Hat tip to Chris Price (“Layman”) over at the Cadre for bringing this to my attention.
reasonablefaith.org/site/New … le&id=6101
I think WLC is speculating pretty far to come up with an ‘epistemic distance’ for the angels originally, in order to get around having to admit that Satan had more advantages than anyone and still chose to sin.
I would also say that his notion of zero free will while still being able to ‘love’ is highly incoherent. Option 2 makes more sense (from a non-universalistic standpoint).
We’ve only been shown the story up to a particular point (at the end of RevJohn), with the promise elsewhere (1 Cor 15 comes to mind, but plenty of other places, too, NT and OT) that things will be further resolved after that. I don’t recall any scriptural promise at all to the effect that those who are redeemed will never ever possibly be able to fall again; and at least a few scriptural elements to the effect that even the people in the ‘best’ positions still may fall (Satan, Adam and Eve being the archetypal examples of this). That rebellion after the 1000 years of Christ’s reign when Satan is let out again, near the end of RevJohn, looks on the face of it to be one example of further rebellion after what a lot of people would consider to be “the final happy ending”. And an Arminian and universalist, either one, has no problem acknowledging that the Hebraist in the warnings of his epistle is specifically addressing backsliding Christians.
But the real sticking point is whether we can always hope for God to be acting to save sinners from sin, or not. Those who have no hope of that, are naturally going to want assurance that after some point they’re safe from the threat of hopelessness.
(Though one could also want assurance that after some point other people are safe from the threat of us! {g} Any of the three basic soteriology proponents could hope for that, including universalists. But closer and closer free cooperation with God is the only safeguard against the threat of us. Unless God simply eliminates the ‘us’ of us altogether, of course, which in effect was option (3) of the questioner. But then it’s pointless to speak of ‘us’ being saved; only some puppet simulacras of us.)
Anyway, back to my current big project (catching up on recent crits against trinitarianism). Discuss!! 
JRP