Evangelicals and Universalism?

Is it possible for evangelical Christians to believe that all people will be saved? The question has been hotly debated ever since the publication last year of Rob Bell's book Love Wins. My friend Robin Parry has recently published a challenging article in The Evangelical Quarterly arguing that these two positions, being an evangelical and believing everyone will be saved, are not mutually exclusive, and that universalism is in fact "authentically evangelical." Whether or not he convinces everyone, his theological arguments are well thought out and worth listening to. Here is one short extract:

"Arminian evangelicals have always maintained that God loves all people, wants to save all people, and sent Christ to die for all people to achieve this goal. 'Evangelical' universalists agree. Calvinist evangelicals have always maintained that God will achieve all his purposes in salvation; that all for whom Christ died will be saved. 'Evangelical' universalists agree. But, of course, the Arminian belief-set and the Calvinist belief-set, when combined, entail universalism. Consider:
     1. God, being omnipotent, could cause all people to freely accept Christ.
     2. God, being omniscient, would know how to cause all people to freely accept Christ.
     3. God, being omnibenevolent, would want to cause all people to freely accept Christ.
(Premises 1 and 2 are Calvinist whilst premise 3 is Arminian.) Now 1-3 entail:
     4. God will cause all people to freely accept Christ.
From which it follows that
     5. All people will freely accept Christ.
My point in presenting this argument is not, in this context, to persuade readers to be universalists. Rather, it is simply to illustrate that widely accepted evangelical beliefs can, in certain circumstances, motivate universalism. Both the Arminian and the Calvinist belief-sets above are evangelical-compatible, so are 'evangelical' universalists unevangelical because they believe both? That seems odd. Or must evangelicals believe either (a) that God cannot save all without violating their freedom (Arminianism), or (b) that God does not want to save all (Calvinism)?"

Robin Parry, "Evangelical Universalism: Oxymoron?" Evangelical Quarterly 84 (2012) 16.

Even though Parry's article is appealing, the part of the argument I would like to see better fleshed out is how universalism can be motivated from the New Testament. In the same issue of The Evangelical Quarterly Derek Tidball responds negatively, that Scripture will not allow us to affirm universalism. After a quick survey of Jesus' teaching, Paul's teaching, and the teaching of the General Epistles and Revelation, Tidball concludes:

"Whatever our emotions may say concerning the lost state of the impenitent, it is very hard to find a doctrine of universalism in the New Testament, whether of a general variety or the more specific 're-educative' variety proposed by Parry. There are two distinct forms of universalism which the NT does teach and two only: (i) that the offer of salvation is universal in its scope in the present time and is available to all without distinction of race, gender, wealth or social standing, and (ii) that God will reign 'all in all' when the whole of creation is brought into submission, voluntarily or otherwise, to his rule at some future time....
     Universal homage will one day be paid to the King of kings and Lord of lords. Does that mean all will be saved whether they have gone directly into his presence or come into it via a temporary, if terrifying, detour in hell? The Bible presents no evidence to support the latter. Hell is presented as the final destination of the impenitent rather than a temporary deviation. To believe otherwise is to 'clutch at insubstantial straws'."

Derek Tidball, "Can Evangelicals Be Universalists?" Evangelical Quarterly 84 (2012) 29-30.