King again quoted
I believe that Romans 11:32 is the grand conclusion of grace theology in Paul magnum opus and is without a doubt teaching unconditional universalism for each individual. This verse is the center piece of my new book at dgjc.org/optimism and is fully exegeted here dgjc.org/optimism/romans-11-32-36.
Now I plan to buy King’s book, but I can tell we see the main point quite differently! 
One question I am researching along these lines is whether the White horse in Revelation 6 is the same event as the White horse in Revelation 19. One could try to understand Revelation as a prophesy of events and judgments, concerning Jerusalem or otherwise, beginning with the White horse in Revelation 6. John then returns to the same white horse in Revelation 19 to communicate that these events he just described in the body of the book are now beginning. This literary device would be called a framing-effect. I’ve tried to understand it that way, but after some effort it seems too cumbersome.
Have you ever considered the possibility of an Historicist approach with different beasts at different times? For example perhaps Nero was the first beast, the RCC the second, Islam as the third?
I do believe Revelation covers a larger part of history and that the Millenial Kingdom and GWT are still future. So yes I do believe the 1st and 2nd white horse are separate events. However, I have little to share about what they may be in detail. I am not sure. More important to me is that regarding the 1st Beast out of Thalassa, the sea, and the 2nd Beast out of the Earth, I think the first Beast is a fallen angel whereas the 2nd Beast is a human being. You would have to read my ebook and especially the appendix to follow my arguments.
I take a slightly different angle than many universalists, in that my understanding of the judgments assigned to fallen angels helps to properly understand passages like Matthew 25 and Revelation 20. If you cannot read my whole book, you might find this article interesting, dgjc.org/optimism/fallen-angels-at-the-great-white-throne-judgment.
Please provide a quote from a text written no later than A. D. 30 that presents Gehenna as a place of post-mortem punishment. The earliest I have ever seen the Greek word “gehenna” used for post-mortem punishments was possibly by Justin Martyr in the second half of the 2nd century, and definitely by Clement of Alexandria (who was a universalist) in the late 2nd century.
I would like to emphasize in the kindest way possible that I am not interested in a quote from a modern writer asserting what Jesus’s contemporaries supposedly believed about Gehenna. I am interested only in texts unambiguously written no later than A. D. 30. (To be fair, I must admit that I have been asking for this for years, and no one has ever been able to provide me with such a text.)
I do believe Revelation covers a larger part of history and that the Millenial Kingdom and GWT are still future. So yes I do believe the 1st and 2nd white horse are separate events
Yes and how these horses are viewed is connected to ones eschatology. Some believe the white horse is the Papacy, the red horse is Communism, the black horse is Capitalism and the pale green horse is Islam.
“Houston we have a problem”. Your approach in dealing with what I’m postulating is NOT “consistent” BUT convenient. To be sure, my inclusive prêterist position of pantelism is in the paddock next door to universalism, BUT IF you cannot deal with the pantelist rationale for looking through your anti-universalist glasses, which seems apparent, then you will keep reading over my responses without giving due diligent simply skipping merrily ahead to your next question on your list… THAT won’t work qaz.
For example: IF you are a consistent prêterist, i.e., a full prêterist (are you?) THEN you need to answer from the full prêterist rationale the argument I raised from 1Cor 15:26 and not just blindly skip past it as though it isn’t there… it is there and glaringly so! So let me repeat it for you…
You need to deal with this qaz and not just brush it aside as universalism; it’s not universalism it’s preteristic… show some consistency.
To the first part of your question… Jesus’ warning about ‘Gehenna’ would have been understood by his audience (remember the prêterist hermeneutic of ‘audience relevance’) as a reference to death and destruction as typified by Jerusalem’s rubbish-heap off the southwest wall of the City, in the Valley of Hinnom… forever smouldering and endlessly crawling with “worms” (maggots).
As to your 2nd point where you state… “Gehenna was understood among 1st century Jews as a place of post-mortem punishment” I find that extremely questionable and point you HERE:
Again… taking a consistent prêteristic approach AND sticking with the Gk. text and so not just reading right over the text, consider this…
“Traditionally” verses 27-28 have been rendered as given above. Accordingly, this translation is mostly understood to assert a post death individual judgment, but is this what is really being said? – the Pantelistic view does not believe so. Read in the larger context of verses 23-28 the focus of this passage is in accordance with the perpetual sacrificial ministry of the high priests, typifying and in contradistinction to Jesus’ once for all atoning death. The conventional reading does not reflect the true intent of the passage, nor the flavour of Hebrews as a whole i.e., the “better priesthood” or “better sacrifice” etc. Between the words “it is appointed for” and “men to die once” is the Greek definite article “the” and correctly parsed reads “those” (tois – τοις). This word is used again in the very next verse concerning “…those who eagerly wait for Him…” – so it should rightly read:
Read in this fashion gives those two little words as and so their proper and essential contextual meaning and application. It was in this foreshadowing ministration of the Old Testament priesthood of those men that the pattern was laid for Israel’s Messiah to come and perform the ultimate sacrifice, of Himself, “to put away sin” by His better and more perfect offering, that now sees all redemptive and prophetic history sealed – for the Great High Priest has returned!
Again, try taking “fulfilment” into consideration when reading this instead of reading yourself back into the text. IF they didn’t remain faithful to the end (AD70) they would duly “perish” i.e., they too would be “drawn back to perdition” that is, ‘destruction’ as per verse 39.
