The Afterlife for Unbelievers:  will the final result be
Eternal Misery, or Annihilation, or Reconciliation ?

What are my views?

an option:  You can first read a short overview in the Table of Contents.

A.  I'm very confident, but not certain, that the currently most common view — Eternal Misery (EM) — will not happen in Afterlife.  Why?  Two strong biblical reasons are because...

    • EM is not consistent with the Conditional Immortality (and closely related Death Penalty for Sin) that is clearly taught in the Bible, and
    • EM doesn't seem consistent with the character of God, re: justice-and-love, when we ask “What Will Jesus Do (during Afterlife) with people who reject him (during their Life)?”
    Also, the main supports typically claimed for EM are isolated “hell verses” that — when they're examined carefully — provide very weak biblical supports for EM, compared with the very strong biblical supports against EM.

B.  The other views — Final Annihilation (FA) and Universal Reconciliation (UR) — have strong biblical support,* and I think each is a possibility.  Therefore, although I'm a confident Conditionalist (in claiming “UR or FA will happen, and EM won't happen”), I'm not highly confident in claiming that either “UR will happen” or “UR won't happen.”   But I strongly prefer UR because it would be a “happy ending” for more people, so...

    • I'm hoping that UR will happen, with God eventually causing every person to be transformed (as in Romans 12:2) so they will be restored into the person He wants them to be, and they can be reconciled with all other people and with Himself, and

    • I'm optimistic that UR will happen,  so (combining this hope and optimism)...

•• I'm a hopeful-and-optimistic Christian Universalist.   And I'm a confident Christian Conditionalist who is confident due to the strong biblical evidence for Conditional Immortality so I conclude that either FA or UR (or semi-UR) will happen, and EM won't happen.

* There are biblical supports for UR and also for FA.

Personal History:  Later, I explain why — due to my two-stage process of evaluation (resulting in A+B above) plus biblical ambiguity — I'm confident about Conditional Immortality, and am optimistic but not confident about Universal Reconciliation.     {in my first stage, from 1987 to 2014, I wrote two papers (1-page & long) about EM-versus-FA}

Personal Feelings:  I have mixed feelings about two related challenges for UR because it doesn't produce enough fear, although I think we should emphasize love (instead of fear) as our main motive for “saying yes to God.”  And I have mixed feelings about fellow Christians — I'm disappointed in them (because usually they “assume a conclusion” instead of carefully studying the Bible) and I'm sad (because I think they are saying false-and-horrible things about the character of God, about what Jesus Will Do) — and mixed feelings about sharing my views with them.

Persuading Myself:  The more I'm learning about UR, the more optimistic I'm becoming, due to my increased understanding of the strong biblical support for UR when all things are considered.  And I'm becoming even more hopeful that UR will happen, because this would be extremely good;  it would give us strong reasons to praise God because of what He will do for people (not just to people) in purgatorial UR-Hell, when He uses hell-experiences to purify people from their sins, transforming them into the righteous persons He always wanted them to be.

Persuading Others:  In many parts of this page, I defend the biblical credibility of UR.  Why?  I'm very confident that God will not cause Eternal Misery in Afterlife, that instead He will do either purgatorial Universal Reconciliation (pUR, or just UR)* — by using Hell to purge unsaved people of their sins, to purify & restore & save them, to reconcile them with other people and with Himself — or Final Annihilation (FA).  When we compare pUR/UR with FA, I think there is no clear winner but overall ("when all things are considered") I think the biblical support is stronger for UR.  And I'm strongly hoping that pUR will happen.  I'm also hoping more Christians will join me in being hopeful-and-optimistic that God will cause Universal Reconciliation to happen, so I'm explaining some of the many Bible-based reasons for optimism beginning below with Two Bible-Based Reasons to reject Eternal Misery.

* I think a Bible-believing Christian Universalist should be a Purgatorial Christian Universalist who proposes strong exclusivism (by claiming “only Jesus saves” so other roads do not lead to God and explicit belief in Jesus-as-savior is necessary for salvation) and believes people who were unsaved during Life will experience Hell (in The Lake of Fire) during Afterlife.

Two Bible-Based Reasons to reject Eternal Misery:
Conditional Immortality and The Character of God.

Also — in addition to God's use of Conditional Immortality (to solve the problems of Sin & Death) and The Character of God (when we ask “What Will Jesus Do” with Unsaved Sinners?) — there are other kinds of evidence against Eternal Misery,

    from early church history,   first when the apostles never describe, in their biblical sermons & letters, the duration-and-result of hell to be Eternal Misery,   then when all three views were common and were respected, when Eternal Misery was not the dominant view that it eventually became in the Middle Ages;
    from the Bible because it contains evidence for Final Annihilation and also evidence for Universal Reconciliation with God seeming to declare (in a few places) that He will save all people, and with God declaring (in many places) that He wants to save all people, plus the logic that if God wants to save everyone, and if God gets what God wants, then He will save everyone;   and the lack of support for Eternal Misery from a few isolated “hell verses” that are the main evidence claimed for EM.   I encourage you to decide that "instead of ASSUMING you already know what the Bible teaches, you will carefully STUDY the Bible to learn what it really does teach."

an option:  You can first read a short overview in the Table of Contents.

The next two sections are closely related, because death is God's penalty for sin, and conditional immortality is God's gift for sinners, to solve the problem of death.  We'll begin by looking at “the big picture” of the beginning & ending, in Genesis & Revelation, to see how sin-and-death are connected with immortality.

Conditional Immortality  —  God will make a person immortal IF...

Immortality:  The Bible teaches that instead of creating humans with immortality, God created humans for immortality that He would give to those who meet His conditions for immortality.

Sin and Death:  These two problems are closely related because they're causally related, with sin causing death.  Adam became a sinner when he disobediently ate from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."  God responded by declaring (Genesis 3:22) that a sinner "must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."  God did not want people to live forever in a state of sin, so He was being merciful when He prevented this by removing our access to The Tree of Life.  Then what happened?  As explained in Genesis 2:17 (which literally says “dying you will die”), humans began a gradual process of continually "dying" (which happens naturally when we don't have the supernatural protection supplied by God thru His Tree of Life) and this process leads to our eventual death.  In this way, death became God's divine penalty for human sin.     {but... as explained above, this penalty was an act of mercy because God did not want people to live forever in a state of sin}

Salvation and Life:  Later, in His physical Heaven-Kingdom, God will defeat death by giving back "the tree of life," as stated in Revelation 2:7 and 22:14.  But this divine gift of immortality will be given to only those who "overcome" (2:7) because they "wash their robes" (22:14), who are saved by accepting The Grace of God, offered through Christ, so they meet the IF-THEN Condition that has been set by God:  IF [but only if] you accept The Grace (offered by God) so you are saved by God, THEN you get The Life (supplied by God) through His "tree of [everlasting] life."  Because of the important "only if" Condition, IF you reject The Grace so you are unsaved, THEN you don't get The Life, because a sinner "must not be allowed to... live forever."

comparing the views:  A divine Giving of Everlasting Life that is consistent with this Condition, and thus with Conditional Immortality...

    is possible with Final Annihilation because if there is FA, all people who were unsaved (during Life) would permanently die (in Hell during their Afterlife), so only people who have been saved (during Life) continue existing, and all of them satisfy The Condition for Immortality;   it also*...
    is possible with Universal Reconciliation because if there is UR, all people who were unsaved (during Life) would have educating-and-healing experiences (in Hell during their Afterlife) that convert them into people who have been saved (during Afterlife) so they will satisfy The Condition for Immortality;  but...
    is not possible with Eternal Misery because forcing people who are not saved (in either life or afterlife) to live forever — so they have Immortality even though they don't satisfy The Condition — would violate God's clear statement that an unsaved sinner "must not... live forever" in sinful misery.

Eternal Sin:  God hates sin because its effects are extremely destructive, so He wants to eliminate sin from His creation.  Will this happen? will God achieve His goal?   The Bible tells us “yes” but with Unconditional Immortality — if God causes most people to be eternally alive with Eternal Misery (EM) — sinners-and-sinning will exist forever, and His creation will never be freed from sin.  A claim that God will cause immortalizing-of-sin (by causing EM) is wrong in very important ways, is not what the Bible teaches, is one of Four Biblical Reasons to reject Eternal Misery.  By contrast, with Conditional Immortality (CI) — if God will cause either Annihilation (FA) or Reconciliation (UR) — all sin will be eliminated by God.

* logically defining a term:  Above we see how immortality would satisfy God's if-then Condition — if (and only if) saved, then immortal — with 2 of the 3 views, with Final Annihilation (FA) because all unsaved people would be gone, or with Universal Reconciliation (UR) because all people would be saved.*  Therefore the logical conclusion is that Conditional Immortality is “either FA or UR” instead of the “only FA” that is claimed whenever a person refers to Annihilation as Conditional Immortality.  I think we should be logical (instead of just traditional) in our defining of Conditional Immortality.  What do you think?     /     A deeper examination of why we should define CI as FA-or-UR describes two ways that a process-of-reasoning can lead a person to conclude “UR will happen,” when the person either begins with dependent conditional immortality (because immortality is dependent on God) or with intrinsic universal immortality (assuming immortality is intrinsic within humans, independent from God):   1) a proponent of UR should begin with biblically-justifiable dependent conditional immortality so they evaluate UR-versus-FA and conclude “it will be UR (so there is universal immortality) instead of FA.”   2) But a proponent of UR could begin with biblically-unjustifiable intrinsic universal immortality so they evaluate UR-versus-EM and conclude “it will be UR instead of EM.”   In other words, universal immortality could be either a final conclusion (using process #1) or an initial assumption (using process #2) about the final result of Afterlife.

dependent immortality allows conditional immortality:  How?  Because if (as Bible-believers should believe) life depends on God, then (as Bible-believers should believe) God is able to make conditional decisions about life.  Do humans have intrinsically-immortal souls?  No.  When we read The Bible carefully, we see that it does not teach a universal Intrinsic-and-Unconditional Soul Immortality independent from God, even though this typically is assumed by those who propose the Unconditional Soul/Body Immortality required by Eternal Misery.*  Instead, The Bible does teach a Dependent Existence (for awhile or forever) that allows the Divine Control of Life & Death wanted by God, so He can produce a Conditional Immortality of Body-and-Soul.   Thus, God's Condition-Based Decisions (when He uses His if-then Condition to decide who lives) require Dependence (with God being able to decide who lives) but go beyond it,  because Dependent Existence is necessary for Divine Decisions (about life-or-death), but is not sufficient for determining the result when God makes a Condition-Based Decision about whether He will give immortality to an unsaved person;  He will say “no” based on His condition for life, based on His decision (Genesis 3:22) that an unsaved sinner "must not... live forever."     /     * This unbiblical assumption of Intrinsic-and-Unconditional Immortality (imported into Christianity from Greek philosophers, especially Plato) leads to this unbiblical reasoning:  all humans will exist forever, either with reconciled salvation and Eternal Joy, or with unreconciled damnation and Eternal Misery.

logically defining two terms:  To promote logical thinking and accurate communication, we should use different terms — dependent immortality and conditional immortality — for these different claims, because each term answers a different question regarding God's decisions about life-or-death.  Simplified into one-word summaries, some essential questions (about life or death) are:    why? (God's decisions will be based on criteria that include His Condition for Conditional Immortality);    how? (God's actions will cause whatever happens, because humans have Dependent Immortality instead of Intrinsic Immortality);   also (as explained below),   what? (God's penalty for sin is death, not long-term suffering),   who? (God will give death to some if FA happens, or to none if UR happens).     {MORE about Logically Defining a System-of-Terms}

Biblical Immortality:  The biblical principle of Dependent Existence is why I began this section about Conditional Immortality by stating that "instead of creating humans with [intrinsic] immortality [that is independent from God, that exists without Him], God created humans for immortality [because although we are mortal, we have the potential for immortality] that He would provide."     { If you hear someone claim that “humans are created in the image of God, who is immortal, so we are immortal,” you can ask “are we also, like God, omnipresent (being everywhere), omniscient (knowing everything), and omnipotent (able to do everything)?” }

