Picking on the spelling, geeze louise. How do you spell geeze? 
Which reminds me, where in the world does the edit button go? I’ll realize I made a mistake, want to go back and fix it and it’s gone!
they are all words that the spell checker doesn’t help with
Thanks I honestly appreciate the corrections.
Can’t say I’m surprised 
My point here is mainly that I believe EU is grounded on exegesis (rather than speculation, wishful thinking, ditching bible, etc.), just like Packer believes ECT is grounded on exegesis.
Oh, I’ve never seen that happen before. How often does it happen? What other buttons do you see when it happens? Which internet browser are you using? Have you asked Gene?
I’ve meant to ask Gene, but somehow always forget. I see the exclamation point and the quote buttons. For just a short time after I post the edit botton will be there, but in not too long it disappears on me. Browser? Oh, I do need help. I’ll have to ask Gene why this is. No biggie! 
I think the edit button only appears for a certain amount of time, then one misses their chance to do so (from my experience).
Interesting, that sounds like an annoying built-in “feature”, I’ll have to investigate it. Fortunately, it’s never happened to me, but that’s probably because I have a crazy level of access 
Anyway, back to Packer 
Insulting, but hardly a good argument, or at least not for EU 
No, the **Bible **says God is love, and EUs are merely quoting those texts!
Not only that, but all creation will be reconciled to God \o/
Aaron wrote some good stuff about this in The Universal Fatherhood of God and we discussed it in UR in the Lord’s Prayer?.
Alex,
It’s good to see your notes and understand your thinking.
However you said “the Bible says God is love.” This is the difficulty we are running into on the other thread. What do you mean by that statement? Wouldn’t God be a consuming fire (Heb 12:29), for example? Why is God being love (whatever that actually means) more important than God being three and one? Also aren’t you confusing a characteristic with an essential description?
I say all this not to bombard you, but to show that the statement by-itself is almost meaningless with explanation and context. It’s not a argument for universalism. A more accurate and powerful way of saying what I think your saying is; “God is loving and this is expressed in who he is as the Godhead.” - ‘God is love’ is a misleading statement.
Um … maybe someone should have informed John of that?? 
I think what at least some of us here believe–and I’m not sure if you’ve picked up on it or not–is that God is consistently, in all things, all the things that characterize Him. That is to say, in my perception, He isn’t “Love” sometimes and not other times. He is always love and always a consuming fire and always just. His justice is a consuming fire. His mercy is just. He is Good. He is Light. He is Love. He is Just.
None of his character is missing from any of His actions. They make up who He is. His justice acts in love, His love acts in justice. His mercy is love, His justice is merciful. When He is just toward someone, it is in love, as a consuming fire, bringing light, with good intent.
Sonia
I’m sure you didn’t mean to insult me by effectively saying God doesn’t care about precision and obeying his entire revelation. Just as I didn’t mean to insult you by questioning Alex’s use of the phrase “God is love” which if it was entirely self-evident, would mean we wouldn’t need the rest of Scripture.
Not at all, Luke! I apologize for insulting you, and certainly did not intend to. I’m not sure why you think I was implying that God does not care about precision. It seems to me the statement “God is love” is quite precise. Nor am I sure what that has to do with obeying God’s entire revelation. I’d welcome an explanation–perhaps I’m just being dense and missing the obvious.
I was not (and am not) at all insulted. 
I was trying to help clarify a position that many of us here hold. People tend to assume that when we point out that “God is love” we are elevating “love” above His other attributes, but that’s not the case.
I’m not sure what you mean by saying that the statement, “God is love” is misleading. In what way does it mislead people? Why would John, writing under inspiration, describe God in a misleading way?
In what way does “God is love” (not necessarily as “self-evident” but as further defined by John in his letter) negate the importance of the rest of scripture?
Sonia
I wasn’t sure what you meant because you used the angry devil icon.
Not wanting to reheat too much of the other thread but you can’t make a characteristic of God (which John is describing) his essential self. This is because God, the Christian God, is first and foremost the Trinity. Secondly God’s love means different things, we need to be precise about which phrase we are using and letting the context of that statement guide us. Lastly if we should talk about the essential nature of God it’s probably best just to say God being God. (Exodus 3 “I AM”)
This is why Alex can’t use the unexplained statement “God is love” as an argument for Universalism.
