Redhot and Allan
You are also free to believe what you want, but my view has been the orthodox view of the church for over 2000 years since Jesus taught it. God bless.
Caroleem
Also nobody should want to be right; we should all just want to be doctrinally correct, right? 
Ditto. 
Right.
Revival,
You are also free to believe what you want, but my view has been the orthodox view of the church for over 2000 years since Jesus taught it. God bless.
This sounds a lot like, “My mind is made up; don’t confuse me with Scripture!”
At any rate, Jesus didn’t teach anything like you’re advocating, and for several centuries, quite a good portion of the orthodox church didn’t, either.
Tell me, Revival, do you want what you believe to be true? Do you think God wants it to be true?
Sarcasm doesn’t change what has been established in Luke 16:19-31. Are you denying there are people in hell, Snitz, according to Luke 16:19-31? Because that certainly won’t be the orthodox position or the “Evangelical Universalist” position.
on the contrary. those people that died are in Sheol, the grave. David, inspired by the Holy Spirit wrote “who praises you from his grave?”
Solomon, similarly inspired, said that the plans of man die with them in the grave…ergo no conscious thought (Ecc 9:10)
they are not in “hell”
hell is not uniformly believed in, even by non Universalists. eternal hell is certanily a non-Biblical concept. we have the grave in the old testament and no hint that there is any life in that state. God must resurrect someone in order for them to be judged, as you’ve posted before yourself. after that judgement, the only thing that could be a possibility if not a refining, and a testing of works for each person, is annihilation.
nobody thrown into a lake of fire, if that fire was a final judgement, would survive.
this idea you have about the soul being immortal, as has been explained to you numerous times, is extra-Biblical and thus incorrect. orthodox for the last 2000 years or not, it’s wrong. the church wrongly idolised Greek philosophy and paganism, and incorporated that thought as a hermeneutic when interpreting Scripture.
was Martin Luther wrong to go against the “Orthodox” view of the Catholic church of his time? was Jesus wrong to go against the “Orthodox” teaching of the Jews?
if an orthodox teaching is incorrect, we must stand against it. that is all.
Appeal to tradition now? I thought you based all yor views off of the bible. Allan presented the actual context of the parable and you answer with an appeal to tradition. Jesus taught a parable which you and orthodoxy has gotten wrong imo. You know for a long time orthodoxy was salvation by works until a guy named luther came along. Maybe just maybe the orthodox position is wrong? And again I ask who decides orthodoxy? Orthodoxy is a man made tradition.
not just your opinion mate, imo too
this is what Jesus taught
Are u saying you agree with revival now? Im confused
noooooo i’m with you bruv! lol
sorry, i meant when you said “imo” i was joining you in that, so it’s now “ioo” 
i was merely saying that what we are talking about is what Jesus actually taught. orthodoxy is a pretty flawed thing to fall back on!
You are certainly entitled to your wrong opinion. No, salvation has always been by grace through faith…just because the devil was in the details and used the Catholic church (and still does) to teach false doctrine does not change the apostolic foundation of the original church.
we are not contending about salvation by grace through faith
we just don’t believe at any point that God gives up looking for lost sheep.
Jesus taught about the debtors’ gaol where you would be until you paid the last farthing…well that’s hardly eternal, is it?
i will base my faith on what Jesus and the apostles taught, building as they did upon the Prophets of the OT, not on 2000 years of Orthodox heresy
God bless
God bless you, Corp.
and you, Rev
Just repeating what I wrote to you on the other thread.
"If you were really only following Jesus and not what someone tells you what Jesus meant when He spoke of judgment and Gehenna fire, you might be of a different opinion.
Try to listen to Jesus with the heart and mind of a first century Jew, in the context of his culture and in the original language(not the KJV 
) .
And yet that was the orthodox position. Thats my point is orthodoxy cant be trusted. You are appealing to a manmade entity which you admit was wrong.
Ok, The Catholic Church has no power to change the word of God. They may have tried to change the position of the original church but that will never happen. I will start using “the original church” instead of orthodox since you tie it to the Catholic church so much. Protestants have their issues too, I know.
Heres the issue though, you claim the original church taught ect. We claim it taught UR. So we have competing historical viewpoints. Lets go to the scrips instead, but when we do and allan gives you an in context explanation of the parable you have no answer but to go back to your orthodoxy argument. At which point I can say and back up with historical evidence that no the early church taught ur. We’re then back to square one. If you can provide better evidence that the early church taught ect bring it. I havent seen it besides 300 ad onward. Which is not really the early church.
Even with all that, the historical argument is the weakest line
Amen!
While I actually agree with Revival that one “must be alive to receive eternal life,” I don’t think this is problematic for the Universalist (Is There Hope For Those Who Die in Unbelief?). Concerning Jesus’ words in John 11:25-26, I don’t think the “life” in view refers to the immortal, heavenly existence of those who will be been raised up by him on the “last day.” Nor do I think it means consciously existing in a “disembodied state” in heaven. Although Christ certainly affirmed that the physically dead would be restored to a living existence, he is not, I don’t think, talking about extended conscious existence here. Rather, as in John 5:24, the “life” in view may be understood as denoting the status of the believer, who is considered “just” before God. If that’s the case, then Jesus is teaching that those who believe on him will “live” or be considered just before God (i.e., justified) even if they should die physically. And those who live (physically) and believe on Christ will not “die unto the age,” for there is “no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1). He who is believing on Christ “does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life,” and physical death (regardless of whether or not it temporarily ends one’s conscious existence) does not overturn God’s verdict, and does not rob the believer of the crown of glory and honor that rests upon him. Does this mean those who are considered just by God will be raised up by Christ on the last day because they were justified before they died, and that those who were not justified before they died will not be raised by him? No, for according to Paul there is going to be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust (Acts 24:15). All who die in Adam will be made alive in Christ when the last trumpet sounds and death is abolished (1 Cor 15:21-26; 50-55). So contrary to the view of Revival and other partialists, I think there is hope for those who die in unbelief.