MORE about Dependent Existence  –  {and MORE about assumptions of soul-immortality that influenced acceptance of EM are in Sections 7.1c & 7.5 & A1-A4 of my paper about EM-vs-FA}

and MORE about Conditional Immortality  –  {A Problem-Solving Perspective:  Two Human Problems (Spiritual Sinning + Physical Mortality/Death) and Two Divine Solutions (Salvation-and-Sanctification + Conditional Immortality)}   {can Eternal Misery be biblically defended by re-defining death?}   {Why should Conditional Immortality mean “either Annihilation or Reconciliation” instead of “only Annihilation”?}

The Death Penalty for Sin

Due to the sin of Adam, God removed access to the Tree of Life so The Penalty for Sin was Death.   God's penalty for sin is always death, in our past-present-future,  first in Genesis 3 and therefore now in Life and later in Afterlife.  We see His divinely decreed penalty of death — not long-term suffering — throughout the Bible:

    in the Old Testament,  God prevented death in Abraham's test-of-faith, and The Passover;  God's most severe judicial penalty for sin (in The Flood, Sodom & Gomorrah, The Law,...) was death, not long-term suffering;  the OT Sacrificial System required death, not long-term suffering.
    and in the New Testament,  God created a better sacrificial system — to achieve His purpose of saving us from our slavery to sin and from the judicial results of our sin (i.e., from death) — by sacrificial substitutionary atonement when Jesus died for us.*  Jesus did not suffer in eternal misery for us.
    In the NT, God's new-and-better sacrificial system is connected symbolically with OT deaths, in Abraham's test of faith — because "The Lord Will Provide" the sacrificial death that He requires for justice, first by providing a ram to save Isaac, and later by providing Jesus to save us — and also The Passover (at the time of year when Jesus gave His life for us, as celebrated in our Holy Communion) and the OT sacrificial system.

* Is the divinely provided payment of our death penalty, by Jesus, given to all people (producing UR) or (with FA) only some people?   To understand the essential differences between FA and UR — if it's a UR that is based on the Bible because it accepts The Death Penalty of Conditional Immortality that could occur with either FA or UR (but not EM) and, like other versions of UR, it proposes a Final State in which (as with FA, but not with EM) there is no sin and no death, as in the biblically described Final State — we ask two questions about death, and one question about timing:

    • First,  “WHAT is the penalty for sin?”  —  it's everlasting total death, in both views;
    • then,  “WHO will receive this penalty?”  —  it's some people (if FA), or no person (if UR);

    and “WHEN can a person be saved?”  —  it's only in Life (if FA), but also in Afterlife (if UR).

Death and Immortality

What is the relationship between The Death Penalty and Conditional Immortality?   Death is God's Penalty for Sinners.  Conditional Immortality is God's Gift for Sinners — for either some of us (with FA) or all of us (with UR) — and The Condition, decided by God, is being saved by God, who wants to save us from slavery to sin (now in Life) and (later in Afterlife) save us from everlasting Death.

a brief biblical summary:  God's penalty of Death was decreed in Genesis 3:22, and God's gift of Conditional Immortality is promised in Revelation 2:7 & 22:14.

4 Biblical Reasons to reject Eternal Misery

Christians have many Bible-based reasons to reject a doctrine of Eternal Misery (EM) — and instead to believe that unsaved people eventually will be either Annihilated (with FA) or Reconciled (with UR) — including these four reasons:

1a.  EM would violate the Conditional Immortality clearly taught in the Bible, because — even though the Bible teaches (in Genesis & Revelation) that unsaved people "must not... live forever" — with EM unsaved people would be forced to "live forever" in Eternal Misery.   By contrast, only saved people (who satisfy The Condition decided by God) will live forever with FA or UR.     /     Due to EM's unbiblical violation of Conditional Immortality, EM would cause two permanently-unbiblical situations, in 1b and 1c:

1b.  EM would cause sinners-and-sinning to exist forever, thus immortalizing sin, and God's creation would never be freed from sin even though the Bible declares that being freed from sin will happen.  With UR or FA, God would ultimately "reconcile all things to Himself" (the Bible promises that this will happen) but this wouldn't happen with EM.

1c.  EM would cause death to exist forever, thus immortalizing death, because with EM The Second Death must be redefined to mean eternal conscious existence in misery (eternally living in death?) so The Second Death would continue forever, and God's creation would never be freed from death even though the Bible says "the last enemy that will be abolished is death."

2.  EM would not produce a satisfactory substitution for substitutionary atonement, with Jesus (instead of us) paying the penalty for our sins.*  Why would the substitution be unsatisfactory with EM?  Because EM claims the penalty for sin is infinite suffering, without death.  But... is this what Jesus, offering Himself as our substitute, experienced for us?   No.  Jesus had finite suffering, with death.  As you can see, with EM the substitution of substitutionary atonement is a very poor match because of two major differences:  Jesus had finite suffering (but EM would produce infinite suffering);  and Jesus had physical death (but EM would require eternal physical existence without physical death, with The Second Death defined in a very strange way so it means eternally miserable living, without the relief of death).   /   By contrast, the substitution is much more satisfactory (is a much closer match) with FA or UR.

* Are claims for Penalty-Paying Substitutionary Atonement (commonly called Penal Substitutionary Atonement, PSA) supported by the Bible?   Yes.   The essence of PSA — with our death penalty being paid by the death of Jesus — is an essential part of The Gospel, is its heart of love, is the essence of divine love in action.  The central claim of PSA is clearly stated by Paul ("we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son" when "Christ died for us") and Jesus ("the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep") and Peter ("Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh").  And there is strong support from Bible-based logic, in the clear symbolic continuity between the sacrificial systems used by God in the Old Testament and New Testament.    /    I think PSA is the most important part of divine atonement, but is not all of it because several “theories of atonement” can claim support from the Bible;  in the Bible we can find several reasons for why God decided to provide this atonement, and for “how-and-why it works,” and several kinds of benefits (for people and for God) arising from it.  But of all the reasons & benefits, I think PSA has the strongest biblical support.  Therefore any Bible-based view of Hell should provide a satisfactory substitution for PSA (for penal substitutionary atonement), and EM fails to do this.     { Although I support PSA, I think some descriptions of it are flawed, are not compatible with what is taught in the Bible.  I agree with Christians (including some proponents of UR) who criticize these flawed descriptions.  But even though PSA sometimes is described in unjustifiably harsh terms (by its opponents or proponents), we should understand it — and be thankful for it — as The Love Story of PSA.  I think a Bible-based view of Hell (including Bible-based UR) should accept PSA and emphasize its importance, and should use PSA as a reason to reject EM. }

Each of these Four Biblical Reasons (1a-1b-1c, and 2) is a strong reason to reject Eternal Misery, but is compatible with either Annihilation or Reconciliation.

More than Four:  Christians also have other Bible-based reasons to reject Eternal Misery and either accept Universal Reconciliation (by believing biblical statements that God will save all people, and by logically combining two popular theologies) or accept Final Annihilation.

MORE - about these 4 Reasons to reject Eternal Misery, due to Conditional Immortality and to prevent perpetual Sinning (so satisfactory justice is impossible?) & perpetual Second Death {what are the connections between spiritual death (described in Gen 3:6-13) and physical death (decreed & actualized in Gen 3:22-24)?} and because Substitutionary Atonement is a satisfactory substitution with FA (or UR) but not with EM and...

MORE - about Conditional Immortality and The Death Penalty for Sin - is in Part 2 (re: what the Bible teaches about Death & Salvation) and (re: logic versus tradition, and controversy when asking “how should we define Conditional Immortality?”) in Part 3 that is a deeper examination of my two questions about WHAT and WHO (+ When).

The Character of God  —  WWJD ?

an option:  You can first read a short overview in the Table of Contents.

Based on what we learn about God from the whole Bible, we can ask “What Will Jesus Do with Unsaved Sinners?”  Will it be Eternal Misery (EM), or Final Annihilation (FA), or Universal Reconciliation (UR)?     (we are asking “What Will God Do?” because in the tri-une God, WWJD=WWFD=WWHD = WWGD)

Here are two whole-Bible principles:

    God's justice is strongly emphasized throughout the Bible, and by Jesus;  God sets high standards for us, for what we think-and-do, and He will hold each of us accountable for our thoughts-and-actions.
    God's loving is strongly emphasized throughout the Bible, and by Jesus;  because God loves us, He forgives us.

Justice-and-Love:  In the afterlife, will God forgive those who rejected Him during their lives?  The Bible teaches us that God wants His actions to achieve justice and (with merciful forgiving and in other ways) be loving.  Sometimes during our discussions of what would happen in hell (with EM, FA, UR) these two essential character traits are contrasted, so we're thinking about God's justice OR love.  Instead, we should think about how God could do justice-AND-love, to achieve justice in ways that also are loving.  (is it possible that God is, during Life-and-Afterlife, Always Totally Just AND Always Totally Loving?  can we praise God for what He will do to people in hell?)     {appropriate humility about the moral character of God}

When we carefully examine the whole Bible,* I think the biblically revealed character of God is consistent with either UR or FA, but it seems to me that God's character is best with UR, and worst with EM.     {* Another strong-and-clear principle, when we study the whole Bible, is God's death penalty for sin. }

This page is being written for Christians but I'm supplementing it with a page for non-Christians.  Why?  My goal is "to show them that this [a belief that God will cause Eternal Misery for most people, so The Gospel is a combination of Very Good News plus Very Bad News] is not justified because the Bible does not teach Eternal Misery, so they will be able to have confidence that God loves every person — both now and in their future, in their Life and Afterlife — so they will be able to totally love God and say YES to God."

more – about the character of God and thinking about the ethics of Stalin & Jesus, by comparing WDSD & WWJD

WHAT — Accurate Understanding of All Views

an option:  You can first read a short overview in the Table of Contents.

This section supplements my summary of The 3 Views by using a table to clarify the similarities & differences that make some questions useful while others are non-useful.  The table also calls attention (with YES and YES/YES) to evidence against Eternal Misery.

What is Universal Reconciliation?  This page describes an evangelical Christian Universal Reconciliation (UR) that is based on the Bible, that can affirm all fundamentals of Christian faith, including the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed.  This kind of UR — instead of other definitions that are possible and are sometimes called “universalism” — is what I will describe & evaluate.

This table summarizes key questions-and-answers by four views, by EM, FA, UR, plus a semi-UR hybrid.  The table's logical organization will make it easier for you to understand the views, to compare them and see their similarities & differences.

Similarities and Differences:  In the table, you can see that all views (EM, FA, semi-UR, UR) agree (yes yes yes yes) about resurrection & judgment for everyone, and suffering in hell for the unsaved.  But they disagree about what will happen in hell, about the duration of hell-experience (will it be eternal with EM, or temporary with FA, semi-UR, UR) and whether the permanent final result will be everlasting continual misery (EM) or non-existence (FA) or reconciliation (UR), or (with semi-UR that is FA+UR) some non-existence + some reconciliation.     {more - we should avoid intellectually dishonest Strawmen & Myths}

The fourth view, semi-UR, is a hybrid (of FA+UR) that combines some aspects of FA and UR.  You can see the key similarities & differences in the column for semi-UR, where its underlined answers show how semi-UR agrees with UR but not FA (no YES YES), and how semi-UR agrees with FA but not UR (NO NO yes) because with semi-UR there will be purgatorial healing for some (those who are saved) and annihilation for others (who are not saved), so is it Purgatorial Annihilation?

