I posted:

'I am a convinced universalist' (William Barclay - http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/17444.htm )

#1:

You, Rowland, instead of repeating Barclay's mistake, need to pay more attention to why Origen and Origens' beliefs were condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

#2:

They were condemned because Origen went too far, saying that demons and Satan himself would eventually be saved. The salvation of the demons has no scriptural warrant. Nowhere does it say God will have mercy upon "all demons." On the other hand, it says God will have mercy on "all men."

Explain to me how it is merciful for God to send people to everlasting torment? Could you draw me a diagram or picture?

#1:

And that alone should have been enough to persuade you of Barclays' error. For just as Barclay quoted it, it does say 'eternal'.

#2:

The word is actually "eons." That is, time-bound. If the new heaven and the new earth are not bound by time, then perhaps neither will hell be bound by our current conception of "time."

Apart from that, the "Sheep and Goats" parable cannot be taken literally, or else we would have to believe that man is saved by good works alone (directly contrary to just about the entirety of the letters of St, Paul)

#!:

Barclay is dreaming here. By no means is such a restriction true. In Euripides "Helen" (line 1172), for example, it means "to punish with DEATH". Hardly remedial.

#2:

Euripides? You are using Greek from 400 years before Christ, to explain what it meant then? You need to sharpen your historical saw.

#3:

God is perfect and his actions would be perfect. Eternal punishment is an imperfect solution to deal with a 'rejected' soul. Ergo, either eternal punishment does not exist or God does not. Why do you allow a man-written scripture such as that quoted above to override this obvious truth? You have never done anything to convincingly defend the notion that eternal punishment is NOT imperfect!