I don’t see how everyone who believes in some type of dispensational theology necessarily believes in the entire LB schedule. I believe in dispensations to a degree, just not in an ultra-strict sense, but the LB books are very disagreeable to me.
Being a Southern Baptist by training, I’m pretty familiar with the basic tribulation narrative and variations; I’ve been studying it off and on since the mid 70s. And no, one doesn’t have to take Jenkins & LeHays’ fictional way of solving for the ranges particularly. But the limited-punishment-age theory does totally require the basic eschatological structure of:
this age (no forgiveness for sin against HS here);
the 1000 year reign of Christ after the Trib finishes up (no forgiveness here either);
the age of the Day of the Lord (kicked off by the general resurrection of the evil and the good, the emptying of hades, and the lake of fire judgment for the impenitent wicked–but forgiveness is possible here).
Different interpretations of RevJohn might yield different results for trying to take the GosMatt statement very literally (no forgiveness this or next age, but nothing about the age after the next one.) And, as noted, the same text which offers most weigh for the rationale also takes about punishment for at least some sinners going on for ages of ages. That’s an indeterminately vast time, far beyond the limited count being aimed at in the theory.
On the other hand, a resolution for this particular theory with the data might be by appeal to the very defensible notion of nested aging. Pretty much everyone agrees that sooner or later there’s going to be a Day of the Lord which constitutes an age that has no end; and yet the biblical evidence (OT and NT both) tend to indicate that there will be an ongoing number of ages within that final Day. In fact, insofar as the Day of the Lord started (in some real fashion–which is also highly defensible) with the first coming and ministry of the Messiah, there would have to be at least two sub-ages within that Day (the age of His first coming, which isn’t over yet, and the age of His second coming which by most although not all reckonings hasn’t happened yet. Note that there are those who take the age of His second coming to have started with the destruction of Jerusalem, though, in 70CE. But still at least two sub-ages, even then.)
In that line of reckoning, the forgiveness of the Great Day to come includes the option being open (but just not taken yet) during all the multi-numerous ages of ages in which some sinners will be disciplined, since those ages are all included under the Great Seventh Day.
However, this could also be considered an over-convenient reading of the data. 
At best, the theorist can no longer apply directly to a hyper-literal argument from silence (so to speak) regarding the GosMatt phraseology of the sin without forgiveness: because the text only works as something approaching positive data if there are three clearly definable ages in view at about par with one another (i.e. this pre-millennial age, the millennial age to come, and the Day of the Lord after that.) But the defense against reference to “ages of ages” requires that the Great Day be a super-age nesting those ages of ages; meaning that the two ages in view (per this theory) for GosMatt’s version of Christ’s declaration of no forgiveness, are themselves nested under a prior Great Age–and then suddenly we’re back to only two ages of no forgiveness without a third one to follow! 
So the theory ends up being quite possibly self-destructive when pressed as a predictive hard limit to the punishment.
In the end, I think it’s safer to regard the saying (whether in GosMatt or in the other two Synoptics) as a prescriptive warning, not as a tacitly predictive limit: there won’t ever at any time, now or later, be forgiveness for the sin against the Holy Spirit. Similarly, to the apostles themselves (no less!): unless you repent and turn around and become as this little child, you shall by no means whatever be entering into the kingdom of the heavens.
Jason
I totally disagree with your “age of the day of the Lord” theory saying there is forgiveness of the sin to blaspheme the HS Jesus said had no forgiveness.( so would most bible scholars) Why would Jesus distinctively separate this sin from all other sins and waste his time to warn us not to blaspheme the HS because it shall not be forgiven… only to change his mind later and forgive it? That makes absolutely no sense. Jesus does not say one thing and say “Syke” and do another.
Jesus said eternity is in the world to come in Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30. Lets look at Mark 10:29-30
We see the same use of the word “age” in another passage in Mark—chapter 10, verses 29–30:
“Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age (aiwni) to come, eternal (aiwnion) life.”
Jeremy(from wordpress.com) said:“Note what the Lord says the reward will be in the age to come: eternal life. If there is eternal life in this future age, then the age itself must be without end. On the other hand, if that age to come is not without end but only temporary, then the life that is rewarded to these believers would also be temporary. That, however, contradicts the Lord’s statement in this passage.”
“As appealing as universalism is to many, it never entered the mind of God. Scripture clearly teaches that not all will be saved.”
In conclusion: Jason, you’re wrong on your identity of the people in Rev 15:2-4…you’re wrong on your identity of the kings of the earth in Rev 21:24…you’re wrong on your theory of the age of the day of the Lord…you’re wrong on your theory of one soul repenting and being plucked from their torment from the lake of fire and being added to the Lamb’s book of life…all of these are theories of desparation to hold on to a UR doctrine that doesn’t exist in the bible.
Unless, of course, he never said that in the first place…?
Btw, that wasn’t Jason’s theory, he was just mentioning it.
