Didn't you know? He did wipe them out.Hmmmm... I wonder why He didn't wipe out Oholah and Oholibah (metaphorically Samaria and Jerusalem) who also sacrificed their children to idols.
Homer wrote:
Wow! My statement about this really surprised you? Have you not heard me every time I mention my view—namely, that I don't believe any of the three views has the scriptural proof to overthrow its competitors. I have said consistently, from my very first comment of the subject, that the Bible does not affirm or deny postmortem repentance. Can you really have read the scores of posts I have addressed to you and failed to know my position on this? Where have you been in our discussion?So you admit that universalism is "outside of revealed scripture", given the necessity of repentance in any system of reconciliation with God. Although more than once I have thought you had become a convinced universalist, you maintain you can not decide because you say there is not enough scripture to base your decision on.
To say that postmortem repentance is "outside scripture" (or, "extra-biblical") is not any argument against it. The scripture is silent on this specific matter. Both the affirmation and the denial of postmortem repentance are "outside scripture." Yet one of the positions must necessarily be true. There are many specific questions about which scripture is silent. However, those who take a position on one side or the other of such issues do so because they believe other clearly-taught doctrines in scripture require the conclusion on the points not mentioned. This is a reasonable approach to theology and scriptural studies.
I don't post a criticism of every unsupportable claim made by others in this forum. When I post, I am answering irrational criticisms made by one person about the views of another. I don't agree with every statement made by conditionalists or universalists here. I don't have to weigh in on every statement with which I disagree. I often cannot resist weighing in when someone (who ought to know better) continues to lambaste with vacuous arguments the position held by another. The reason I have more often defended universalism than conditionalism is very simple: conditionalists constantly make absurd and unkind criticisms of universalists. I have not found the universalists to do the same to the conditionalists.Given your statement above, I can not understand why you defend the universalist viewpoint with such zeal. If you are being candid about your position, it would seem that you would equally attack all dogmatic claims by universalists (there are many made) just as you do the traditional views.