I.O.U. – Eventually, but probably not until July 2020, I'll revise this section because I now think ALL questions are useful (when they're correctly answered) for helping us UNDERSTAND the views, but only SOME questions are useful for helping us DISTINGUISH between the views when we're evaluating the views, when we're trying to determine their biblical plausibility.  Below is what I wrote earlier, and most of it (with only a few minor changes, as described in the first) will remain after the revision:

An understanding of all views is necessary to recognize that some questions, but not others, are logically useful for helping us distinguish between the views:

    • it's not useful to ask will some people suffer? because all views agree (yes yes yes yes, for the first 3 questions) that God will resurrect & judge all people, and unsaved people will suffer in hell, so whatever they sow in Life, they will reap in Afterlife.   {sowing and reaping - HOW will God transform Christians by renewing our minds to produce Sanctifying Restoration so we can have Reconciliation, so together we can enjoy Afterlife in Eternal Joy?  and  IF God will allow repentance-and-faith in Afterlife for people who were unsaved during Life, in what ways – compared with the process for saved people – might the process for unsaved people be similar, and different?}
    • it's useful to ask if salvation requires faith in Jesus, with repentance? because — even though each view says "yes" — this question helps us understand that Christian universalism (saying "yes") is not religious pluralism (saying "no"). *  
    • it's useful to ask will God allow repentance-and-faith after death? because FA & EM say no, but UR and semi-UR say YES.*  A related question that is not useful is asking whether everyone will "die once and after this comes judgment" (Hebrews 9:27) because all views say “yes, this is how it will be,” but the views don't agree about what will happen (i.e. WWJD?) during-and-after judgment, when we ask “what will happen in Hell? will it be eternal misery, or death, or healing?”     {* This question is very useful because our answer is very important when we evaluate the biblical support for UR (or semi-UR) versus FA or EM, because if the afterlife-reality will be "yes" this weakens most of the biblical arguments against UR.  But this question is not clearly answered "yes" or "no" in the Bible. }
    • it's useful to ask “based on what we learn from the Bible and from life, does the view seem to be unfair?” because many people — IF they believe God will cause EM — think and feel that this EM would be unfair and they do not like the character of this EM-causing God so an unfortunate effect/result is that they cannot love this EM-God and trust Him.
    • and it's useful to ask will God force unsaved SINNERS to live forever? because the YES is a serious biblical flaw of an EM that requires universal unconditional immortality.  This unbiblical requirement is one of 4 reasons to reject EM which also include EM saying YES when we ask will sinning continue forever?   /   note:  A person who proposes UR could believe (although I don't) that God has created humans with properties that will cause everyone to live forever.  But if UR actually happens, this reality (with Universal Immortality) would not violate Conditional Immortality because God would not "force unsaved sinners to live forever" because everyone who is living forever will be saved due to the UR that will be produced by God.

 *   Do all roads lead to God?  The postmodern relativism of pluralistic universalism — aka religious pluralism, or just universalism (in a commonly assumed meaning that differs from my definition)* says “yes”.*  By contrast, evangelical Christian Universalism (Universal Reconciliation, UR) says “no, only one road (the narrow way of following Jesus Christ) leads to God.”  But UR does claim that God will search for each person, and will be able to find them — eventually, in Life or Afterlife — no matter what road they are on, as illustrated by diligent searches for a lost sheep and lost coin.     {Christian Universalism is compatible with Exclusivist & Strong Exclusivist views of Salvation – personally, I think that IF God allows post-death salvation because He wants UR or semi-UR, for this post-death salvation (as with pre-death salvation) He will require explicit belief in Jesus Christ so "at the name of Jesus every knee will bow... every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" (Philippians 2:10-11), so my view of UR includes strong exclusivism.}

* Unfortunately, for many people "universalism" means the claim of pluralism that "all roads do lead to God."   {and maybe is associated with the semi-biblical denomination of Unitarian Universalism that seems to ignore much of what's taught in the Bible}

* In this page I'm describing a view of UR (based on the Bible, truly Christian, non-pluralistic) that can have many different labels;  if a name has two blanks (                  ) each can be filled in several ways, for the first (universal, ultimate, eventual, final, ...) and the second (reconciliation, restoration, salvation, redemption, ...) so there are many possible combinations.  I've been calling it universal reconciliation, but maybe I'll change my term to ultimate restoration, or universal restoration or ultimate reconciliation.}

What are the benefits of each term (highlighted by italics) that I prefer?   Here are comparisons of universal vs ultimate, and reconciliation vs restoration:   different questions are answered by universal (who? all) and ultimate (when? after the penultimate afterlife-experiences of purgatorial educating, correcting, and healing by God);   different aspects of corrective healing are described by reconciliation (to heal relationships with God & with people) and by restoration (the result of sanctification, when God has transformed a sinful person so they finally have become the righteous person He always wanted them to be), with reconciliation being a result of the healed relationships that occur in the whole community – including God (Father, Son, HolySpirit) and people – when there has been a restoration-to-righteousness of all individuals.     {more - about these four terms, and others}

more  –  details about questions (useful and non-useful) plus semi-UR "hybrid" views  –  each view has several common names, including two (conditional immortality & hopeful universalist) that I think are commonly used in illogical ways

an option:  You can first read a short overview in the Table of Contents.

Earlier, I explain why — due to the biblically revealed Character of God and Conditional Immortality (with a Death Penalty for Sin) — I'm very confident that Eternal Misery will not happen in Afterlife, so of the three views only two seem plausible.  Therefore my question is whether the afterlife-reality for unsaved sinners will be Universal Reconciliation (UR) or Final Annihilation (FA).

Universal Reconciliation  —  Hopeful and Optimistic

our Hopeful Universalism:  One of the two great commandments of Jesus is to "love your neighbor as you love yourself."  Each of us wants Eternal Joy for ourself, so we also should want this for our neighbors.  We should want everyone to have Eternal Joy — including reconciliation with God and people — so we should hope for a Universal Reconciliation that includes all of our neighbors.  Every person, and especially every Christian, should be a Hopeful Universalist.     {more}  {a personal perspective: my sister and a gift that won't be necessary}

my Optimistic Universalism:  I think we have logical/theological Bible-based reasons to be optimistic, to think UR might happen.

my Optimism isn't Certainty:  In this page I'm not trying to prove that ultimate Universal Reconciliation is taught with certainty in the Bible.  Instead I just want to show that — in addition to hoping UR will happen — we also can have logical Bible-based reasons for optimism, for thinking UR might happen.   And I want to explain why I'm not confident when evaluating UR-versus-FA so I won't confidently claim that either “it will be UR” or “it will be FA.”

comments about terms:  Unfortunately, hopeful universalism is now commonly used to mean having reasons to be optimistic (but not claiming certainty) that God eventually will save all people.  Instead, logically this optimistic claim should be called optimistic universalism, and we should use hopeful universalism to describe a hope that all will be saved.

Why is my optimism justified?  Some reasons for optimistically thinking “not EM, and maybe UR” are explained above & below,

above:  What are the views?  -  My Views and My Feelings  -  The Character of God (asking WWJD?) and Conditional Immortality with a Death Penalty  -  WHAT - Accurate Understandings of 4 Views  -  Hopeful and Optimistic  and

below:  Previous & Current Theologies  -  WHEN (after death) and HOW (maybe... with experiences to teach-and-heal, to achieve Divine Justice-with-Love)  (Free Will and Semi-Universalism)  -  Hell-Verses (claimed as support for EM) and Biblical Support for UR & against UR and Why is the Bible ambiguous?

also below:  Effects on Relationships  -  Effects on Evangelism  -  Questions about Divine Justice

Recognizing My Bias:  In this page, I explain why Bible-believing Christians have strong reasons to reject EM, and accept either UR or FA.  But I'm hoping UR will happen, and in my descriptions of UR-versus-FA (and of both versus EM) you'll see more arguments for UR than for FA, although you will see both.     { UR versus FA - with no clear winner }

Views of Hell in the Bible and in Church History

This section explains why Eternal Misery (EM) is not supported, and purgatorial Universal Reconciliation (pUR, or UR) is supported, when we carefully examine what the Bible teaches about the purpose of Hell, and what was believed by early church leaders, and we logically combine theologies of divine sovereignty.

an option:  You can first read a short overview of this section in the Table of Contents.

We'll begin with church history, which includes biblical supports against EM and for UR.

writers of the Bible:  In what they spoke (as recorded in Acts of the Apostles) and wrote (in their letters), the earliest major church leaders – Peter, John, James, Paul – described divine judgment, but not a divine causing of Eternal Misery.  In the Bible, these leaders never mentioned eternally lasting torment.  It's very probable that this absence of EM — the number of times they mention it is... zero — shows us that they did not believe EM.  And it certainly shows that they didn't think “the final state of unbelievers” was an essential part of The Good News.

readers of the Bible:  After books of the New Testament became available to leaders of the early church, these leaders were able to read — in their native language, Greek, so their understandings were not hindered by translations that were biased to support EM — most of what's in our modern Bible.  In the first five centuries of church history, extra-biblical writings of prominent “church fathers” show that three views (Universal Reconciliation, Final Annihilation, Eternal Misery) were common, and all were respected as acceptable options, so major statements of belief – as in the Apostle's Creed and Nicene Creed – say nothing about UR or FA or EM.  Therefore all of the views, then and now, can affirm these two classic creeds;  and all views now can affirm the modern “fundamentals” of Christian faith.     {more about Church History including Creeds & Fundamentals}

Later, EM became the dominant view, mainly for reasons that were linguistic (in translations that were biased to favor EM, when the Bible was translated from Greek into Latin and other languages), philosophical (due to the influence of non-Biblical philosophies claiming human immortality), and political (because some practical effects of EM helped a church/government control people with fear-based threats), plus the powerful inertia of tradition.  But the non-EM views, FA and UR, continued to be proposed by some Christians, and these views are again (as in the early church) becoming much more common in recent decades.   {more}

In the early church, many Christians believed that God will save all people.  Why?

• One reason is because there is...

Biblical Support for Universal Reconciliation:  God declares (in some places) that He wants to save all people, and seems to say (in some places, including those below and others) that He will save all people, that "as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22) because "as through one transgression [the sin of Adam] there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness [atonement by Jesus] there resulted justification of life to all men" (Romans 5:18) and (Romans 11:32) "God has shut up all in disobedience [due to Adam] so that [through Christ] He may show mercy to all," with His loving "mercy to all" inspiring (in 11:33-12:1) our worship: "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! ... To Him be the glory forever. Amen." (Romans 11:25-36)*   The birth of Jesus was "good news of great joy which will be for all the people" (Luke 2:10) because He came "to save the world" (John 12:47) by becoming "the atoning sacrifice... for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2) so He "takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29) and is "the Savior of the world" (1 John 4:14) in a process that will be actualized by saving every person, because (like a good shepherd who loves his sheep and wants to find-and-save every one of his sheep) God will "go after the one that is lost, until he finds it." (Luke 15:4)   Sinners will be in hell-prison "until [they] have paid the last penny" (Matthew 5:26) but ultimately God will (through Jesus Christ) "reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross" (Colossians 1:15-20) so (Philippians 2:11) "at the name of Jesus every knee will bow... [and] every tongue will confess [with sincerity and loving admiration] that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."     /     And maybe there are UR-supporting connections between Matthew 3 (if when Jesus baptizes with fire He will burn a person's evil "chaff" so only their good "wheat" remains) and Revelation 20 (if baptism with fire by immersion in The Lake of Fire produces a purifying death-of-sin during Afterlife) and Romans 6 (when baptism with water by immersion in a lake of water symbolizes a purifying death-of-sin during Life.     /     * This conclusion of Romans 9-11, with "mercy to all" and "glory forever" in 11:32-36, leads to the exhortation in Romans 12:1, "Therefore... in view of God's mercy, offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God – this is your true and proper worship."

ambiguity in UR-versus-FA:   Defenders of Final Annihilation have “answers” (but are they satisfactory?) for pro-UR arguments that include these pro-UR verses.*  And defenders of UR have “answers” (but are they satisfactory?) for pro-FA arguments that include pro-FA verses, like Second Death in The Lake of Fire and parables about two kinds of people and others.  Therefore we see biblical ambiguity due to biblical support for UR but also for FA.   {e.g., the Bible doesn't clearly say “yes” or “no” when we ask two important questions for UR: “can God (and will God) save a person in their Afterlife if this person is rejecting Christ at the end of their Life?”}     /     * Some UR-verses seem to state that eventually God will cause ALL people to be reconciled with Himself, but other interpretations of "all" are possible.

