God and hell: The philosophy of universal salvation
We can put our Bibles down now. We've done a lot of work in the Bible to see if universal salvation is at least plausible, and I think we've determined that it's no less plausible than the idea of eternal damnation. In fact, verse for verse, there's much more support for universal salvation than there is for eternal damnation, and the few verses that speak of eternal damnation in English are much less clear in Greek.
A note on the Bible
Remember, the Bible isn't the word of God! We can step outside the Bible and reason about our salvation and our place in the universe on our own. After all, that's all the authors of the Bible were doing - they experienced God, then they tried to reason about what God wanted, what God offered, and what our response should be. God didn't speak directly to most of the authors of the Bible, but he did roughly preserve their words as a way to learn more about him. The Bible we have today is not the word of God, but I believe it's the book God wanted nevertheless; word of God or not, it is still θεόπνευστος, in the sense that it is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
When I determined that the Bible isn't God's literal word, I had trouble understanding why I should trust it at all. But in the last year, I had an opportunity to ask a brief question to Dr. Aaron Higashi, professor of theology at Grand Canyon University, and he really helped me reason about why I should believe the Bible, even if it's not God's perfect word:
Me: "If the Bible isn't perfect, why can we trust it? What makes it more trustworthy than any other religious text?"
Dr. Higashi: "Everything we trust is imperfect. Perfection is never a requirement for trust. You trust the Bible for much the same reason you trust other things, because it is a reliable partner. Reliable partner for what? For facilitating your relationship with God and with a community that nurtures that relationship."
That really helped me put things in perspective. I'd never heard it explained like that before because, like "religious atheists", most non-progressive Christians happily accept that if the Bible is not perfect, it can't be true. On the other hand, most progressive Christians reject the Bible as scripture outright in favor of a feelings-based approach to theology that rejects objective truth. There's very little middle ground on the Christian side of the culture war for people who believe that theology is objective and knowable, but who also reject the Bible as God's literal word.
In short, I believe that theology is philosophical. The Bible is indispensable in pursuit of a correct theology, but it is not the only source of correct theology - nor, I daresay, does it include only correct theology. God gave us the ability to reason, and I believe that he expects us to use it. This is part of why I accept the conclusions of modern scientists (as do millions of Christians across the globe, as well as the many orthodox Christians who work in the sciences themselves): Rejecting the scientific process, which is one of the ultimate odes to human reason, is a rejection of humanity's God-given ability to think. The process isn't perfect, but it's the best one we have. The failings of the scientific process are generally the failings of man in other areas as well, including theology and organized religion: Power. Money. Self-importance. Dogma. The problem isn't science - like usual, the problem is people.
The philosophy of universal salvation
The attributes of God
Envision God in your mind. What are his qualities? A conservative Christian might suggest that his qualities are that he is omniscient, omnipotent, and all-loving. (Of course, the omniscience of God is limited to the knowable: God doesn't know the sum of (3 + blue) because the expression is meaningless; nor is God capable of upending the rules of logic, for example to create a number that is both greater than itself and less than itself at the same time. God's omniscience and omnipotence are limited, but only in the sense of logical limitations that cannot be meaningfully broken.)
From the Bible, we know things about God that others have asserted. For example, God is not willing that any should perish (John 3:16-17, 2 Peter 3:9). For sake of our argument, "perish" means "enter the Second Death"; whether that consists of eternal conscious torment or spiritual annihilation is up to the proclivities of the reader. God also does whatever he pleases (Psalm 135:6) and fulfills all his purposes (Job 42:2). God is all-powerful (Job 42:2, Jeremiah 32:17,27) and all-knowing (Romans 11:33, Psalm 147:5, Job 37:16).
These are qualities of God that we can all agree on if we take the Bible at its word (even if we don't take the Bible as God's word). It's clearly spelled out right there in the text. The doctrine of eternal conscious torment is incompatible with at least some of these qualities of God, qualities which we know are true from the Bible! In order for God to send people to hell forever, at least one of these suppositions must be false.
Possibility 1: God isn't all-powerful
If God is not willing that any should perish, does whatever he pleases, and is all-knowing, then the only way sinners can go to hell forever is if God isn't all-powerful.
God doesn't want anyone to perish. He also does whatever he pleases, so if he doesn't want anyone to perish (in other words, he isn't pleased to let anyone perish), then he would try to save everyone. Because God is all-knowing, he knows exactly what pressure points to apply to each person in order to get them to be saved. The only thing God lacks in this scenario is the ability to act. No major Christian denomination teaches this.
Possibility 2: God wants people to perish
If God does whatever he pleases, fulfills all his purposes, is all-powerful and all-knowing, then the only way sinners can go to hell forever is if God wants them to.
