people post before bed. This was the perfect thread for me tonight, I hope more people respond. I don’t have a short well thought out argument for EU, I think in large part because I still struggle because it sounds too good to be true after what I heard all my childhood and young adulthood. The more I read on this board the more I am able to slowly grasp how high and wide and deep God’s love really is and I’m thankful for the words you all share that help me with that.
I’m typing on my phone and can’t see who wrote it but the 2 Peter 2:9 verse I looked up and none of the translations I found were worded as yours. Can you share anymore about who translated it that way and why?
If you are referring to my post of 2 Peter 3:9, The Lord . . . is not willing that any should perish, but [wills instead] that all should come to repentance, then the translation is from the KJV. This particular wording of 2 Peter 3:9 is on page 44 of The Inescapable Love of God, written by Thomas Talbott. The ellipsis . . . signifies that words were left out. The brackets ] signify that words have been added, e.g., wills instead]. As you can see from the complete version of 2 Peter 3:9 (KJV), which is listed below, the omitted and added words do not reduce the impact of the verse on the purpose at hand.
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
I think BPW is referring to my quote of 2 Peter 2:9 earlier in this thread.
Why did I translate “κολαζομενους” as “to be corrected” rather than “to be punished”? Because “to be corrected” is what the verb means.
The lexical form of the verb is “κολαζω”, which originally referred to correcting the growth of vines by pruning them, and was later used figuratively as the correction of people’s behaviour. “To be punished” is okay as a translation if it is understood that this “punishment” is of a corrective nature as opposed to being of a penal nature. Any good Greek lexicon will bring this out. Here is the definition of “κολαζω” according to the Online Bible Greek lexicon:
And here is Strong’s definition:
Yes paidion that is what I was wondering thank you!
“I will not yield my glory to another.” Isa42
What is hell, if not a yielding of glory?
I’m inclined to say the best succinct argument for Christian universalism is that there is no great succinct argument for it. I’d be suspicious of a succinct argument in a data rich situation where the data has demonstrably led to multiple results. 2 + 2 = 4 is a succinct argument, because the data set is limited and only a few principles are being proposed for acceptance.
Still, keeping that qualification firmly in mind:
God’s own self-existent reality, as the ground of all reality, actively fulfills mutually supporting freely chosen interpersonal unity.
So what expectation about God in relation to rebels against God best fits that idea? The expectation that God intends to bring the rebel creatures to (or back to) free-willed cooperation with God, and that as the ground of their reality God is competent enough to certainly achieve this? Or some other expectation?
That’s only an argument that would be of interest to trinitarian theists, but in a nutshell that was what first convinced me. (Well, it might interest other Christians or theists for technical reasons but they wouldn’t be in a position to actually accept it.)
In Revelation 22, the Spirit and the Bride are calling to whoever is thirsty - “come and drink”. This could only apply to those outside heaven (who’s gates are never closed), since Jesus has water that if you drink of it - you will “never thirst again”. This won’t be an exercise in futility, carried out in eternity.
Welcome to the forum, Mark! New members are temporarily auto-modded to protect against spammers (one of whom I’ll have to ban this morning actually), so that’s why your post didn’t seem to go through the first time. You may need to post another couple of things with mod approval before the system takes you off auto-mod. (I deleted your repeat post being a repeat, of course.)
Thanks - this is great stuff!