• Another reason occurs when we...

    logically combine Theologies of Sovereignty, and conclude that

    IF divine love plus divine power, THEN Universal Reconciliation.

Two systems of theology — with differing answers for the important question of “who does what?” (i.e. “how does God choose to use His divine sovereignty?”) in a process of salvation — claim strong Biblical support, are common among modern evangelical Christians, and are generally considered worthy of respectful theological discussion.  The majority view is Arminian, but Calvinism is a significant minority.

IF we accept two claims about God's fatherly love and sovereign power, with claims that...

    God loves everyone He has created, so God wants to save everyone (this is accepted by Arminians, rejected by Calvinists)*, and
    God uses His power to sovereignly “get what He wants” in salvation (this is accepted by Calvinists, rejected by Arminians)*,

THEN — because God wants to save everyone, and God gets what He wants — our logical conclusion will be Universal Reconciliation.

Or, with a brief summary:  IF divine love and power, THEN Universal Reconciliation.

* I cannot understand how a combination of Calvinism plus Eternal Misery* — by claiming that God does not want to save everyone (and by using His total sovereignty, He will not save everyone) AND He will cause Eternal Misery for those He chooses to not save — is consistent with the biblical God who loves people and wants justice.     {* logically, Calvinistic claims about sovereignty should be separated from claims about Eternal Misery, but historically these two claims are connected. }

* But... Arminians who are not Universalists can biblically-and-logically claim that “God gets what He wants” by forever (in the past, present, future) allowing human free-will decisions that include accepting or rejecting the grace He offers — because although God does "want to save everyone" He also wants (even more than this) human free will — and some humans will continue deciding to reject Him.

MORE about this logic - including what is and isn't accepted by Arminians and who is to blame for a person's damnation and the double-predestinating (to heaven & hell) of Calvinism and why logical Calvinism (re: the sovereignty of God) does not require classical Calvinism (= logical Calvinism + Eternal Misery).

When and How ?

IF a person “says NO to God” during their Life, and IF God eventually will save them, when and how will they be saved?

WHEN  —  Salvation in Afterlife?

an option:  You can first read a short overview of this section in the Table of Contents.

Why should we ask "Salvation in Afterlife"?   IF God eventually will save all people — as declared in some verses — to produce purgatorial Universal Reconciliation (pUR, or just UR),* He could allow previously-unsaved people (those He didn't save during Life) to believe-and-repent after death, during their Afterlife.    /     * a reconciliation-during-Afterlife could include all people (→ UR) or just some people (→ semi-UR).

Will this happen in Afterlife?  The Bible doesn't explicitly say “yes” or “no”.

Is this question important?  Yes, because if God will graciously allow salvation during Afterlife, most Bible-based objections to UR are weakened or eliminated.     {more} 

When we ask “will God give salvation in afterlife?”, a deeper examination shows why we can say “maybe yes” based on evidence that is biblical (what does the Bible say? not much one way or the other,* so there is minimal support for both YES & NO) and theological (why does “the burden of proof” favor UR?) and logical (because “strong exclusivism + universal salvation” requires after-death repentance).

What is strong exclusivism?  I think the Bible, especially in the New Testament, clearly teaches exclusivism (so the only source of salvation is Jesus, through His incarnation and substitutionary death) and probably a strong exclusivism (with salvation requiring explicit belief in Jesus, leading to repentance and living by faith) that seems to limit salvation-during-Life to only "a few" who are now (during Life) following the narrow road.*  So IF all are saved with UR (or even if more than "a few" are saved with semi-UR), THEN this wider salvation seems to require some salvation-during-Afterlife.

Actually, the question of inclusive-vs-exclusive is not very important for UR.  It's much more important for FA or EM because these views reject the possibility of salvation in Afterlife, so if God excludes a person based on their thinking-and-actions during Life, there is no more hope for this person;  they will be lost forever, they are damned to either Annihilation or Eternal Misery.  By contrast, with UR those who are excluded at the end of their life will have another chance during Afterlife, so even if most people are being excluded now (because they are now traveling on the wide path to destruction) they can be included later.

* Hebrews 9:27 is not biblical evidence against Salvation in Afterlife, because Christians who propose Universal Reconciliation agree that "people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment."  They only disagree when we ask “what will happen in Hell?” and “what are the final results of judgment?”

* If strong exclusivism will be God's criterion for salvation, most Jews will be excluded from "the few" because (as planned by God) most Jews have rejected "explicit belief in Jesus," they have not accepted Him as their Messiah.  So... will God really cause most of His chosen people to experience Eternal Misery?

Regarding the character of God, we should ask WWGD?

Consider the claim in this hymn:

    Great is Thy faithfulness, O God my Father,
    there is no shadow of turning with Thee;
    Thou changest not, Thy compassions they fail not,
    as Thou has been, Thou forever will be.

If you believe in Eternal Misery, is this claim — about divine faithfulness with compassions that "fail not" — limited by time?  For most of the people created by God, with EM would His temporary loving-and-forgiving occur only during the person's life, so at the moment of death His attitude-and-actions change to permanent hating-and-unforgiving?*     {if “yes” this would be a powerful reason to fear death}   {more - What changed between pages 70 and 200? in a vivid description of The Whole News as Good News ("God loves you") plus Bad News ("God hates you");  if God loves people during Life, but in Afterlife will cause Eternal Misery, can we still say "as Thou has been, Thou forever will be"?}   {will God forgive a person if they believe-and-repent just before death at the end of their Life?  but if they aren't good-and-smart and they don't choose wisely, will He never forgive them after death in their Afterlife?}

HOW will God produce Reconciliation?

Maybe... with radical transformation, by

Educational Healing in Purgatorial UR-Hell?

an option:  You can first read a short overview of this section in the Table of Contents.

IF God will produce Reconciliation-during-Afterlife, for people who were Unsaved/Unreconciled-during-Life, then maybe... God will use a process in UR-Hell that is analogous to whole-person edifying education in a school.  It also might be analogous, in many ways but not all, to rehabilitative correction in a prison, or medical healing in a hospital, with sinfulness removed by spiritual surgery.  So it could be useful to think of UR-Hell as educational corrective healing.  During UR-Hell the process of education produces corrective healing, to achieve God's goal of doing justice for all victims-and-sinners.

IF this occurs in UR-Hell, it will be a purgatorial process, as in divine fire (pur in Greek) that purifies, with divine purging by HolySpirit-surgery to remove things — like all kinds of sinfulness — that God doesn't want the person to have, to be.  By contrast with a view that proposes Universal Reconciliation (UR) without any process of purging-in-Hell, my view of UR is purgatorial Universal Reconciliation (pUR).  This name is more accurately descriptive because it distinguishes between Non-Purgatorial UR (NpUR) and Purgatorial UR (pUR),  and its abbreviation, pUR, reminds us of the divine fire (pur in Greek) used by God to actively save-and-sanctify previously unsaved people in UR-Hell, when God uses His divine pur to purge/refine during the purgatorial process (P) that produces the result (UR) He wants;  if God wants UR, He will use P to produce UR.   {or He could use P to produce semi-UR}     /     This purgatorial process in UR-Hell is NOT the Purgatory of Roman Catholicism;  although both contain "purg" they are very different.  Therefore, Purgatorial UR-Hell should be evaluated for what it is, for what it actually proposes;  it should not be criticized for what it isn't, for anything connected with Catholic Purgatory.

Maybe... after unsaved people are resurrected and judged, God will give them educational experiences in hell that correct-and-heal them, that lead them to believe & repent so they can be reconciled with Him.  How?  We can think about QUESTIONS and SPECULATIONS.

QUESTIONS  —  We'll begin with questions about HOW:

    In any view (UR, FA, or EM), “how will saved people be radically transformed so we are not still sinful, so we are sanctified and are suitable for Afterlife in Heaven?”  and...
    if UR occurs, then “in Hell, how will unsaved people be radically transformed so they are not still sinful, so they are sanctified and are suitable for Afterlife in Heaven?”

These two how-questions, considered individually and together, lead to other questions:  compared with the process for saved people, in what ways might the process for unsaved people be similar, and different?   will God change us (or them) instantly, or in a time-process?   will we (or they) passively receive the changes, or be active participants?   in what ways will the process be better for saved people? (we should expect the process-and-results to be much better for people who are saved during Life, but in what ways will it be better?)     {maybe... God will use every person's Afterlife to produce total sanctification (with radical changes that get rid of all sin) for everyone, and salvation for those who need it because they were unsaved at the end of their Life}   {in a process of partial sanctification, "do not conform to the pattern of this world, but let God transform you inwardly by a complete change of your mind." Romans 12:2 – Is this a process that begins in Life for Christians, and will be completed in Afterlife for only them? or for everyone?}   {iou - later, I'll describe how a process of being "radically transformed" might be described by everyone being salted with fire (Mark 9:49) and by fire-burning of works (1 Cor 3) that certainly will occur for all Christians, and probably will occur for all people.}

Reconciliation requires Restoration:  I think an authentic total reconciliation (with God and with people) will require a total restoration that transforms a person until they become righteous with total sanctification, until they have been restored (in all ways) into finally becoming the person God always wanted them to be.

The Consequences of Sins:  The Bible says very little about an afterlife process of changing for the purpose of eliminating sin in the hearts & minds of saved people or unsaved people.  But...

    sins have consequences — both now in Life, and later in Afterlife — as explained when Jesus warns "everyone" that "If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off.  It is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands [or "two feet" or "two eyes"], to go into hell,* into the unquenchable fire ...  For everyone will be salted with fire."  Our sins (of commission & omission, by what we do & don't do) produce consequences — because "God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap" and God "will repay each person [and maybe... one aspect of repaying will be a disclosing of their thoughts & actions in life-review videos that produce beneficially-transformative sorrows] according to what they have done" when in Afterlife "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad" — with the consequences-of-sin coming to us first during Life and then in Afterlife, whether the Afterlife Reality will be UR, FA, or EM.  And for believers, fire "will test the quality of each man's work" to determine if they will "receive reward" or "suffer loss," although the person "will be saved, yet so as through fire."    {* Jesus wants us to take sin seriously, because He does;  and He sets high standards for what He wants us to think & do. }     {more & more}
    and Jesus does tell us "there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed."  This total disclosing does not happen in Life, so it will happen in Afterlife.  {more}

The Forgiving of Sins:  In many places, the Bible also declares the total forgiving of sins by God.  But...

    forgiving is not transforming:  Although a divine forgiving of sins is merciful and wonderful, helping us feel thankful and joyful, by itself a divine forgiving of sins does not produce the radical transformation that is required for total sanctification, for the total cleansing-from-sin that will be required for everyone to live with total joy (mental, spiritual, relational, physical) in a heavenly Kingdom of God.

Consequences + Forgiving:  So... how does this combination (sins having consequences + sins being forgiven) fit together, in Life and Afterlife, for people who during Life were saved?  or were unsaved?

SPECULATIONS  —  and we'll continue with speculations about HOW:

Each of these speculations begins with "Maybe..." as a reminder that I don't claim to know the details of “what might happen” in UR-Hell, if there will be a UR-Hell.

• Life-Review Videos of a Person, to produce Sorrowful Repentance:   Maybe... one productive aspect of Afterlife Education-in-Hell will be Life-Review Videos that "disclose" to let a person re-experience, in a very intense way, their thoughts-and-actions during Life,* so they can observe their sins and the effects of their sins.  During these personally meaningful experiences, God could give them super-abilities (intellectual, emotional, empathetic,...) that will help them to understand more completely-and-accurately, and to feel an intensely sorrowful repentance for all of their sins, including both sins of commission (the bad things they did in their thoughts-and-actions) and sins of omission (the good things they didn't do, but they could have done if they had fully used the abilities & life-opportunities that were given to them by God). 