God is all-powerful and all-knowing, so he can do anything and knows everything. He knows who is going to perish, knows what would convince them to repent, and has the ability to convince them to do so. He also fulfills all his purposes and does whatever he pleases. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that God wants some people to perish. This is the foundation of Calvinism or "reformed theology".
Possibility 3: God isn't all-knowing
If God is not willing that any should perish, does whatever he pleases, fulfills all his purposes, and is all-powerful, then the only way sinners can go to hell forever is if God isn't all-knowing.
God doesn't want anyone to perish, so because he does whatever he pleases and fulfills all his purposes, he will save everyone. He is all-powerful, so he has the power to do so. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that God doesn't know all who will perish, or doesn't know how to convince them to repent. No major Christian denomination teaches this.
Possibility 4: God doesn't fulfill all his purposes
If God is not willing that any should perish, does whatever he pleases, is all-powerful and all-knowing, then the only way sinners can go to hell forever is if God doesn't fulfill all his purposes.
God doesn't want anyone to perish, so because he does whatever he pleases, he tries to save everyone. He is all-powerful and all-knowing, so he can devise a pretty comprehensive plan for salvation. But he doesn't accomplish all his purposes, so people still have the ability to stand against God and snatch away what he wants. This is the foundation for the "free will" argument for eternal hell. Most major Christian denominations teach this, whether they realize it or not.
Possibility 5: God doesn't want people to perish, fulfills all his purposes, is all-powerful and all-knowing
If God doesn't want people to perish, does whatever he pleases, fulfills all his purposes, is all-knowing, and is all powerful, then the only logical conclusion is that God will save everyone. The Bible declares these five qualities about God, so by logical extension, either one of these properties is wrong, or God must save everyone.
God doesn't want people to perish.
God does what he wants, so he doesn't let anyone perish.
God fulfills all his purposes. He doesn't want people to perish and he does what he wants, so he fulfills his purpose of not letting anyone perish.
God is all-powerful. He doesn't want people to perish, he does what he wants, and he fulfills his purpose of not letting anyone perish, so he has the power to not let anyone perish.
God is all-knowing. He doesn't want people to perish, he does what he wants, he fulfills his purpose of not letting anyone perish, and he has the power to not let anyone perish, and he has the knowledge to prevent anyone from perishing.
Free will usurps God's ability to fulfill his purposes, but the Bible says God does fulfill his purposes. Reformed Christians believe that God freely chooses to send most of humanity to hell, but the Bible says God is not willing that any should perish. Only believers in universal salvation accept that God has the ability and the desire to fulfill all the things he promised.
Proportionality of punishment
Imagine a 20-year-old man, Mark, who has lived a life without sin, except for a single transgression: At the age of 18, he stole a trinket from a store. Tragically, Mark dies in a car accident. In this hypothetical situation, Mark has exactly one blemish against his spiritual record. What, do you suppose, should be the punishment for Mark's crime?
Eternal conscious torment teaches that Mark should burn in hell for eternity. But why? In what way is that a just punishment for theft?
A believer in eternal conscious torment might object that such a hypothetical is entirely impossible. Mark has most likely committed at least one sin every day for the last 20 years. Even accounting for the more compassionate evangelical doctrine of the "age of accountability" (a concept that appears nowhere in the New Testament), Mark is guilty of thousands upon thousands of sins! But I ask again, what should be the punishment for Mark's crime?
See, in order for a punishment to be just, it needs to be proportionate. Now, in our more realistic example, Mark has committed a lot of sins in his life. But what would a proportionate punishment be? No matter how sinful Mark is, the wrong he has done, either to himself or to God, is still finite. Only a finite punishment is just when the wrong committed was finite. Eternal hell is, by definition, an infinite punishment. Even the Old Testament law requires punishments not to exceed the severity of the crime. Exodus 21:24, which Christians often interpret as endorsing vengeance, is actually a functional limitation demanding that the punishment fit the crime.
Now, imagine Hitler. Probably one of the most wicked men ever to live. Does he deserve eternal punishment for his sins? Again, no. While the total amount of harm done by Hitler is vastly greater than the harm done by Mark, it is not infinitely more than the harm done by Mark. Make no mistake, under a universalist interpretation of scripture, Hitler will be punished far more severely than Mark, but even the evil of Hitler cannot keep him away from God forever. This is not meant to reduce the severity of Hitler's crimes, but rather, to magnify the depths of God's grace.