It “never entered the mind of God”? I wonder if that guy is a Calvinist, because the simple fact is that if you believe in the universal scope of atonement (which Arminianism generally does) then you definitely do believe that it entered the mind of God, although sadly enough, it isn’t able to be made a reality for Him. Which means you should be in disagreement with that quote.
Also, I simple love the “Jeremy from wordpress” bit. 
That totally lets us know all about the author. 
And yet you can’t show us where he was proved wrong…? It looks like he won all those arguments. Right now you’re just waving a staff with the flag of victory blown off.
Jason
Here is the reason why you probably won’t get a reply from Matt Slick : carm.org/samples-universalis … sion-board
Matt says that those universalists (and sometimes implies all) aren’t true to their theology of infinite love, then says that the theology itself produces such behavior. Well which is it, brotha?
Thanks for everyone’s posts. I have to admit candidly that this matter of the Sin Against the Holy Spirit is still difficult to me from a universalist perspective. Many, many thoughtful Christians (I would imagine the C.S. would be in this camp) throughout the ages have felt similarly. The argument that it is simply unbelief seems difficult to maintain, for is not unbelief forgiven throughout the scriptures?
Would it not be true that *any sin", unrepented of is unforgiven?
Not only that, I eventually explained why I don’t accept it. (Without even trying to mention many of the points in its favor, either, although I’m well aware of those, too.)
But that wasn’t convenient for Aaron to notice. So, as usual…
I’d say ‘No’ to that – “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Not only are ‘they’ not repentant, they don’t even know they did something wrong. On the other hand, if you know you’ve done something wrong, and are unrepentant, that’s a different matter.
I agree that ‘unbelief’ is not an unforgiveable sin. I don’t even think you can call it ‘sin’, really. What is sin is to believe and not live according to your faith. “Whoever knows what he ought to do and does not do it–to him it is sin.”
But, back to the subject of ‘forgiveness’… If you owe me money, and I forgive your debt, that means the money no longer needs to be paid to me. If I do not forgive you, then you must pay what you owe. “You will not come out until you have paid the last cent.” So, in the instance of an ‘unforgiveable’ sin, the question would become ‘what is the payment due for this sin?’ It must and will be paid–and when it is, the prisoner will be released.
There is another thing that is unforgiveable, that I don’t think has been mentioned yet–that is a refusal to forgive another. “If you will not forgive your brother, the Lord will not forgive your sins.” And the unforgiving one in the parable had his pardon rescinded and was put into prison "until he should repay all that was owed him."
Sonia
Actually, hopeless explanations of the sin against the Spirit absolutely require that Jesus said one thing and then said something else. The Greek in GosMark is very extensive in its way of putting how strongly all the sins and all the blasphemies shall be forgiven to the sons of men, however great those blasphemies may be. And then comes the exception.
You have to explain the exception to the vastly maximal way of putting the forgiveness, just like we have to explain the strong way of putting the exception; either way the exception has to be explained because at face value it conflicts the extreme totality.
But as usual, the universalistic explanation is far, far too evangelical for you to accept. 
A true spirit of evangelism would rejoice that there might even be a possibility here that the total reconciliation of verse 28 shall be fulfilled despite the warning of verse 29.
A somewhat different spirit thinks evangelism is ultimately a waste of time in regard to some people.
We also receive eonian life in the present age, however; yet no one at all thinks the present age must be without end! His logic is confused.
And, as Justin pointed out, while universalism must never have entered the mind of God if Calvinistic theology is true, it must have entered the mind and intentions of God if Arminianistic theology is true. So that’s far from the best quote for an Arm defender to provide, as impressive as it doubtless sounds to people of a certain mindset.
Anyone who hasn’t yet read my actual comments on those other things, but has read my critique against the theory mentioned here, may with some justification draw an inference about who is desperate in assessing the other things, too, I’m afraid. It’s about on par.
Which of course fits perfectly into what I was talking about as the sin against the HS: the unforgiving steward insisted on contradicting the principles when it looked more convenient to do so. He didn’t care about truth, only about protecting himself and his own advantage.
And of course, it isn’t called an unforgivable sin there, either. It’s only unforgiven until the unforgiving steward gives up the last cent. But how many people focus on the monetary values, counting up how many millions of years it must take to earn his way out of prison (i.e. never), and neglect to recognize what his lord (certainly his Lord) was really looking for: as though what the steward had to pay up in order to be released from imprisonment was money!
Afterward, Peter came to Him and said, “Master… how often must I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times??”
Jesus said to him: "I am not telling you ‘up to seven times’; but till seventy times and seven!
"So. For this reason, the kingdom of the heavens may be likened to a certain man, a king, who wished to settle up accounts with all his slaves.
"Now as he starts the settling, one debtor is brought to him who owes ten thousand talantons of silver! (a ‘talanton’ being the heaviest weight of measurement.)
"But as he did not have the means to pay, the master orders that he shall be sold, including wife and children and whatever else he has, in order to make payment.
"The slave did fall down prostrate to him, saying, ‘Sir!–be patient with me; and I will pay you everything!’
"And the master of that slave did have compassion, and dismisses him, and pardoned all his loan.