King definitely wrote from a non (I wouldn’t say anti) universalistic approach… AND HE WAS RIGHT. Paul’s “universalism” (for sake of a better word) centred around the “community” of ‘corporate’ Israel – not the individual. Having said that, King speaking of the “all in Adam/Christ motif” argues (rightly IMO) against a nominal universalist understanding, challenging this according to his corporate/community view etc, with which again I agree. Which is WHY qaz I as a pantelist haven’t raised the “all in Adam/Christ motif” universalist-type argument. Like I stated above when it comes to INCLUSION (as distinct from universalism)… “There are of course other texts that feed into this pantelistic rationale.”
SO you conclude that any such individual CANNOT be ‘in God’ as in God being “all in all” (regardless of timeframes) and this basically your OWN judgment as per “works” i.e., having “not done what God wants”. Well consider this: how could you claim to have “Christ within…” and yet in all probability possess in your life any number of errant works/sins/poor behaviour/impure thoughts etc and yet somehow judge others as being less ‘in God’ than yourself? IOW, can you draw THAT boundary, OR has God “in Christ” already done it? I would suggest it is the latter.
None of the Talmud was written before A. D. 200.
As far as I know, the Book of Enoch does not use the word Gehenna. Please give us chapter and verse references to any mention of the word Gehenna in the Book of Enoch.
4 Ezra was written in the late 1st century A. D., or in the 2nd century A. D.
We see that of the three references you gave, two of them were written long after A. D. 30, and one of them does not mention Gehenna. I have never seen any proof at all of the word Gehenna being used before A. D. 30 to refer to post-mortem torments.
Your absolutist reasoning isn’t too consistent and certainly not so helpful to your cause… consider the implications of your logic:
Do YOU sin? If yes, is this not indicative that YOU “who sin are not submitting to God” QED… YOU are an enemy of God! THAT at least IF you are consistent is the outcome of your position. What then does that do for any claim to being “in Christ” – can such be even possible according to your position??
Again qaz, putting it simply… as a prêterist, so assuming you believe Paul’s “the last enemy” was “destroyed” as per Christ’s parousia… HOW is it you say there are yet MORE enemies PAST this death and this event? IOW… can you explain what “the last enemy to be destroyed is death” means to you IF it doesn’t mean the total desolation of that which to that point had separated man from God.
If you are in the US, see if you can obtain a copy, from you local library, inter-library loan program. Or see an equivalent program, in a foreign country.
Holy Fool, Batman! That’s a good idea! 
Embarrassingly though, I still owe the Jackson County Interlibrary loan system $5 for the last search they did for me. So I’ll have to go there and pay the fine AND get the scolding from the 203 year-old mumblecrust that is in charge of dressings-down. Not a big deal: after my morning affirmations (“I am good, and I am worthwhile, and doggone it, people LIKE me!”) I should be up for it. 
(for those that might not know, the painting RK attached to his posting above is titled “The Holy Fool”)
I don’t know Dave. I have had the Carol Stream, Illinois library do many searches for me, over the years. They never charged me a fee. It’s looks like yours has found an additional way to capitalize. 
So you like it, do you Davo?
To put it into words:
[size=150]“There is no need for repentance since 70 A.D. since the judgment took place at that time.”[/size]
If I can respectfully reply using davo’s own words:
"Certainly by its very nature much of Scripture is Israel-centric or specific. This however in no way negates its value for believers post Parousia in applying its truths and principles beyond the firstfruits time frame or “age” for this reason: Israel was the redemptive microcosm for what God was outworking redemptively ON BEHALF OF the whole creation – macrocosm. Thus explaining the above…
God predestined-called-elected historic Israel; out of Israel He chose a remnant; through this remnant came the Christ (Messiah); through Christ God called a remnant (the NT firstfruit saints); through this remnant God delivered (saved) all Israel; and in redeemed Israel the whole world obtained the reconciliation.
So then, God’s unilateral covenant with the Gentile Abram that “in you ALL families of the earth would be blessed” Gen 12:3 found fruition in the Seed – Christ, and thus through Christ’s Body – the firstfruit believers, was ministered the redemptive plan and purpose of God for and ON BEHALF OF humanity, ALL humanity. This is how that which had a fixed “this generation” fulfilment, purpose and reality extends through the Parousia embracing all."
Sorry davo, if I stole ur thunder, but by golly, what you said on that other post was so, so, so, true!!
If I may reply using my own words:
Repentance is always necessary, and nothing that happened via the preterist view negated the fact that individuals needed to understand sin and thus repentance was and still is a necessary part of the Christian walk.
All good Chad!
So Paidion… what you’re really saying is the ONLY reason you “repent” is due to some expectant a future judgment; NOT because it might simply be the right thing to do. That sounds just as your moniker “paidion” παιδίον might suggest… the reasoning of “a little child”. 
Switching subjects a bit here is another Scripture relevant to the discussion,
1 Corinthians 15:55, "O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?”
There is a textual variant here where many English translations miss the emphasis on Hades. The proper translation is important because it reinforces the hope that the gates of Hades will be defeated as is explicitly shown in Revelation 20:13.
A.E. Knoch tries to use this verse to show that the Lake of Fire will be emptied, because he understood as many Universalists that human beings will be punished in the Lake of Fire. If humans are punished in the LOF, then we need to understand how they will be removed. However, I still think the better model is that the LOF is reserved solely for the damnation of Satan and his fallen angel following, the goats on Jesus’ left.
Unbelieving humans beings, however, are punished in the temporal fires of Hades. 1 Corinthians 15:55 and numerous other Scripture warn of this punishment, but the greater hope that salvation is promised even for those suffering there.
Though I am intrigued The preterist position that Hades has already been emptied, I just cannot follow the arguments from Scripture. There seems to be a joy that salvation is completed at the cross, which it is, but a denial a remaining sin and God’s loving and just response to mankind’s sin. The victory is won, but there are still skirmishes to be fought.