My philosophy of the Second Death
I believe that everyone dies twice, and everyone is born twice. As Christians, our Second Death comes in this life, when we die to sin and follow Jesus (Romans 6:4). Our Second Birth comes after our Second Death, when we are born again (John 3:3). From then on, we have experienced our Second Birth, and we are heaven-bound. We are God's. Only those who have died twice and been born twice can enter into Heaven. Therefore, everyone who has not yet faced their Second Death nor experienced their Second Birth can enter into the Kingdom. Fortunately, there's a strong case for universal salvation, so at the end of this plane, when we reach τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, those in the Lake of Fire will complete their refinement, leave their Second Death, and experience their Second Birth. Then, Jesus will give up his throne to the Father, and God will be all in all.
What is the point of Jesus then?
Jesus made the way! Universal salvation doesn't exist without Jesus anymore than traditional, limited salvation does. Saying Jesus has no place in universal salvation is like asking, "Everyone's going to summer camp, so why do we need buses?"
How does the Second Death work?
I admit, I don't really know. Do the lost go to the Lake of Fire for the entire next age? or do they only go long enough to repent? Do they face punishment commensurate to the sin they have committed? If so, do less sinful people experience the same intensity of punishment as more sinful people, but for less time? or do they experience less intensity of punishment for the same time?
Why do people still enter the Second Death if Jesus saves everyone?
Again, I don't know.
It may be that the Second Death is where everyone expropriates their sins, but Jesus' sacrifice saves those who believe beforehand. In this view, universal salvation is a misunderstanding of what death, hell, and salvation are, because without Jesus, everyone would still end up in Heaven eventually. Jesus made a way out for those who believed and followed God, but everyone will eventually get to Heaven anyway.
It may also be that Jesus' sacrifice keeps the lost from being utterly destroyed, but they still have to "pay their way" back to God with their time in the Lake of Fire.
A complicating factor is the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18:23-35). In it, Jesus describes a man who begs his master to forgive him a large debt. The master has mercy on him, then forgives his debt and releases him. However, the servant then tracks down one of his fellow servants who owes him a small debt and assaults him, and threw him into prison until the debt is repaid. The master heard about it and then threw the original servant into jail "until he should pay back all he owed". Critically, verse 35 says, "This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart." This strongly implies that our sins have a "price" which the Second Death extracts from us, and the subtextual implication here is that this price can be repaid. Maybe universal salvation is bunk, and God just did us a solid by giving us a get-out-of-jail-early card? This doesn't invalidate the philosophy behind universal salvation though, because in this interpretation of scripture, God is still not letting any human be lost for all eternity either through his needless capitulation to their "free will", or else via his random whim. The philosophy of universal salvation holds true, even if Jesus' sacrifice is not strictly necessary for the lost to eventually enter Heaven. I don't think I believe this though - it's just an exercise. "Sometimes, a [parable] is just a [parable]."
My philosophy of the Bible
Why did God give us the Bible we have? The Bible is a rich, polyvocal document. Take any single subject, and you'll find a multitude of views within the Bible itself.
Where do the dead go? Well, the Old Testament says they all go to Sheol, but the New Testament says the righteous go to heaven while the wicked go to Gehenna, or the lake of fire.
Is everyone saved? If you ask John the Revelator, he might say no, because anyone whose name is not written in the Book of Life is consigned to the lake of fire "forever and ever". If you ask Paul in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, he might say no, because the wicked are destroyed, but if you ask Paul again in Romans 11:32, he would say yes, because God committed all to disobedience so that he could have mercy on all, and how is eternal destruction or everlasting fire merciful?
So why do we have a book with such a diverse view of...well, everything?
Multivocality broadens the net
I believe that the Bible is meant to bring as many people to God in this life as possible, because as we read in 2 Peter 3:9, God is not willing that any should perish (again, "enter into the Second Death"). Peter essentially wrote that God is purposely taking his time fulfilling his promises to give people more time to repent - so why not employ other methods of gaining as many converts as possible? You may not like the idea of universal salvation, just as I used to actively oppose the idea. I personally don't like the idea of the annihilation of lost souls, but I can see how it would appeal to some people. Obviously, a large number of Christians don't have any problem with the idea of an eternal hell, or else if they do, they keep their issues private.
Before I deconstructed, the idea of eternal hell bothered me for a long time. Years. For several years before I converted to universal salvation, I had trouble reconciling the idea of a God who loves fully and completely with the idea of a God who willingly sends his children to hell for eternity, even if they "chose" it. The free will argument no longer convinced me. I eventually formulated my own "headcanon" where Jesus would visit each person as they die, freeze time, preach them the gospel, and then keep them alive in that moment until they repented, even if it took forever. I didn't see how the God of the Bible could possibly send his beloved child into hell forever. If not for universal salvation, I might have walked away from Christianity altogether. Even with it, I very nearly did anyway.