• Life-Review Videos of a Person, with Super-Experiencing:   Maybe... God will give super-experiences that will help a person more fully understand, and intensely experience, the total positive results of their beneficial thinking & actions (with feelings of super-joy) and the total negative results of their sinful harmful thinking & actions (with feelings of super-sorrow).  Their joys and sorrows would be increased if God gives them:

    multiple super-senses (to see, hear, feel,...) so they will have an intensely powerful re-experiencing of what happened during their Life;
    external super-knowledge about God, so they know Him more fully — with intimate spiritual relationship — and they understand how their sins against people were also sins against God,  and
    internal super-knowledge about themself so they understand, more completely and accurately, the “why” of their own thoughts & actions,  and
    external super-knowledge about people and events, so they know “all that happened” during Life from the perspectives of other people (by knowing their life-situations and their thoughts/feelings) so the person knows the total cause-and-effect results of how every other person was affected by their own actions, and (as part of their super-knowledge about God) an understanding of His interactions with them during each event, and of how they responded to what God was urging them to think & do),  and
    super-compassion for people, so they truly “love others as they love themselves” with genuinely deep caring, so they feel deep sorrow for all of their actions that have caused pain for other people.

• Life-Review Videos of a Person, with transformative healing by God:    Maybe... God will use Life-Review Videos in UR-Hell, and if He does, then certainly (not maybe) interactions with God will be an essential part of the person's intense re-experiencing of Life.  How?   Maybe... by using Life-Review Videos (plus other educating-and-healing experiences) during an intimate spiritual relationship with a person in a baptism of fire in The Lake of Fire.  During these experiences, God — through the actions of Father and/or Son and/or Holy Spirit — will produce conviction (along with comforting) that leads to sorrowful repentance (so the person truly wants to be purified from their sinful nature) with an authentic desire to let God beneficially transform them.  The result will be a purifying destruction of their sinful nature, an educational corrective healing that transforms them so they become totally healthy (as a whole person in their feeling-and-thinking & actions), so they become the Righteous Person that God always wanted them to be, and is now helping them to be.

   MORE --  * {more about possible super-abilities, given by God, to enhance a person's experiencing of Life Videos, along with divine guiding by Holy Spirit to help them learn more from their experiences during their purgative process of transformation-into-sanctification, plus divine knowledge-and-power that would be required for the "time traveling" in life videos}  {more about Purgative Universal Reconciliation}

Maybe... all of these thoughts-and-feelings (while watching life-review videos) will cause a deep sadness, an intensely emotional sorrow, with the person suffering in ways that are personally customized for them, because the sorrows they receive in Afterlife will depend on the sorrows they caused in Life.

watching Life-Review Videos of Other People, to produce Mutual Empathies:  Maybe... every person – both unsaved & saved – will be able to experience the life-review videos of other people, including their sorrowful repentance for their sins, to develop mutual empathies.*

* Maybe... our repenting will be verbal — if we can talk with each other, to remember and cry & laugh together, to hug and reconcile — plus a deep feeling-and-understanding (in other ways) of the repenting & forgiving & reconciling.  Together, all of these experiences would combine to produce thoughts-and-feelings that are deeper and more meaningful, compared with the interpersonal communication we can achieve with just words.

 Free Will and Universal Reconciliation (UR)
or semi-Universal Reconciliation (semi-UR)

an option:  You can first read a short overview of this section in the Table of Contents.

Universalists claim that in hell unsaved people CAN repent, and all DO repent.  But if humans have free will, how can we know that all will repent, that none will continue resisting in their Afterlife, like they did in their Life?  Here are two responses by defenders of UR, and a semi-UR possibility:

    • Maybe... in the Bible, God has told us that He will save all people — that ultimately "all will be made alive" with "life for all people" when God will "show mercy to all" so the life-actions of Jesus "will cause great joy for all the people" because He came "to save the world" by becoming "the atoning sacrifice... for the sins of the whole world" — so we know how “the grand story” will end. 
    • Maybe... because God wants all to repent, He will design persuasive hell-experiences so skillfully that each unsaved person will freely decide to believe-and-repent.  God could give each unsaved person more information, and a different perspective, so they will have a freeD will,* so their will is freed from the slavery to sin (Romans 6) that hindered their hearts-and-minds during Life, so in Hell they are able to make a wise decision and they do “say YES to God.”     {* A God-given freed will in Afterlife would be similar to Calvinism's claim that God-given regeneration in Life allows a person to overcome their sinful Total Inability (the T in TULIP) to believe in God and repent;  and the IP of TULIP could guarantee that all will be saved. }

 Semi-Universal Reconciliation:  Maybe... in their Afterlife, some unsaved sinners will believe-and-repent — if God graciously gives them a second chance for salvation — but others will refuse, and eventually God will accept their “no” and will let them perish, thus making their own death pay their own penalty for sin instead of letting Jesus pay their penalty with His substitutionary death.  These permanent deaths would occur because some people, with their free will, continue saying NO to God, instead of the YES that He wants.  Or maybe God will not accept the repentance of some people – because of how they lived in Life, or how they respond in Afterlife.     {a semi-UR view is a combination of UR-and-FA that is similar to UR (or FA) in some ways, but different in other ways} 

 the results of sin:  if God will do FA, every person who is unsaved during Life will be annihilated;  if God will do semi-UR, every person who is unsaved during Afterlife will be annihilated. 

 Free Will and different Semi-Universalism Hybrids - a little more and much more. 

Isolated Hell-Verses in the Bible

an option:  You can first read a short overview of this section in the Table of Contents.

Important whole-Bible principles (about The Character of God and Conditional Immortality & The Death Penalty) provide strong support against a doctrine of Eternal Misery.  And many Bible verses, strengthened by their whole-Bible context, provide support for Final Annihilation and for Universal Reconciliation.  By contrast, defenders of EM typically point to a few “hell verses” that are isolated (are not connected with whole-Bible themes), and they say “look at these.”  But when we do look at their verses carefully, we should not be impressed because...

    a verse about suffering – as in "weeping and gnashing" – does not support EM because all views (EM, FA, UR) agree that unsaved people will suffer in hell.  But the views disagree about time (will people suffer eternally with EM, or temporarily with FA or UR?), and timing (will God allow belief-and-repentance only in Life, or also in Afterlife as with UR or semi-UR?), and final result (will it be misery, non-existence, or reconciliation?).
    the translation of a Greek word can be biased when translators assume EM and think they should teach EM with their translation, so they choose (from the options available) an English word that will provide support for EM.*   {more about bias in translating}
    usually a reader can interpret a verse — by considering alternative translations (or meanings) of key words, and in other ways — so it seems to support EM and/or FA and/or UR.  Defenders of Eternal Misery claim to have "hell verses" (claimed by EM) but in reality these are not “[eternal misery] hell verses” because they also can be “[final annihilation] hell verses” or “[universal reconciliation] hell verses.”

Bias in Translating from Greek into English

* How are translations biased to favor EM?  One example is the perceived meaning we get from our interpretation of Matthew 25:46 — when Jesus said "these [who ignored the poor-and-needy, the hungry, thirsty, strangers, naked, sick, in prison] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous [who helped the poor-and-needy] into eternal life" — is affected by important decisions about translation.  How?  Here are two examples, for translations from Greek words {aionios & kolasin} into English words {eternal & punishment}:

• The Greek word aionios (or aionian) can mean "eternal" or "everlasting" or — more literally because aion means age (like aeon or eon in English) — “occuring in a future age” or “associated with a future age” or “age-related” or “age-ish”.  When translators choose "eternal" it seems to provide support for EM or FA. (or, as explained below, maybe not)   But this apparent support would vanish if they chose to translate aionios in one of the more-literal ways, so instead of "eternal punishment" we would be reading “punishment in a future age” (or “age-associated punishment” or...) that could occur with EM or FA, or UR.

• The Greek word kolasin is usually translated as "punishment" that would be retributive (with EM, FA, UR) and (with UR) also could be corrective.  But if translators wanted to emphasize the corrective function, kolasin could be translated as “corrective pruning” (its meaning in Classical Greek, and probably here in New Testament Greek) that would provide support for UR.     /     We see a similarly biased translation, that obscures our understanding of what God will do to us and for us, in Revelation 14:10 and 20:10 where the Greek word usually translated as "torment" — probably for the purpose of apparently supporting a doctrine of Eternal Misery-with-Torment? — is basanizo whose primary meaning (quoting from BibleStudyTools.com) is "to test (metals) by the touchstone, which is a black siliceous stone used to test the purity of gold or silver by the colour of the streak produced on it by rubbing it with either metal."  To provide further support for a divinely-intended meaning of “testing for purity”, the "basanizo" will be done by using "fire and sulfur" that (in the time of the New Testament) was a common method of chemically purifying gold, with "basanizo" using "fire and sulfur" probably symbolizing a divinely caused purifying-from-sin in The Lake of Fire.  The primary meaning of basanizo – to "test the purity" – is very different than the word "torment" chosen by translators who mislead us because they want us to believe that these verses do apparently support EM, even though (with a more-literally-accurate translation) they don't actually support EM.

{more about Matthew 25:46, re: eternal and punishment}

Or support for EM can seem justifiable due to misinterpretation.  How?

Because ‘kolasin’ is a noun, it's translated as "punishment" (noun) instead of “punishing” (verb).  This is important because with FA an eternally lasting punishment-result (eternally lasting non-existence) would not require — as implied in a misinterpretation by defenders of EM — an eternally lasting punishing-process with EM.  Another similarity, for EM and FA, is that "eternal life" and "eternal punishment" can have a parallel contrast-of-meaning with either EM (with life forever, and a Process-of-Punishing that lasts forever) or FA (with a Result-of-Punishment that lasts forever, causing dead forever instead of alive forever) and also with UR...

if the punishment is retributive AND corrective, if it's "eternal [retributive-and-corrective] punishment" or (in a different translation of kolasin) is "eternal corrective pruning" there is a Result-of-CorrectivePruning that lasts forever, causing reconciled forever (with UR) instead of miserable forever (with EM) or dead forever (with FA);  with UR the result-of-correction (of making a person correct, of making them the way God always wanted them to be) is an everlasting reconciliation.

a summary:  The 3 kinds of Hell (EM, FA, UR) would produce either an everlasting process-of-punishment (EM), or an everlasting result-of-punishment (FA, UR) with everlasting death (FA) or everlasting reconciliation (UR).

{more about biased translation-choices for important words: eternal, punishment, torment, death}   {an example of bias-for-EM:  in the NIV & some other translations, why do we read "away from" instead of “coming from” or – with less interpretation, making only the claim that is justifiable in an accurately literal translation – “from” ?}

{more about hell-verses — Matthew 25:46 (eternal punishment) & 25:41 (eternal fire), Luke 16:19-31 (Lazarus & The Rich Man, who are not in Hell), Revelation 14:9-11 (the smoke of their torment rises forever) & 20:10 (two creatures tormented forever) — briefly and in detail}   {the emphasis on social justice (and sins of omission) in Matthew 25 & Luke 16}

an option:  You can first read a short overview of this section in the Table of Contents.

Divine Fire in The Bible

Throughout the Bible, fire often symbolizes the divine presence-and-power of God.  A few examples of divine fire are the burning bush (Exodus 3), river of fire (Daniel 7), fire to refine & burn (Malachi 3 & 4), Jesus baptizing with fire (Matthew 3, Luke 3), "everyone will be salted with fire" (Mark 9), Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2), testing/destroying works of a believer (1 Corinthians 3), and "the lake of fire" (Revelation 20).     {from the Greek word for fire, πῦρ (transliterated as pur or pyr) we get derived words like purify, as in a process of using fire to make pure.}

What is the fire in Hell?  Will it be a literal physical fire, or (when we see "fire" in the Bible) is it a symbol for divine power?  And what will the fire do?  God hates sin, and if He wants to eliminate sin, He could do this in two ways — by producing Universal Reconciliation (UR) or Final Annihilation (FA), but not by causing Eternal Misery (EM) — by using His divine power, symbolized by fire:

What will happen in The Lake of Fire, during The Second Death?

What will be done to an unbeliever (i.e. WWJD?) in "the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:11-15) that "is the second death"?

