Well I can understand them wanting to take a position on it, and a strong one at that (which is admittedly odd for a board that promotes itself as being broadly Christian 
).
But their attitude after that isn’t conducive to actual discussion, based on what I’ve seen so far (though that’s admittedly little.)
I was a member of another board for several years and I really enjoyed the fellowship and discussion there. But two years ago I started studying UR in scripture and discussing it there. In short, they initially closed down discussion on it because of fear; I was making too strong of an argument in support of UR and they were afraid others would believe it. I pressed the issue though noting that UR did not differ fromt their statement of faith one iota and thus should not be a forbidden topic. They eventually buried the subject under layers of links and I finally realized that they simply did not want to discuss the topic. And they would transfer any of my posts that were remotely related to UR, like discussing Grace, Love, Salvation, work of the Holy Spirit, Kingdom of God, etc. etc. etc., they would transfer my posts on other subjects to the buried universalism area. I’m a little hard headed so it took me a little while to realize that they just did not want to even consider the subject. They were ok with discussing it if it was from a negative perspective, but they were afraid of anyone that could present a well-reasoned and well-founded, and well worded argument in support of UR.
I’ve come to realize that one just cannot pour new wine into old wine-skins and have thus stopped trying to promote UR on traditional sites or in traditional churches. If one pours new wine into an old wine-skin the result is a burst wine skin and loss of the wine. And both the old wine-skins and new-wine are valuable. The new wine is refreshing but the old wine skins were used to carry water like modern day canteens. They had lost their ability to change, adapt, expand, but were still valuable.
New wine requires a new wine skin, something that can change, grow, expand as needed to contain the new wine.
“And no one at first is wanting the new wine, for they are saying ‘The old is smoother!’”
I have been shocked by the apparent anger or hatred displayed on the other board.
It made me a little more convinced that many do not see UR as a ‘secondary doctrine’. I’m not sure that I do either.
Hi Sherman
I was at a forum for a while where this sort of thing happened. I think I remember a user called ‘Sherman’. Might it have been you? Are we allowed to name the board?
Would you mind me asking what was the catalyst for you which turned you to UR? How would you have described your faith before that?
God bless
Yes, I’m very saddened that many Christians cannot reasonably discuss issues concerning faith without resorting to anger and personal attacks. Anger is usually rooted in weakness, either weakness of character or weakness of position. Many see UR as a doctrine of demons that will keep people from coming to Christ and lessen missionary/evangelistic zeal. This fills them with fear (not faith). And we know that God does not give us a spirit of fear, but one of power, love, and reasonable thinking. Have you noticed how many traditionalists resort to illogical and personal attacks instead of dealing with the issues. It’s very sad.
That was probable me. I use my actual name on discussion boards. It helps me keep myself accountable to make sure my posts are grace-filled, love based, and logical. And I try to make them clear, concise, and compelling.
I was a Charismatic Evangelical (Armenian) in my personal theology but transdenomenational in my attitude (I accepted others as brothers in Christ though they had radically different theologies from me recognizing 1) that salvation is by grace and 2) that their confession of faith in Christ is enough for me to accept them as brothers in Christ, and 3) that I could be wrong.)
Why did I come to believe UR? It was the weight of scriptural evidence in support of UR. I started out studying the UR passages to see if in their immediate literary context there was anything that would indicate that “All” does not mean “All”. I found Rom.5:18 and Col.1:20 to be especially compelling in support of UR. Their context strongly affirms that “All” means “All”, not “some”. And then just the shear number of passages that allude to the salvation of “All” was compelling. This seemed to be a major theme, and the goal of Christ to save all the world, not just a few special people.
I found scripture in support of UR so compelling that I figured I’d best study what scripture says concerning “Hell” to counter balance, to refute UR. This glorious picture of every knee bowing in worship and every tongue ultimately coming to joyfully declare Jesus Lord was, well, just too good to believe. It was not only a radical belief, but it was condemned as false doctrine by everyone I knew.
So I set the UR passages aside and began studying about Hell. The first thing I noticed was that not one word in scripture accurately translates as Hell and thus the word Hell should not be in the Bible, not Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, or Tartaroo. This really shook me. But it was my study of what the Jews would have understood Gehenna to mean that was the tipping point, the piece of information that put me, no, PUSHED me over the edge. Gehenna did not mean “Hell”, but meant destruction, a trashed life, and was a warning of fearful but non-specific and possibly remedial judgment and punishment to come. This was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Looking back I realize that at that time subconsciously I had come to have faith that Jesus is truly savior of all - but I still wouldn’t admit it to myself much less others.
UR was making so much sence to me that it scared me so I then began studying anti-UR material in the hopes that someone would make a compelling argument from scripture in support of the traditional doctrine that Jesus fails to save most of humanity. And I purposefully avoided material in support of UR. But the more I studied such anti-UR material, the more I saw gaping holes in their arguments, misinterpretation of scripture, simple exegetical fallacies, and irrational arguments against UR. So I started talking with people about UR, people whom I respect and no one could counter the information that I had uncovered in my research, imo. I sought to study it with other believers in person and online (forums) in the hopes that someone could show me where my research was lacking, my interpretation of scripture was errant, where my logical was off, etc. But I found that most believers are not interested enough in the subject to study it, and the few that were willing to discuss it could not come up with anything to counter UR imo. And since then the opposition, rejection, false accusations, etc., I’ve faced has only served to solidify my beliefs, firm up my convictions.
Well, that’s a long answer to a short question. Thanks for asking. On the other board who were you?
Blessings,
Sherman
Thank you for taking the time to reply. Your account is not dissimilar to my own. For me, amongst other things, there was the study of Arminianism and Calvinism and what appeared to be logical inconsistencies in either of those positions.
On the other board I was Pil (as I am on the board which has been discussed on this thread). I was not there long because, like you, I was trying to engage in UR discussions and putting forward UR arguments to test the strength of the opposing arguments. This did not go down well.
Once again, thank you Sherman.
You’re welcome Pilgrim. I think I recall seeing you there. I find it amazing that UR is rejected as a forbidden topic and yet Arminianist and Calvinist can be openly discussed. With the Calvinist we agree that God is Sovereign, and with the Arm we agree that God loves all humanity, there foundational assumpations. Concerning the atonement we agree with the Calvinist that if fully effects the salvation of those whom Jesus died for. With the Arminianist we agree that Jesus died for everyone. The only thing that we disagree with both groups is the certainty of damnation of “others”. So we agree concerning salvation for ourselves, but differ concerning damnation for “others”. And this makes us so far out there that most from both camps cannot hold a civil discussion concerning UR. At least, that’s been my experience. And then of course, there is the growing camp of Arm/Cal hybrids which affirm that salvation is a mystery, but damnation is a certainty. Well anyhow, I appreciate getting to know you.
Blessings,
Sherman
If ‘crow bar’ is around, could he PM me to declare himself? I’m fascinated.
Thanks Pilgrim, that’s encouraging though I don’t really have a ministry, just friends and loved ones with whom we grow together in Jesus. It’s a small, very small circle now who are open to UR but seems to be increasing. I wish we lived closer too. Maybe someday we’ll get to meet.