Thanks, I’ve been slowly plodding my way thru all the material Joe gave me, and it’s actually been rewarding, both for improving/clarifying my thinking and because I’ve found new arguments for EU
Yes, 1 John 4:8 says, “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.”
A very good question, and people have written my books on the statement! However, I’d start with combining 1 John 4:8 & 1 Cor 13:4-8a “God is patient, God is kind. God does not envy, God does not boast, God is not proud. God does not dishonor others, God is not self-seeking, God is not easily angered, God keeps no record of wrongs. God does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. God always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. God never fails.” Does that sound like someone planning, sustaining and delighting in Endless Conscious Torment?
He is, consuming the impurities in people.
It isn’t. I think both those statements are equally important 
I hope not 
Thanks, I don’t feel bombarded
Fair enough. I’ll try to add some explanation and context.
Perhaps with explanation and context 
I agree with that statement, although I’m unsure if it’s “*more *accurate and powerful”.
I think “misleading” is too harsh, perhaps “unhelpful” or “inconclusive”?
I took so long to write that post, you and Sonia had both posted! 
Anyway, I agree that, “Alex can’t use the unexplained statement “God is love” as an argument for Universalism.”. It definitely needs further explanation, not only because “love” has such a wide meaning in English, but also so others see we aren’t limiting God to just one characteristic, excluding other essential characteristics like the Triune nature of God and the fact He is all powerful, all knowing, eternal, etc.
I agree, except I’d probably say “extremely integral to God’s very being”, rather than “the last word to be spoken of God”.
I agree.
Talbott has a lot of helpful things to say about this in the “Inescapable Love of God”. Basically they aren’t polar opposites like some people try to portray. Very interrelated, i.e. His love is just and His justice loving. And yes, I think the Bible leads us to believe this.
Amen.
Taking into consideration the complications of the NT’s “now & not yet”. e.g. I’m saved, but not yet sanctified.
Would a Calvinist say that about the elect who have not yet heard? If yes, then I say yes, if no, then I say no I’m not trying to be contrary, but the relationship between God, who is All Powerful, All Knowing & outside of time, and us within time and with what appears (& hopefully is) to be free will, is complex!
Hmm. Well if you want to put it like that, I guess that’s ok. From our perspective that’s the way it pans out. From God’s perspective outside of time, I don’t know?
Let’s say Christ has opened the door to salvation, and that belief is stepping thru that door. Does the door exist before you step thru it? Yes. Does the salvation exist before you step thru it? Yes. Are you saved before you step thru the door? Yes & no. The salvation is already there waiting for you, but you haven’t yet obtained it. Even non-EUs have the concept of common grace e.g. God gives everyone life & sustains everyone.
I agree people don’t receive Life until they believe, and until they do, they are perishing and under wrath. However, I don’t see this as excluding the possibility, of those perishing and under wrath, from believing.
That doesn’t seem very conclusive, given that up until Calvin (?), the Church thought post-mortem salvation was possible!
That they might die in their sins. But it says nothing about what happens when they are resurrected on Judgement Day and after that… I’m also glad Jesus, unlike Packer, doesn’t say this is the “ultimate disaster”.
See TEU. Basically an existing Pharisaical parable that Jesus added a twist to, not to mention the fact that the two men where able to hold a conversation (in spite of the deafening screams of all the people in ECT) and that he was asked to pass him a drink over this “great gulf” 
Given we believe it’s “by faith not works”, this passage poses some big problems if interpreted with ECT theology. Sherman will no doubt will help me out with this one, explaining that it’s actually judgement on Christians here. And of course there’s the issue again that Jesus wouldn’t have said “eternal” but most likely “olam”, which is much closer to “beyond sight” than it is to “infinity”.
A Judgement of works is part of traditional Christian doctrine. (Jesus changes the outcome for the elect and the rewards/punishment thing might also come into play at this stage.)
Cool, we agree on this
I can only assume that this is a non-literal phrase (given God could’ve chosen not to make Judas), meaning that Judas was going to suffer a lot of pain.
And what an amazing example of grace that is, to forgive a friend who betrays you.
Yes, Jesus was simply saying Judas won’t like Hell while he was there.
I don’t think the rest of the NT speaks in similar terms.
Certainly an argument for hell but not necessarily ECT.
Yes, I believe in Judgement Day…
I think they encourage decisiveness, but don’t rule out decisions being made post-mortem.