In each view, what is the Second Death?

    with FA it's the usual meaning of death, but with a “total death” annihilation of body-and-soul that is permanent, with no possibility of resurrection in the future,
    with UR it's a “purifying death” that has a loving purpose because this death is necessary for new life, as in the death-with-Christ (symbolized by baptism) of Romans 6,
    with EM it's a “living death” with people forced to continue living in sin, even though this forced misery would be un-biblical because sinners "must not... live forever."

or we can ask:  in the Second Death, what is destroyed?

    with FA it's the sinner's existence, so their sin is eliminated,
    with UR it's the sinner's sinful nature, so their sin is eliminated,
    with EM it's the sinner's quality of life, but their sin is preserved.
    In different ways, both FA and UR eliminate sinning & sinners.  But EM maintains sinning & sinners with universal unconditional immortality that would be unbiblical.     {among the many biblical reasons to reject EM is because "with EM... sin is preserved"}
    Basically, FA & UR & EM propose that God – when He uses The Lake of Fire – will destroy sinner & sin & joy, using fire whose purpose is to kill & purify & torment.   In each Second Death, the "fire" of God will continue doing what God wants;  His fire cannot be quenched until His goal is achieved. (although with EM it seems that no worthy "goal" is ever achieved)     {* The Table of Contents briefly summarizes this section. }

a “big picture” view of Fire and Death and Baptism

As explained above, Second Death in The Lake of Fire could be:   physical death (if Final Annihilation, FA);   or (if purgatorial Universal Reconciliation, pUR) death-of-sin symbolized by death-with-Christ during baptism, as in Romans 6;   or (if Eternal Misery, EM) a living death.   These would end the sinner's existence or sinful nature or quality of life, respectively, with fire that kills or purifies or torments.   There are strong biblical reasons to reject EM so I'll focus on FA and pUR in this section, beginning with...

Fire that Consumes:  When we're comparing FA and pUR, we can imagine two ways for a consuming divine fire to destroy, to annihilate.  Throughout the Bible, fire often symbolizes the divine presence-and-power of God, manifested in a consuming fire that...   would be a person-damaging hurtful fire of God if He uses The Lake of Fire to consume a sinner, to annihilate the person;   would be a person-improving helpful fire of God if He uses The Lake of Fire to consume sin within a person, to annihilate their sin, to purify the person and produce repentance-and-reconciliation for pUR.     /     also:  Paul warns us (in 1 Corinthians 3:15-20) that "each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done" and some of a person's works will be "burned up" so they "will suffer loss" although the person "will be saved, but only as through fire."  And in Mark 9:49 Jesus tells us that "everyone will be salted with fire."     {what are the biblical meanings of Greek-apollymi & English-destruction?}

Death producing Life:  How can death lead to life?  In Romans 6:1-14, Paul uses symbolic analogy — by connecting our death-of-sin with the death-of-Jesus (both deaths are symbolized by baptism) and with our re-birth to new life (as in His resurrection), "so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life" — to describe the process of becoming a born-again Christian:  a person's old sinful nature must die (analogous to the death of Christ)* so they can be transformed by God (as in the resurrection of Christ) to "walk in newness of life."  For a born-again Christian, this new life begins during their Life, before their biological Life ends in their First Death.  But with purgatorial Universal Reconciliation (pUR) for a person who was unsaved-during-Life (i.e. unsaved before their First Death), their process of becoming born-again would begin during their Afterlife with a Second Death.   With pUR the Second Death of an unsaved person would be their unpleasant educational experience in Hell (with help from Holy Spirit) that causes their spiritual healing-and-rebirth, so they can be reconciled with people and with God.     /     * A similar claim, but without the symbolism of baptism, is Galatians 5:24, "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have [as in His death by crucifixion] crucified the flesh with its passions and desires."  Death is necessary-and-useful because (1 Corinthians 15:36) "that which you sow does not come to life unless it dies."

Baptism with Fire:  In the typical biblical baptism, a person is immersed in water.  When during Life a person is thrown into a regular lake of water their experience is immersion in water as in a baptism with water.  By analogy, when during Afterlife a person is thrown into the Lake of Fire their experience might be immersion in fire as in a baptism with fire.  John the Baptist, in Matthew 3:11-12 (and Luke 3:16-17), prophesies that — by contrast with John himself, who baptized with only water — Jesus "will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."  Maybe this divine baptism with fire will occur (for unbelievers) in The Lake of Fire, as claimed by pUR.  This would produce a result — Jesus "will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire" — that provides support for pUR because wheat and chaff are parts of the same plant, so they could symbolize parts of the same person.  During a divine baptism with fire in The Lake of Fire, Jesus could "burn up" a person's chaff (the evil parts of their character) so He can "gather His wheat [only the good parts of this person's character] into the barn," as described above and below.

This divine baptism with fire (by Jesus, with Holy Spirit) certainly occurs during Life for believers, beginning with Pentecost (Acts 1:4-5 & 2:1-4). 

You can see relationships (between passages

examined above and below) in this diagram:

• some relational connections between Matthew 3 and Revelation 20 and Romans 6:   if God — with grace motivated by a divine desire for justice-AND-love — will cause purgatorial Universal Reconciliation, probably His process of salvation-with-sanctification will use baptism with fire (Matthew 3) to purify an unsaved person with Second Death in The Lake of Fire (Revelation 20) by burning up the evil "chaff" within them so all that remains is their good "wheat" after they have been transformed by God into the totally purified righteous person He always wanted them to be.   In this way their Second Death would be a total death-of-sin, analogous to the partial death-of-sin ...

     that is symbolized by death-with-Christ in baptism using water (Romans 6) for a saved Christian whose purifying process begins in Life when God is producing healing restorations (transforming them into a partly purified person who becomes “born again” after God raises them from a symbolic death-with-Christ in their water baptism, before their First Death);   and ...
     this might occur by death-with-Christ in baptism using fire (Revelation 20) for an unsaved person whose purifying process occurs in Afterlife when God produces healing restorations (transforming them into a totally purified person who becomes “born again” after God raises them from a symbolic death-with-Christ in their fire baptism that causes their Second Death).

• some questions about sanctification:  My speculations about what might happen in UR-Hell are preceded by asking "how will saved people be radically transformed so we are not still sinful, so we are sanctified and are suitable for Afterlife in Heaven?" (this question is important-and-difficult for any view of Hell, with UR or FA or EM) and (with UR) "in what ways might the process for unsaved people be similar, and different?"

The diagram above also includes fire that "burns works" (as discussed briefly above) and "burns tares" (as examined in detail below).

Will fire (in The Lake of Fire) burn up the entire person, or only their evil character?

Wheat and Tares:  One kind of support claimed for FA is parables in which FA claims that Jesus is saying “there are two kinds of people, and one kind will be killed by God.”  For example, in Matthew 13:36-43 Jesus tells a parable about wheat & tares — symbolizing good people & evil people, in FA's interpretation — and "at the end of the age" the "tares" will be "burned with fire" in "the furnace of fire" where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth."  But pUR has a strong counter-argument by claiming that instead of the wheat & tares being good people & evil people (as in FA), they are (in pUR) the good & evil within one person, and in "the furnace of fire" the person's evil (their evil sinfulness, their evil character) will be "burned with fire" so "then [after their evil sin is burned away by divine fire, in a process that will be unpleasant for them so they will “weep and gnash” but will be beneficial for them] the righteous [the people whose character previously included both good & evil, but now is only good] will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father."  We can think of this transformative purification as spiritual surgery (done skillfully by divine HolySpirit-fire) that heals a person during their purgatorial experiences in UR-Hell.     /     a summary:  The wheat & tares could be (as claimed in FA) good people & evil people, or (as claimed in pUR) good character & evil character.

We can see two kinds of analogies in the major parables of Matthew 13 — explained by Jesus in 13:18-23 (Parable of The Sower) and 13:36-43 (Parable of The Wheat & Tares) — with one making pUR's interpretation stronger, and the other supporting FA's interpretation.  And we can see pUR-supporting analogy when we compare wheat-and-chaff (Matthew 3) with wheat-and-tares (Matthew 13).

analogy between seeds:  This supports pUR.  Why?  Because "the seed" is "the word of the kingdom" (in The Sower) and (in The Wheat) Jesus is "sowing the good seed" that is "the sons of the kingdom."  Probably there is a connection between the "seed" in these parables, with God's good "word" (in Sower Parable) analogous to good "sons" (in Wheat Parable);  if Sower-seed ("the word") is not people, maybe Wheat-seed ("sons") also is not people, instead is a person's character;  each kind of seed is beneficial, spiritually and practically.   /   What about the tares?  They are described as "stumbling blocks" (this could be evil character, as in UR), and also as "sons of the evil one" (apparently supporting FA?) but...  Jesus tells us, in John 8:44, that "the devil" is "the father of lies," with lies (as in opposing "the word of the kingdom" with The Sower) being sons of the devil,  so "sons of the evil one" ("tares" in Matthew 13) could be evil "lies" (as in John 8) that (in The Wheat) deceive a person and influence them to damage their own character.     { But even if "sons of the evil one" are people who (as proposed in both FA and UR) will be thrown into "the furnace of fire," this fire might not annihilate these people, instead it might annihilate their sin to purify the people. }

analogy between responses:  This supports FA.  Why?  [iou - this will be continued later, maybe April 14.]

analogy between wheat/chaff and wheat/tares:  This supports pUR because wheat & chaff are parts of the same plant, so maybe wheat & tares are parts of the same person, are good & evil parts of the person's character.  In the same way that in Matthew 3 the divine baptismal fire of Jesus burns up the chaff but not the wheat, maybe in Matthew 13 this divine baptismal fire burns up a person's evil sinfulness (to produce UR) instead of (with FA) burning up the evil person, killing them with fire.  In purgatorial UR, God will purify a person whose character includes both wheat & chaff (both wheat & tares, good & evil) by baptizing them with His Holy Spirit, baptizing with divine fire that will burn up the person's evil (their "chaff", their "tares") so He can "gather His wheat [the good person, who is now purified so they have no evil] into the barn," so they will (like the wheat-without-tares in Matthew 13) "shine forth as the sun."  We expect a baptism by Jesus to provide benefits for the person who is being baptized, and with pUR it's beneficial, but with FA (or EM) it's damaging.

    You can read LESS in a summary-overview of this section

plus MORE about Second Death in The Lake of [Divine] Fire

and the process (immersion and un-immersion) of baptism.

  Universal Reconciliation and Ambiguity —  

  Reasons for Optimism-without-Confidence  

an option:  You can first read a short overview of this section in the Table of Contents.

In the second stage of my evaluation — when comparing FA with UR — why is there no clear winner?  I'll give you two answers, by responding to these two why-questions:

    WHY is my process of evaluation-and-conclusion difficult and inconclusive?
    WHY hasn't God made “the answer” clear in His Bible, so the process would be easy?

Why is the process of evaluation difficult, with ambiguous conclusion?

In evaluations of FA vs EM, whole-Bible principles (the character of God plus Conditional Immortality and the related Death Penalty for Sin) strongly support FA;  and isolated hell-verses are not conclusive.

In evaluations of FA vs UR, whole-Bible principles seem consistent with either FA or UR;  and we can find verses that provide support for both FA and UR.   In the Bible as a whole and in its parts,

    we see strong support for FA, but UR has strong counter-arguments, and
    we see strong support for UR, but FA has strong counter-arguments.

For example, when we ask “will God allow unsaved people to believe-and-repent in their Afterlife?” — an extremely important question because a “yes” would weaken most biblical objections to UR — the Bible doesn't explicitly say “yes” or “no”.

Why has God allowed this ambiguity?

Certainly our uncertainty is allowed by God.  And probably it's caused by God, maybe to avoid “proof” so – during our Education With Life – we can develop skills in living by faith, so during Life we can show God “what's in our hearts” because, with our responses to Jesus and what He commands us to do, "the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. (Luke 2:35)"

I think this is the main reason.  But maybe it's also...

    to restrain humans from “running wild” during Life, because without fear-based motivation some people — if they expect UR instead of FA (or expect FA instead of EM) in Afterlife — might run wild;*  or
    to produce temporary psychological suffering in hell if people think their hell-experience might end (with the death of FA) or might not end (if they'll get EM), even if they eventually will get UR.

