I don't deny that universalism fails to meet the burden of proof. So do the other two views. None meets the burden of proof adequately to eliminate the other two as valid contenders. If I were teaching universal reconciliation without meeting the burden of proof, I would indeed be out of line. This why I do not do so.Long ago you maintained that the burden of proof is always on the person presenting an unorthodox position. And the universalist falls far short of that standard.
Surely you are not referring to the texts I listed two pages back—since none of them are "parts of sentences" (though a great deal of meaning can legitimately be derived from "parts of sentences"). I daresay that whatever view you hold will be largely supported by mere "parts of sentences"—whether the parts are terms like "eternal punishment" or whole phrases.I do not see how anyone can be considered to be unwilling to see a doctrine taught when presented with a series of proof texts, some of which are parts of sentences.
As for your comments about aionios judgment, I believe that you have been shown a dozen times here, if not more often, that aionios does not necessarily mean everlasting or eternal. Most scholars are comfortable saying that the word means "pertaining to, or enduring for, an age." You know this, but always act as if you have forgotten when bringing up pseudo proof texts against universal reconciliation.In Hebrews 6:1-2 we find a short list of elementary doctrines of Christianity. one of them is eternal punishment. Another is repentance. If some teacher(s) came along an taught something diametrically opposed to the necessity of repentance, and you or I failed to see it in scriptures, we could hardly be said to be unwilling, I would think.
I also believe that aionios judgment is a foundational doctrine, and no evangelical universalist would have any difficulty agreeing to this. Therefore, they do not need to meet any burden of proof against it. That the eschatological judgment pertains to the coming age is admitted by all.
Given the confusion over the doctrine of the deity of Christ for the first three centuries of Christianity, one might argue that such confusion over such a central question "would seem to call into question the capability of those who wrote the scriptures."If the doctrine of eternal punishment is apparently taught in scripture in ways diametrically opposed, it would seem to call into question the capability of those who wrote the scriptures.
Contrariwise, it might call into question whether we read the scriptures with traditional biases that the original readers did not possess, so that they did not have the same difficulty as we have in understanding the language and idioms of their time as we have. Alternatively, the writers may have remained unclear on subjects that they never intended to expound in the detail that we desired for them to expound them. Perhaps they believed, as I do, that there is no need for believers to concern themselves with the exact nature of God's judgment on the lost.