Good morning Marc,
The link you supplied took me to some other site, so I googled Dr. Lugbill. You are correct in noting the guy comes across as authoritarian. His blanket statements though lack truth though. For example he says that “In fact, I can’t think of a single scripture which on its face would be taken by any reasonable person, believer or unbeliever, to mean that “all are saved no matter what”.” I’d suggest that he read Rom.5.18, Col.1.20, and well, plenty others. If one reads such verses in context, without the preconcieved notion that others are certainly damned, then the “prima facia” understanding of these passages is that all shall be saved, reconciled to God. Oh, and his list of scriptures that he assumes affirm that some are certainly lost forever, is just that, an assumption. He interprets them to affirm ECT or annihilation, but many do not, and I certainly don’t. They do affirm that sin results in death and destruction, but not annihilation or ECT.
In his Response 1 to UR, he goes on to argue that if all were to be saved then why not let everyone not die and live forever?This is foolish for death is the result of sin, and in fact, if not for death all humanity would continue to live in this “present evil age” under the dominion of sin, evil, and oppression. This argument is one of the craziest I’ve ever heard against UR. He then says, “If everyone is going to be saved anyhow, then why did Jesus have to die?” This too is a crazy argument. That’s like saying, if 100 people are drowning that the lifeguard need not save them because he knows that he’s going to save them all. Illogical - yes.
Also, you noted that he approaches doctrine from a libertarian perspective, and yet he says, "universal condemnation at birth is not only biblical (Rom.3:23), but is prima facie obvious to all human beings in an intuitive way because everyone dies physically, and that is plain to everyone. " If we are born under “universal condemnation” then where is the freedom in that? If we are born under the dominion of sin, slaves of unrighteousness, in bondage to evil from within and without, tell me, just where in the hell is this “free will” he wants to affirm?!
He then says, “if all are saved apart from their own choice of faith – why is it necessary to have Christ die for that faith to have an object?”. He assumes that UR affirms that people are saved “apart from their own choice”, which is simply not true. We affirm that all shall choose to love God once they are freed from the bondage of evil, raised out of this “present evil age” as Paul calls it.
He then writes, “But of course God’s perfect righteousness is an undeniable fact, and has to be satisfied for sin to be forgiven.” Say what? God’s righteousness has to be “satisfied” before He can forgive us? That’s just too crazy. God can do whatever he dxxx well pleases! Considering who God is, our “sins” against God are about as bad as a gnat urinating on you, from God’s perspective, completely inconsequential. The are only of any consequence to Him because of His love for us and the consequences of sin to us in this life! Just how petty does this guy think God is?!
God is love and love is not easily offended. When my children are babies and burp up or pee on me, do I get upset or just wash it off? Shoot, sometimes it’s even cute and adorable, just part of having the privaledge of loving a baby. If we can love our children, how much more does God love us!
Well, I could go on and on, but this just covers the first few statements of this guy. I don’t know if I’ll read or comment anymore on Dr Lugbill, his arguments imo are almost too ludicrous to address, at least that’s the way his article is starting off.
).
Thank God it only went to a Chinese art barn; with a name like “Itchy’s” I shudder to think what it could have turned up otherwise on the internet! 
?
(But then I play games with hoplite warfare occasionally. 
)