Or maybe the answer actually IS clear in the Bible, and we (including me) are just not seeing what should be clear.

But... this seems unlikely, because devout intelligent Bible-believing Christians have reached differing conclusions about what the Bible teaches, so there are some advocates for each doctrine, for FA and UR plus semi-UR (the 3 doctrine-views I think are plausible), and even for EM.  So evidently most of us — all except those who are now advocating the doctrine that correctly describes what will happen, and probably this is a minority because the majority now believe EM but this probably won't happen — are missing the clarity.

* The biblical ambiguity (about whether God will cause Annihilation or Reconciliation) is part of our overall uncertainty — that seems to be caused by God, with an absence of strong divine persuasion for most people during Life — could be a "burden of proof" argument to support ultimate Reconciliation.

Conditional Immortality  —  Part 2

Logically Defining Terms that have Related-yet-Different Meanings

This section (Part 2) builds on Part 1 where I explain why Conditional Immortality (CI) is taught in The Bible, why it's important, how it's related to the divine penalty of death (not long-term suffering), and how CI would happen with either Final Annihilation (FA) or Universal Reconciliation (UR), but not if God will cause Eternal Misery (EM).  This section explains why our thinking will be more productive, and our communication will be more accurate, if we logically define a system of terms to describe our concepts about the final results of Hell, and we consistently use these terms in our thinking and communication.     {note: for logical coherence here in Part 2, below you'll see some “duplicated content” from Part 1}

* defining a term logically: 

In Part 1 we see how immortality would satisfy God's if-then Condition — if (and only if) saved, then immortal — with 2 of the 3 views, with Final Annihilation (FA) because all unsaved people would be gone, or with Universal Reconciliation (UR) because all people would be saved.*  Therefore the logical conclusion is that Conditional Immortality is “either FA or UR” instead of the “only FA” that is claimed whenever a person refers to Annihilation as Conditional Immortality.  I think we should be logical (instead of just traditional) in our defining of Conditional Immortality.  What do you think?

What is the logical definition?  Because all immortal people would satisfy the divine if-then Condition of “only if saved, then immortal” with either FA or UR, it seems obvious that “Conditional Immortality is FA-or-UR” should be the logical conclusion.  This logic could be over-ruled by other reasons (traditional and/or personal), but should it be overruled?

A person can conclude that “UR will happen” in two different ways, by starting with either dependent conditional immortality or intrinsic universal immortality:   1) A proponent of UR should begin with dependent conditional immortality — because the Bible teaches us that a person's continuing existence is dependent on God (it's not intrinsic), and is conditional — so the result of Afterlife-Hell will be either UR or FA;  then they evaluate UR-versus-FA and conclude “it will be UR” so they also conclude “it will be universal immortality.”   2) But a proponent of UR could begin by assuming unbiblical intrinsic universal immortality so “everyone will be immortal” with UR or EM;  then they evaluate UR-versus-EM and conclude “it will be UR.”   In other words, universal immortality could be either a final conclusion (using biblical process #1) or (using unbiblical process #2) an initial assumption.     /     a summary:  There is no logical reason for a proponent of UR to begin with an initial assumption of universal immortality {so it's UR-or-EM} and then conclude “it's UR (not EM),”  instead they can begin by assuming it's Conditional Immortality {so it's UR-or-FA}* and then finally conclude “it's UR (not FA)” so their final conclusion includes universal immortality.     {* When a person bases their evaluations on a careful study of the Bible (as they should), this initial assumption is actually an initial conclusion.}

* An important outcome of Conditional Immortality is that CI produces a Final State in which sin has been eliminated by God.  UR and FA both produce a sinless Final State;  this similarity-of-outcomes occurs because both are CI, so we should define CI as UR-or-FA.  A similar Final State (without sin) would be produced by either form of CI, although with UR this is achieved by eliminating sin-within-people, and with FA it's achieved by eliminating people, so with FA there are fewer people in The Final State.     /     By contrast, EM is not-CI.  Therefore, EM would produce a very different Final State in which sin is being maintained forever by God, and this unbiblical outcome is one of the many biblical reasons to reject EM.

{more about defining Conditional Immortality}

defining a system-of-terms logically:

To promote thinking that is more logical, and communicating that is less confusing, every term (in a system of related terms) should have only one meaning.  Consistent with this principle, we should carefully define the adjective-terms we use to describe immortality.   I think these terms should include:  unbiblical intrinsic immortality (with continuing existence independent from God) contrasts with biblical dependent immortality (with continuing existence dependent on God);  biblical conditional immortality contrasts with unbiblical unconditional immortality that is not the same as possibly-biblical universal immortality because...

universal immortality could be produced in two ways:  by God's universal salvation of all that allows His universal reconciling of all (in a UR-result that is biblically possible because it would be consistent with conditional immortality);  or by God's forcing of unconditional immortality on unsaved people (in an EM-result that seems biblically impossible because it would violate conditional immortality).

All of these adjective-terms (plus other terms) form a "system of related terms" with interactions between concepts that are related-yet-different.  For example, when we compare dependent immortality with conditional immortality, we see that...

dependent allows conditional, because if (as Bible-believers should believe) life depends on God, then (as Bible-believers should believe) God is able to make conditional decisions about life and death.  Do humans have intrinsically-immortal souls?  No.  When we read The Bible carefully, we see that it doesn't teach an intrinsically universal Unconditional Soul-Immortality, even though this typically is assumed by those who propose the Unconditional Soul/Body Immortality required by Eternal Misery.  Instead, The Bible does teach a Dependent Existence (for awhile or forever) that allows the Divine Control of Life wanted by God, so He can produce a Conditional Immortality of Body-and-Soul.*   Thus, God's Condition-Based Decisions (when He uses His if-then Condition to decide who lives) require Dependence (with God being able to decide who lives) but go beyond it.  Dependence is necessary for Condition-Based Deciding, but Dependence is not sufficient for determining who will be given life by God, in the life-or-death decisions made by God.     /     We should try to think-and-communicate in ways that are clear, not sloppy.  Unfortunately, some people use conditional with two different meanings — to describe God's decisions-about-life based on His if-then condition, and also how the giving-of-life depends on God — and they imply that both of these are conditional.  In an effort to reduce confusion and increase clarity, I'm proposing that we should use two words to describe the two meanings:  we should use dependent for dependent existence, so (to clarify the intended meaning) we can use conditional only for conditional existence.     /     * In the Bible, in Genesis & Revelation "the tree of life" is God's way of describing His divinely supernatural giving-of-life by preventing death.

In contrast with failed attempts (made by proponents of FA) trying to logically justify their claim that “CI is only-FA”,  here we'll examine an argument that is biblically-logically justifiable, asking “is UR compatible with CI?”

If God will cause UR, when does a person's immortality begin?  For a person who was saved-in-Life, their immortality begins immediately when they are resurrected with indestructible bodies.  For a person who was unsaved-in-life, proponents of FA claim that “with Conditional Immortality this person cannot be immediately given an indestructible body because they are not yet saved, but this mis-timing (with indestructible body before salvation) would occur with UR.”  Their objection is biblically-logical, but a proponent of UR can respond in two biblically-logical ways:

    1) When we ask “what kind of body?” the situation is similar for FA and UR.  In either scenario for Afterlife, a person who was unsaved-in-Life will be given a body for awhile, until God is finished with the temporary “phases of afterlife” that He wants them to have.  With FA these phases include a time period for The Judgment of God, and maybe a time period when they are being punished for their sins (so they will have different degrees of suffering) and certainly a time period when they are dying and become dead.  With UR these phases include a time period for The Judgment of God, and the person's time period in UR-Hell that causes their belief-and-repentance, that transforms them so they become restored (so they will be the righteous person He always wanted them to be) and become reconciled (with other people and with God);  then after they have been saved, God will give them an indestructible body, and this timing (with salvation before indestructible body) is consistent with The Condition of Conditional Immortality.     /     a review:  With either FA or UR, a temporary body (given immediately at resurrection) must allow the continuing existence of an unsaved person "for awhile" so they can experience the required phases of their afterlife, whether this lasts for a short time or a long time;  the divinely-decided length of required time (for FA, or for UR) is not specified in scripture, so it could be a short time or a long time.  With UR we can think of this temporary body as a “probationary body” that will be transformed into an indestructible “immortal body” after they have been saved by God, and this timing is compatible with Conditional Immortality.
    2) If God decides to do UR and causes UR, God knows with certainty (by divine foreknowledge) that an unsaved person eventually will be saved by Him.  Therefore, even if He immediately gives them an indestructible body (to be used during their temporary time in UR-Hell), “in the long run” this immediately-indestructible “immortal body” will not violate The Condition of Conditional Immortality.   It will not violate God's decision about CI — with His decree in Genesis 3:22 stating that a sinner "must not... live forever" — because the previously-unsaved person will be saved before they live forever, so they will live forever as a saved person, not (as with EM) while they remain an unsaved person.

an option:  You can first read a short overview of this section in the Table of Contents.

Effects on Relationships

Even though the views are almost identical in other ways, their differences (in the final state of unsaved humans) make a big difference in our relationships with God and people, as in...

my relationships with unbelievers:

I'm less eager to share The Gospel when I must argue against the common assumption that The Good News includes both Good News (of God giving Eternal Joy) and Bad News (of God causing Eternal Misery).     {more – evangelism with mixed news (good+bad) and mixed motivations (love+fear) and my mixed feelings about the tensions of conflicting responsibilities – and why does UR promote an us-and-us feeling instead of the us-and-them that tends to occur with FA & EM?

my relationships with believers:

How do I feel?  I'm disappointed by the many Christians who (in the past) made Eternal Misery “the traditional belief” — despite its biblical weakness — and now (in the present) are continuing to support this choice, mainly because they are assuming instead of studying.  And I'm sad because when fellow Christians say “God will cause Eternal Misery for most of the people He created”, I think they are saying untrue-and-harmful things about the character of God.  Due to my disappointment and sadness, it's more difficult for me to feel a deep fellowship with other Christians.   {yes, I know this attitude is a sinful flaw, and with God's help I'm trying to change it, but the disappointment & sadness are very real in my heart and mind}

How do they feel?  This varies widely, and responses can occur on two levels, personal & professional.*  Based on the second-hand experiences of others, responses by fellow Christians are sometimes hostile toward a person proposing FA, and typically (based on stories I've heard, but not my limited personal experience)* are more hostile toward a person proposing UR.   {iou - later, I'll write more about this.}

* Pressures – Personal and Professional

Pressures can be felt at different levels:

members of a church can feel personal social pressures to conform, and

people in ministries (of a church, organization, or school) can feel professional institutional pressures to conform:

    What?  The "pressures to conform" are pressures to accept EM, to preach it, or at least not preach against it.   {reasons for caution and reasons for action}
    Why?  There is pressure because:  EM is included in many statements of “What We Believe”, instead of a humbly neutral statement (as in the Apostle's Creed or Nicene Creed) that is compatible with all views, with EM & FA & UR;   typically, EM is “assumed” in Christian culture & general culture;   and if this assumption is challenged, a few people in a church (and outside it) will vigorously defend EM.
    How?  Many pastors (and members) are worried that “challenging EM” would lead to controversy, with interpersonal conflicts and professional problems.  If a person is worried about losing their job & their family's income, and losing future opportunities due to “blackballing”, this internal perception of threat can lead them to self-censor themselves, even if there is no external threat by their institution.  And maybe the internally perceived threats are justified because externally actualized penalties really are possible, and an institution will cause personal/professional damage if EM is being challenged.

more:  for most people, thoughts-and-actions often are influenced by the powerful inertia of tradition and psychology-sociology of conformity (e.g. imagine that instead of most people assuming EM, very few believe it – in this cultural context, if you say “our loving Father will cause Eternal Misery”, what kind of reception would you get?) — mixed feelings (as in diligent all-day workers or faithful elder brothers) — wishing the tradition was different-and-better.

