I don't know. For me, I don't think there's any way to answer that question without knowing the specifics of a person's life and whether or not God had ever given them a measure of faith or had exposed them to the gospel message of Christ. I don't have that kind of knowledge of any person, do you? I mean, any example I give of God giving them the truth would be speculation.
Like if I said "oh that person saw the creation around him or her and that is direct evidence that there is a creator." Well, yeah, that's true. But what in particular about the surrounding creation let's you know that the creator who made your surroundings, is the same creator as revealed in the Bible to be God? All you know from creation is that there is a creator, not that that creator is God.
If I said, "oh well, God could have revealed the truth to them in a dream." Again speculation without any proof on my part. Also, how many of us have written our dreams off as nothing more than a dream?
If I said "Oh well, there are so many Bibles, internet sites, tv programs and evangelists etc. all over the world, that there is no way that anyone could not be exposed to the truth." Again, speculation without evidence. Now I could point to the conscience and say "the truth of God has been written on the heart of every human being," And that'd be true, but alot of people don't regard their conscience as being God's truth, but rather a little voice inside of you that has been shaped by your culture and upbringing and is not absolute or binding upon anybody else, the way God's truth is said to be.
But all speculation aside about why God does what God does, we have all been called to the Great Commission and I think that takes top priority over any speculation we could quibble about as to why God does what God does. God knows who are part of the elect, we do not. We have to engage everyone we can and give them a law and gospel presentation so that they may know the truth and have a chance to know God. I consider it a great big scavenger hunt.
Based on your last two posts, I think I have misunderstood your position on universal reconciliation. Perhaps I have confused some of your posts with someone else's posts, because it appears to me that at the bottom line, you and I actually have the same opinion on the concept of universal reconciliation.
The argument in the previous thread was that universal reconciliation is FALSE. To me, "false" means definitely wrong, will never happen, impossible. In that sense, I cannot say it is false, any more than I can say whether or not every individual has been or will be given an opportunity to repent.
I also cannot say universal reconciliation is TRUE. I can say I think it is likely true, and give my reasons, but they are not the kind of conclusive proof you are asking for, and I may be wrong. I would certainly not treat universal reconciliation as a dogma, because it is not. It is a matter on which many Christians disagree.
In other words, universal reconciliation, in my mind, is neither dogmatically true, nor dogmatically false. It is speculative. I think the Jonah narrative is the best proof I have that it is possible, perhaps likely, certainly not demonstrably and dogmatically false. Calling someone who believes it a heretic or a false teacher would be wrong.
Rather, I would say they have faith that God's character is merciful, and have resolved Jonah's dilemma in a different way than Jonah did. Whether this is something a Christian is free to do with God's approval is a question of practical theology and ethics which I think is worth discussing. However, one cannot reach this ethical question while asserting dogmatically that the belief in universal reconciliation is FALSE.
OTOH, I think I can also understand calling universal reconciliation a heresy can also be an attempt to resolve Jonah's dilemma. If the Ninevites had asked Jonah, "If we repent, will God relent and not destroy us?" How should Jonah have responded to that direct question? Should Jonah have said, "No. God's message to you is that you WILL be destroyed, not that you MAY be destroyed?" IOW, how far is the prophet called to go in defending the message God has given him to deliver?
ISTM, your resolution, to say, "I don't know," or better yet, "The answer to that question is not part of the message God has given me to deliver to you," would be better responses. In the book of Jonah, the Ninevites never asked Jonah that question, so we don't know how he would/should have answered if the Ninevites had heightened his dilemma to that degree.
You, however, have asked exactly that kind of question. Several posters have answered in different ways. One explanation for the difference in answers is that different posters have resolved Jonah's dilemma in different ways.
Why are you frustrated? This is an internet forum, not life or death. What you need for the doctrine of universal salvation is verses that say that one, people will get out of the Lake of Fire, and two, when people will get out of the Lake of Fire. If you have that, then you can answer the third part of my assertion which is, how long the "age" will be that people will be suffering in the Lake of Fire. If you had those verses, you'd have a much stronger case on your hands.
Why are you demanding this? The Ninevites didn't ask Jonah, "When will God forgive us?"
I think Chaela is trying to say to you (and I hope she will correct me if I'm wrong) is that she is confident that God will have mercy, even though God has not revealed when or how.
When people get out of the Lake of Fire is your question, not hers. She does not need an answer to that question. There are many human question that God does not answer.
Well, actually you DO need those verses and their absence from scripture has to tell you something. That perhaps they're not in scripture, because universal salvation is not something God is going to grant.
"Perhaps" is the key word here, as I see it.
The verses aren't there. If they were, you could produce them and you can't. Just concede that point. The problem with universalism is that, imo, it's not a complete doctrine, because it doesn't give any assurance to anybody about when they will ultimately be reconciled with God. The Catholic doctrine of Purgatory at least addresses this issue. First it makes the distinction that Purgatory is not the same as the LoF and that people do get out of Purgatory when their sins have been atoned for through works. Now to me, that's completely heretical, but that's a whole separate debate. As repugnant as I find the idea of Purgatory to be, I still have more respect for it as a doctrine, because at least it's complete in scope. I can't say that for Universalism. Universalism is too open ended, as there's no definitive answer to the ultimate question with it. And the question is, when do people get released from the Lake of Fire?
It's not a complete doctrine, and therefore the Church has never taught it as dogma. However, I believe the Church would be wrong to condemn it as dogmatically false, also. To say to those who wish to speculate about it that this is not a safe way to resolve Jonah's dilemma is probably as far as the church could go, but that would be an ethical/pragmatic matter (I think the Orthodox might use the word oikonomia here) rather than a matter of declaring universal reconciliation as dogmatically false.
I believe it. No matter what you do, no matter how much evidence you think you have, you will never satisfy some people on certain issues, because they will argue and debate it to the nth degree. You learned a valuable lesson. I've been in discussions like that too. What people, like the ones you were most likely talking to in that forum, wanted was for you to satisfy their evidentiary requirements, which will ultimately be impossible since the standard that is in play is their own.
Is that what you have been trying to prove by insisting the essential requirement is a Bible verse that answers the question, "When will people get out of the Lake of Fire?" 
Yeah, some people want that because they can't or won't apply Biblical principles to issues that were not issues when the scriptures were written. Legalized abortion was not an issue the way it is today. So instead of reading God's word and applying the principles, they want a black and white scriptural presentation showing why abortion is wrong. They want everything to be black and white and alot of times in scritpture, we find that things are not black and white.
Except when. That is the question that remains unanswered.
A question that remains unanswered. Exactly.