"But…
"…that slave went out and found a fellow slave, who owed to him one hundred daywages (‘denarii’). And holding him, he choked him, saying, ‘Pay, if you are owing anything!’
"His fellow slave did fall down prostrate to him, saying, ‘Please be patient with me; and I will pay you everything!’
"Yet he wouldn’t.
"And instead, he goes away and has him cast in jail, until he might be paying what he owes.
"So his fellow slaves, perceiving what is happening, are deeply grieved; and coming to their lord, they make clear what is happening.
"Then his master, calling him to him, is saying to him:
"'You… wicked… slave!!
"‘I forgave you all that debt, because you pleaded me! Was it not required of you, to also have this mercy on your fellow slave, as I am merciful to you!!?’
"And in his fury, his lord is giving him over to the torturers, until he should repay all that was owed to him.
“So. This is how My Father in the heavens also shall be to you; if you, each one of you, do not forgive your brother, from your heart.”
What’s even better, is that from a harmonization perspective, this scene probably happens right after the declaration about all being salted in the unquenchable fire of Gehenna (and salting is ideal, leading to peace with one another) as reported in GosMark, and a repeat of the parable of the 100th sheep in GosMatt.
It’s also pretty clear that Peter is looking for a way to go against the notion that God is always seeking and saving all the lost–and receives a major warning about having that kind of attitude.
Excellent point, Sonia. The grounds of forgiveness will always remain the cross - the malady of sin runs so deep but the cure is (and will be) always available.
I would say, yep–with the provision that acts of ignorance which might otherwise be considered blasphemies (insults) will be pardoned. But the smallest sin, if God did it, would be the self-annihilation of God and all reality; and the smallest sin would lead to our own annihilation, inasmuch as we so act against the source of our own existence, but for the grace of God in our favor–because He loves sinners, too. Even Calvinists would agree with this, in regard to the elect (though not in regard to the non-elect.)
To be unrepentant of even the smallest sin, is to be unforgiven, even though (as it is written) God waits to be merciful and has every patience.
As I noted in my analysis, Calvs, Arms and Kaths all basically agree on this. But Calvs and Arms have to read some kind of reason for hopelessness of repentance into the statements about the sin against the HS. They can’t read such hopelessness out of the texts, because the statements they need aren’t there (either immediately or in close context) to read out.
Reading their positions into the text isn’t necessarily a bad thing–we all have to proceed by eisegesis as well as exegesis sometimes: every time we read text A in light of text B, we’re making a potentially proper use of eisegesis. But they want to use those texts as positive evidence shutting the case against universalism, and reading their own positions into it just doesn’t accomplish that. (Helpful though it might otherwise be to show theological consistency of their own positions. Which I think is very, though not obviously, debatable in the case of Calvinist theology!)
No, all sins were forgiven and God is not counting our sins against us. That’s the objective (what is) part of reality. If that is not an objective truth upon which all truth is build - wherein lies faith, and in what? Our repentance? Never. That scenario makes Christ and the cross superfluous.
True repentance (that beautiful change of mind) lies in knowing (believing) one is already forgiven. It’s not enough to be sorry - the awareness of redemption is the gateway to true repentance and paradise.
Further, the whole basis of ‘remedial’ is that He is lovingly looking down on a sick person to cure and fix him - not to forgive or redeem him - those things have already happened.
Expanding on what Sonia said, we’re told not to leave any debt outstanding except the continuing debt to love one another. This implies continual reciprocal love-giving. It also implies that we do have one true debt - the debt to love others as ourselves. I think that the sins that Christ paid for directly are those that are a natural result of our brokenness that we honestly can’t help committing and don’t fully understand at the time that we are. The sin against the Holy Spirit is still based on a broken nature and bad habits, but is also intentional (done with the knowledge that it is wrong) and at least appears to be done out of free will because of that fact. Christ certainly paid for that, too, at least in an indirect way, as we only love because we have first been loved. But the onus is still on us to reverse the act through love, intentionally, since we also committed it intentionally. In that sense the sin is not ‘forgiven’ or excused as merely a product of our broken nature that we can’t help, one that can only be taken care of and healed by God.
Huh? Are you not 39 yrs old? So, you been studying the tribulation since you were 7 or 8? 
Ran, I agree with you that all sins were forgiven ( except for BTHS) and God is not counting sins against us.( 2Cor 5:19) I agree with your defintion of repentance. More on how this ties in with BTHS the only sin that is not forgivable.
I’m somewhat tempted to make a new screenname just so Aaron will read my posts.
Then why-o-why are you not considering UR as, at least, a possibility??? Are you so locked-in by what is expected of your doctrine that the truth is not quite there? That’s not to pick on you - that’s probably true of all Christians. If one is not seeking the truth, does that make one the teacher of all? No, that puts one among the religious, the semi-dead, and often. the hypocrites.
So fellow seeker, respect us as we respect you. That would be the Christian way to do this. Agreed? Try to understand our view, as we try to understand yours. We are all trying to find ourselves pleasing to God - the motivation is the same - we are all believers here!