Thanks for the link Todd - I’ve not read much on this kind of interpretation.
Are you sure there is a “resurrection to judgment”?
The most detailed account of the resurrection is in 1 Cor 15 which includes a limited description of the order of events. Upon examination of this chapter you will notice no mention of a gathering for judgment. On the contrary, it states that Death is the last enemy. Once Death has been destroyed (the resurrection), God has no more enemies. All of His enemies are subdued prior to the resurrection. If, in the resurrection, God has no enemies, there is no need for punishment or judgment. Other resurrection passages, such as Rom 8:18-23, also make no mention of a gathering for judgment.
There is John 5:24-29 which speaks of a resurrection to life or condemnation, but this reference is not speaking of the resurrection in 1 Cor 15; see the following thread for a discussion on that.
Todd
Todd wrote:
Todd, as a beginning allow me to share in simplest terms that which I believe to be true.
The first death is our birthing into Adam and it takes place at our conception. This is a state of dying to God, to His righteousness, and to His life. The second death which is the reversing process is dying to Adam, his sin, and his death. The process of the Lake of Fire and the death of death is simply [size=150]the filling up with life that which is dead.[/size] And this takes place on both sides of the grave. The second death is also a process, of which I believe the greater part is accomplished post-mortem.
Todd, before I care to continue with how I see the unimaginable immensity of the Lake of Fire, I must ask you, “is there time and events taking place post-mortem with your theory?” After reading the quote above a number of times plus the rest of your message I could not understand the process you are painting, So I query. The best I could garner from your ideas, they seem to amount to a kind of “‘physical death brings instant salvation theory’?”
In addition I might ask what happens to the child who dies after only three years of life?
Thanks in advance of your anticipated reply,
John
Everyone,
Please try to keep the posts on topic with the Original Post (OP). Born Again has challenged several points which are not being addressed.
Aug
I think this is a bit rich to be honest Auggy (as the very title Final thoughts has turned out to be such a misnomer) - the original post asks no questions but just makes a series of statements. As for people not addressing BA’s points - talk about the pot calling the kettle black 
.
Last time I looked this part of the site was called ‘General discussion’ that’s just what this is… a general discussion.
John, it seems I have gotten off-topic for this thread. I will attempt to answer your question on this thread linked below.
[The Hell on Earth View - a subset of UR)
Todd
Cool Todd, I look forward to your response.
FYI everyone, for reasons addressed above, I’ve decided to respond to something Jason said on this thread in the one to which Todd has provided the link. 
So you recognize that it isn’t talking about a full description of the order of events. 
The purpose being instead to show how it all ends up and why the resurrection is important as a principle in this.
Consequently, arguments from silence in the text would be proportionately weak anyway; much moreso on a point positively testified to by other texts.
As it happens, though, death comes from life, and so insofar as death is the final enemy it may still be being loved and fondled by those who are alive. The indications elsewhere that Christ continues being wrathful (as well as merciful) to those who despite resurrection still are insisting on their sins, is entirely consonant with this limited description of the order of events.
But I would much rather discuss this in more detail in other threads. (Which I was starting to do, until BA showed up and people started writing to me complaining about him.)
Which is of no weight as evidence against positive mentions of a gathering for judgment elsewhere, unless those other resurrection passages explicitly state that no one at all is resurrected to judgment.
Incidentally, you didn’t at all answer the question I actually asked (and which you yourself quoted me as asking).
(But maybe you will in the other thread, for better topical consolidation. That’d be okay, too. When I finally get around to that thread, I’ll try to remember to post it again, if you haven’t quoted it in followup already by then.)
Jeffa,
We all know that statements and questions are often presented in different ways. Born Again is asking for a response to his original posts, which exhibits the real minomer in the title “final thoughts on ur”. I hardly think the title is the true topic while the content matters not. My point being that it’s the subject matter (OP) that counts – not the title.
As for being in “general discussion” it still is a “general” rule that the OP is to stay on course. “General” only refers to posting topics which are not necessarily “affirmative” or “negative”. It does not mean…Ask a question about Col 1 and I’ll tell you how Walt Disney was a universalist.
Lately I’ve been noticing this a bit on the threads and I believe we as a community should try to keep order. I realize that BA has posted quite a few topics but I believe he is relenting on that and truly trying to get interaction on his thoughts.
Now after reading the OP, I would say to BA that one point a thread would be wise. Trying to tackle a whole topic with 1000 issues (like out of context, illusion, perfection and justice) simply is not within the any forum board.
I hope we can all address BA’s request in a manner which is respectful and helpful.
Aug
We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one Auggy
I really can’t believe this one - Who avoids responding to anything for which he hasn’t got an argument? Jason asks him several questions in a number of threads to which the reply is…'can’t answer ‘cos you’ve written a novel’
Ahh! Yes - the ‘Negative’ forum - the one place guaranteed to be a BA-free zone
Born Again and again (a little free will humor for you),
I think there are some valid points that you make concerning Lydia but I don’t feel they alleviate the burden placed upon the free will positon.
So I’ll take it point by point.
- Lydia was a worshipper before God opened her heart.
Silence is very difficult to prove from. Now it is true scripture informs us that she was indeed a worshipper but it seems that in order for the free will position to be true God has to have NO hand in the matter of why she was a worshipper at all. The position assumes she was a worshipper of God by her own doing rather than God raising her up for his own purpose (as in the case of pharoa).
2)Lydia Heard then heeded
** same point** this point too also ignores the fact that the reason she gave them her ear was because God was already having mercy on her and preparing her for the very encounter.
- Lydia heeded as a result of her heart being opened.
No one I know of is dogmatic on the particular method God used so the point is a bit moot. Of course everyone agrees she responded to the gospel because of God’s opening her heart - hardly a point of debate. This would raise the following
a) Did she have a choice to believe the gospel PRIOR to God’s enabling her heart (freedom)?
b) As a worshipper of God she was in rejection of the gospel UNTIL God changed her heart.
Ultimatley this brings us full circle: What was her heart like prior to God opening it for the gospel? Was she Righteouss prior to being opened or was she wicked? I recommend Romans 3 for the answer.
and This statment:
It is a plain fact that there is no mention in Acts 16:13-15 of the direct working of the Spirit of God. To assert that God used that means to prompt obedience from Lydia is to inject something into the scriptures that just isn’t there. What is there, plainly, is the gospel message “spoken by Paul.”
Actually it is a plain fact that there is no mention in Acts 16:13-15 of the indirect working of the Spirit of God. To assert that God used other means to prompt obedience from Lydia is to inject something into the scriptures that just isn’t there…
Thats the point bro, Not even calvinist care if God opened her heart using a defibulator or car battery. What matters to the calvinist is HER HEART WAS CLOSED PRIOR TO GOD’S OPENING IT AND THERFORE SHE HAD NO CHOICE IN BELEIVING IN AND OF HERSELF.
The method is hardly the debate, what matters is can you prove that she before her heart being opened could have bellieved the gospel OR could you prove that AFTER God opened her heart she could reject the gospel.
Sorry to take so long but so everyone here might understand, I was not conceeding your post at all by taking my time
LOL! You my friend are a legend in your own mind LOL (I say that in humor).
Gosh I still trying to figure out where BA came to the conclusion there is no support for Universalism when he has been refuted on every point he had and stumped by every counter argument to his ‘decisive’ arguments where he has had to use Ad hominems, straw men, or plain ignoring them, to avoid it this fact. 
Auggy,
If you haven’t done so yet, I recommend copy-posting that to one of BA’s newer threads on the topic of Lydia (and/or 1 Cor 2).