There is a biblical justification for my views, and I am a Christian. Even if universal salvation is wrong, I'm still saved because I believe I'm a sinner, I believe Jesus died to pay the penalty for my sins, and I believe he was resurrected from the dead. Even if eternal conscious torment is true, the multivocality of the Bible saved my soul today.
Multivocality changes the test of life
Most Christians essentially believe this life is some sort of test. Pass it and you get rewarded with eternal bliss. Fail, and the consequences are blisteringly severe. I also believe that this life is a test. But I believe that the multivocality of the Bible changes the nature of the test.
As an example, the Bible has been used to justify slavery because there are passages that explicitly condone chattel slavery. I don't believe God condones chattel slavery (or any other kind of slavery, for that matter) but by leaving it in the Bible, God can see what we do when faced with the idea that slavery might be admissible. Historically, Christianity writ large has failed utterly in that test.
As a more general rule, I believe that the multivocality of the Bible puts the ball in our court when it comes to formulating a cogent and moral theology, because the Bible won't do it for us. We're constantly negotiating with the text, but the way we negotiate with the text in both Catholicism and American Evangelicalism is largely defined by centuries of tradition, often coming from a much more xenophobic and hateful time in the church. Are we going to allow the Crusaders and slaveowners to define the way we understand loving our neighbor? Are we going to allow the Inquisitors to dictate how we treat those with different beliefs than us? If we hold to orthodoxy for the sake of orthodoxy, that's exactly what we're doing.
Multivocality makes the Bible more applicable across time
Playing off my last point, society has evolved. The Bible has many passages that advocate for the downtrodden, the poor, and the oppressed. The Bible has passages that advocate for women. The Bible has passages that advocate for foreigners. Unfortunately, the opposite is also true: The Bible can be used to debase the poor, the oppressed, women, and foreigners. This has a perverse side effect: No matter how moral a society or time period is, the Bible can be applicable to the lives of that society's people. If the Bible were all rainbows and sunshine, it never would have escaped the Dark Ages - in fact, it probably never would have made it to the Dark Ages in the first place.
Multivocality (hopefully) draws people in a more righteous, more loving direction
Historically, Christians have been some of the biggest drivers and hinderers of social progress. Some Christian groups were expressly abolitionist, such as the Quakers, while other groups were ardently pro-slavery, such as the Southern Baptists. To this day, the fight over female and LGBT+ clergy rages in the church.
However, almost no one in the church supports slavery (at least openly). Even conservative churches have women who speak during the service, even if they can't hold an official church office (I mean "pastor" or "deacon", not "music director" or "daycare coordinator"). Interracial couples are no longer taboo, and more churches are starting to openly accept them. Conservatives complain that progressives always move the goalposts, but that's not always a bad thing - women and brown people exist, and they deserve to exist as equals.
Because the Bible has such a wide range of stances on a number of issues that matter to different people and in different ways, it can be used to defend a wide variety of different viewpoints along the spectrum of progress. And as social progress is made, the religious Overton window shifts, and society (hopefully) becomes more loving, more giving, and more Christ-like. A static, explicit Bible could never achieve this feat in the way that our dynamic Bible has.
Conclusion
There is a rich philosophy behind universal salvation that all but demands God save everyone. For a philosophical discussion of universal salvation from someone far more eloquent than me, see That All Shall be Saved by David Bentley Hart, the preeminent modern Western philosopher of universal salvation. For a book that includes a more scripture-based approach to universal salvation, check out The Inescapable Love of God by Thomas Talbott.
The day I accepted Jesus, I felt like everything would be alright for me. For the first decade or so, this was enough. I've preached to people in school, in random meetings on the street, in offices...and almost every single time, I've been shot down. I slowly began to realize that for other people, the message of God is not good news. "Hey, guess what? You were born a worthless piece of crap, but God loved you anyway, so he sent Jesus to make up for you being worthless, and now you can come to my church and give us 10% of your money!" Of course that's not what I said, but that's what people heard. It's patently bad news. Even in the best of lights, the message boils down to, "Behold! you're going to hell when you die, but I have a free pass!"
But the day I accepted universal salvation, I realized everything would be alright for everyone. Jesus did not preach, "Behold! You're going to hell when you die!" Instead, he preached, "Behold! The Kingdom of God is at hand!" What good news! Jesus has overcome, for Jew and Gentile, for man and woman, for saint and sinner, for rich and poor, for Christian and Muslim and Buddhist and Hindu and agnostic and atheist! Praise God!