Christian Universalism is Biblical

Thank you, rjohnson741.Recap of my argumentIn the previous round, I made the following argument:1. A person who is saved will (1) have their sins forgiven, (2) be spared the wrath of God, (3) not come under the judgment of God, and (4) have eternal life.2. There are some people who (1) will not have their sins forgiven, (2) will suffer the wrath of God, (3) will come under the judgment of God, and (4) will not have eternal life.3. Therefore, there are some people who will not be saved.Since universalism is the belief that all people will be saved, and since there are some people who will not be saved, it follows that universalism is false.Pro's rebuttalIn Pro's response, he affirms my second premise. He says, "Those scriptures you quoted clearly say unbelievers will be judged, punished and suffer the wrath of God."Pro attacks my first premise by saying that whatever wrath sinners must endure is only temporary, and eventually everybody will be saved. So it is possible for a person to be saved even if they have to suffer the wrath of God.The problem with Pro's response is that he makes it while ignoring my argument to the contrary. I showed that in a Biblical context, the salvation that Jesus died for was a salvation from the wrath of God. If a person is saved from the wrath of God, then they will not suffer the wrath of a God. If a person suffers the wrath of God, then they are not saved from the wrath of God. It really is that simple.It doesn't matter whether wrath is temporary or not. If it happens that wrath is temporary, and a person has to suffer it, then that person will not have been saved from the wrath of God. So even if it's true that people will eventually be reconciled to God, that is not salvation.And a person who suffers the wrath of God is not forgiven, because if they were forgiven, then they would not have to suffer the wrath of God. In the case of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, Pro argues that since "age" refers to a temporary period of time, the fact that a person will not be forgiven in the "age to come" doesn't mean they'll never be forgiven. But that is irrelevant because if a person is not forgiven in the age to come, then they will suffer the wrath and condemnation of God in the age to come and will therefore not be saved. Pro claims that "Matthew 12:31-33 says the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will NOT be forgiven. That scripture doesn't say the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will NEVER be forgiven. NOT and NEVER do not mean the same thing." But in the parallel passage in Mark 3:29, Jesus says, "whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness."Pro claims my scriptures only show that unbelievers are "under the wrath of God" in the same sense that believers were before they became believers. But that is false. Colossians 3:5-6, for example, explicitly says that "the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience." That means God is actually going to execute his wrath on some people. 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10 says that Jesus "rescues us from the wrath to come." That means wrath is actually coming. Somebody is going to suffer it. And Revelation 16 talks about God pouring out his wrath on mankind. Besides all that, Pro admitted that people will suffer the wrath of God. He said, "Those scriptures you quoted clearly say unbelievers will be judged, punished and suffer the wrath of God."As far as people eventually gaining eternal life after suffering the wrath and judgment of God, Jesus said, "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matthew 7:14). So Pro's whole argument about "age" referring to a temporary period of time are moot. Even if the "age to come" is only temporary, Jesus ruled out any possibility that everybody will gain eternal life in some future age.Pro's original argumentPro has completely dropped his original argument for universal salvation, so my refutation of that argument stands.ConclusionSince Pro has dropped his argument for universal salvation, and since he has failed to refute either of the premises in my argument against universal salvation, Pro has not carried his burden of proof in this debate.I would like to recommend to Pro that he use paragraphs in his final round. It makes it easier for people to read, and the voters (if there be any) will appreciate that.Thank you.