* So far, my own sharing-of-ideas with fellow Christians (individually and in small groups) has gone well.  Their responses have been gracious and loving.  But I'm still being cautious, moving slowly, although with some action:  beginning in 1987, I have been thinking-reading-writing about these ideas;  since 2010, I've been talking with some people by email & in person;  in early 2018, I made a public commitment to action by putting a link for this page – "What will happen in Hell? (eternal misery, death, or healing?)" – into my bio-pages about "life on a road less traveled."

My Reasons for Caution

I'm confident about the Conditional Immortality (CI) that would occur with either purgatorial Universal Reconciliation (pUR) or Final Annihilation (FA), but not with Eternal Misery (EM).  I'm hopeful-and-optimistic about pUR.   But when I'm wondering whether to share my views with others, "I'm still being cautious, moving slowly" for two kinds of reasons, interpersonal and functional.

Interpersonal Reasons  {asking “how would it affect a church?”}

• Reasons for Caution:  I'm mainly concerned about other people, re: my effects on them, because...

    I don't know how a church (its members & pastor) would be affected by discussing “what will happen in hell?”, especially if the discussion is favorable to CI so it challenges the “traditional” assuming-of-EM.
    I think most members (and pastors) of most churches would respond well, either neutrally — saying “I don't care much” or, with humility, “I don't know enough about hell to be confident in claiming any view” and “I don't want to invest time in studying it,” or maybe “I think this is important, I'm curious and want to learn more” — or favorably because they prefer a non-EM view, they think EM would not achieve justice and the ethical character of God is better if He will not cause EM.  But I think a few church members (and a few people outside the church) would respond unfavorably by vigorously defending the tradition of EM for a variety of biblical & extra-biblical reasons, and they would be vigorously vocal (maybe even nasty), causing trouble for the church and for its leaders.
    The leaders of a church – its pastor & others – would have more reasons (compared with me) for interpersonal concerns (plus professional institutional pressures),  more reasons to be cautious by avoiding discussions about hell.   Probably they would not want to invite controversy, so I don't want to “invite controversy for them” by trying to start a discussion without their permission and cooperation.

• Reasons for Action:  If there is no discussion, many people will continue to believe that God will cause Eternal Misery.  This makes me sad because "I think they are saying untrue-and-harmful things about the character of God," so I'm hoping they will stop saying these things.  A productive discussion (with love & respect) could lead more people to ask “what will happen in hell?”, to search for truth and hopefully find truth.

Functional Reasons  {evangelistic responsibilities and practical effects}

Evangelistic Responsibilities:  Christians should try to avoid giving False Hope and the Bad Surprise that would occur if during Life a person expects pUR (purgatorial Universal Reconciliation) but in Afterlife they get FA (Final Annihilation) or EM (Eternal Misery),  or if they expect FA but get EM.  We also should try to avoid causing False Fear.  Due to biblical ambiguity about The Final Results of Hell, these two conflicting responsibilities — to avoid causing False Hope or False Fear — produce a tough dilemma.

Practical Effects:  A person's beliefs about Hell will affect their motivations (fear-based & love-based) to repent and live by faith.  A belief in EM-Hell will increase fear motives — due to fearing the infinite horror of Eternal Misery, instead of thinking {with pUR} “even if I now say NO, later I can say YES and (after a non-infinite time in Hell) then I'll be fine” or {with FA} “death wouldn't be so bad” — but it tends to decrease love motives due to not respecting the character of a God who is believed to be an EM-causer, and unfortunately this makes it much more difficult to fully respect and trust and love Him.  Many people have a pragmatic concern about society — they are worried that if there is no fear of EM, sinners will “run wild”, causing great harm to themselves and to others — because EM seems to be pragmatically useful in its fear-based restraining of sin.  But... the fearing of EM has some beneficial practical effects, AND many detrimental practical effects to (again) produce a tough dilemma.     /     This worry about “sinners running wild” was common in the early church (its first few centuries) when pUR was commonly believed, but was rarely proclaimed because leaders were self-restrained by their doctrine of reserve, as explained by J.W. Hanson in Chapter 4 of his book (1899) about the history of Universal Restoration.

Conflicting Factors:   In each of these reasons for being cautious — for not discussing “what will happen in hell” and not claiming “I think CI (or UR or FA) probably will happen, and EM won't happen” — the caution (the not-discussing & not-claiming, with non-action) produces some good effects AND some bad effects:  discussing hell in church could lead to controversy, BUT it could help us discover biblical truth;   we should avoid causing false hope AND false fear;   believing EM usually increases one motive (due to fear of EM) for conversion-and-discipleship, BUT it usually decreases a more important motive (when fear makes it more difficult to fully love an EM-causing God);   a fear of EM produces beneficial effects AND detrimental effects.   Due to these conflicting factors, each reason for caution is closely related to a reason for action, so I (and we) have a tough dilemma.

Biblical Ambiguity:   There are strong arguments (and counter-arguments) for (and against) two views* — so it's difficult to be confident about which view is correct {is true because it will happen} — and this ambiguity adds to the dilemma.     {* I think we find strong biblical support for the two CI-views (for FA and UR) but not for EM.}

Action with Caution:   In principle, I already have decided that action is best, in the long run.  But in each specific short-term situation, I want to use wise caution, and so far I usually have been deciding to not discuss and not claim.

• my relationship with God:

Here are my responses to what I think is the basic justice and character of God with each view:

    if I try to imagine – contrary to what I believe – that God will cause Eternal Misery, the horror of EM makes it extremely difficult for me to imagine being able to fully love God (with my whole heart, soul, and mind),* but...
    when I imagine the mercy of FA, it's much easier to love God more fully, and...
    when I imagine the grace of UR, it's even easier (compared with FA) to most fully love God, and to proudly proclaim "what God will do to unbelievers in hell" because, with UR, God can produce restorative justice for victims, and for sinners He will do retributive justice that rehabilitates-and-heals.

Also, I'm frustrated by the biblical ambiguity when we're evaluating FA-versus-UR, so I find myself asking “why don't You make it more clear?”

* Can we honor God by defending EM, and also by criticizing EM?

Relationships of Other People (Believers & Unbelievers) with Each Other and with God:

Soon I will begin asking others “what do you think?” to discover how they feel.  Do they respond like me, or do they find it equally easy, when they imagine each view, to fully love people and God.     {more about relationships}

our attitudes toward other Christians and God — Principles

for Discussing Doctrines Respectfully, with Christian Love:

Jesus commanded us (in John 13:34 and elsewhere) to "love one another," and Paul tells us to "take delight in honoring each other."  To help us love-and-honor each other more effectively — as individuals, and as a whole body of believers — useful principles are "in essentials unity, in non-essentials diversity, in all things charity."   {who said this and why?}    

How can we decide if a doctrine is essential, instead of non-essential?*  We should look at its importance-and-certainty by asking, "is it theologically important, AND is it taught with certainty in the Bible?"

In my opinion:  our doctrinal response when we ask “what is the ultimate fate of unsaved people?” is important (because it affects our thinking-and-actions) but is not important enough to be considered essential for Christian faith;  AND the doctrine that is correct (is true because it matches the reality of what actually will happen in afterlife) is not taught with certainty, so it cannot be known with certainty.

* When answering these questions about importance and certainty, to decide if a doctrine is essential or non-essential,...

    a Christian should have appropriate humility — not too much (by declaring that no doctrine is important-and-certain) and not too little (by declaring that every doctrine they propose is important-and-certain) — so we can avoid the rigid arrogances of extreme mushy relativism or extreme unjustifiable dogmatism.
    a useful perspective comes from the early history of the Christian church.  In biblical sermons and letters, early leaders of the church (Peter, John, James, Paul) never mentioned eternally lasting torment, probably because they didn't believe it, and if they did (very unlikely) they didn't think it was important enough to mention.  Later, all major views of Hell (proposing that it will produce Reconciliation, Annihilation, or Eternal Misery) were common among prominent church leaders.  In the early church, all views were acceptable options, and all were respected in theological discussions among Christians.  The early church did not consider "the ultimate fate of unsaved people" to be an essential doctrine, so diversity was allowed.
    {more – what students learned, from my favorite teacher, about Accurate Understanding and Respectful Attitudes}

This section combines ideas from above and below, about relationships with fellow Christians and with God.  Below, I describe what I think-and-feel about the character of God when I imagine that He will cause Eternal Misery, or Annihilation, or Reconciliation.  Although some people claim that people have no right to do this kind of thinking-and-feeling, it seems unavoidable, and I'm confident that — when it's done with appropriate humility (not too little and not too much) — it's an essential part of our relationship with God.  I think...

• unbelievers will be affected by a doctrine of Eternal Misery:  When an unbeliever is deciding whether they will “say YES to God,” what they think about hell will affect their minds-and-hearts when they are wondering “can I trust God, and love Him?”  In our current culture, most unbelievers are assuming — due to commonly shared “beliefs in their culture,” reinforced by what they typically hear from Christians — that God will cause Eternal Misery.  BECAUSE they think God will do EM, many unbelievers feel & think, in their hearts & minds that this would be unfair and they don't like the character of this EM-God (who will cause Eternal Misery) so they cannot trust God and love Him, and they will not say YES.  This is a reason for Christians to feel sadness.

• devout believers can honorably defend a doctrine of Eternal Misery:  I think defenders of EM "are saying untrue-and-harmful things about the character of God."  But I also think they defend EM with sincere motivations.  They love God, and want to honor Him, so — BECAUSE they think the Bible teaches EM, so God will cause EM — they want to defend His character by defending the ethics of causing Eternal Misery.  For similar reasons,...

• devout believers can honorably criticize a doctrine of Eternal Misery:  I think the biblical evidence against EM is strong.*  Therefore, when I'm trying to imagine “how I would feel IF God will cause Eternal Misery for most of the people He created,” my if-then thinking is that “this would be horrible IF it happened, but it won't.”  I don't think God will cause EM, so when I question the ethics of EM I'm not criticizing the character of “who I believe God actually is” BECAUSE I don't think He is the EM-causing God that I'm criticizing.     *{the character of God – when we ask "What Will Jesus Do?" – is one of three Bible-based reasons to reject EM}

IF and BECAUSE:  These related concepts are important.  Why?  When we're trying to imagine the character of God IF He will cause EM, some devout God-honoring Christians think “YES, this IF will happen,” but others think “NO, this IF won't happen.”  After a person decides YES or NO, they now are thinking that either “BECAUSE God will cause EM,     ” or “BECAUSE God won't cause EM,     ”.   They are thinking that...

    “BECAUSE Eternal Misery will happen,     ” and they fill the blank by defending the ethics of EM, so their response will honor God, or

    “BECAUSE Eternal Misery won't happen,     ” and they fill the blank by criticizing the ethics of EM, so their response will honor God.

With either conclusion about "BECAUSE", devout Bible-believing Christians can defend God's character by saying what they think-and-feel about what they have concluded He will do, or He won't do.  Here is why:

    When a person who (unlike me) thinks "God will cause EM" defends this divine decision, they are not giving a general defense of everyone who intentionally causes long-term misery.  They are only saying that, in this specific situation, “I trust God, so I have faith that BECAUSE God will do this, He must have ethically justifiable reasons for doing it.”     {if a Christian thinks God will cause EM, should they “hope against what God wants” by hoping for FA or UR?  yes, because in reality they “hope against what [they think] God wants” – although they are justified in wanting to praise God for whatever He does – they should humbly hope they are wrong about God wanting to cause EM, so they are hoping that God will not cause EM.}
    When a person who (like me) thinks "God won't cause EM" explains why causing EM would be unethical, we are not criticizing the actual character of God BECAUSE we think He will not cause EM in the actual afterlife-reality.  Instead we are only criticizing a concept — another person's claim about God — because it's a claim we think is not taught in the Bible, so we think it's not the way God actually is.     { "criticizing a concept" is not "criticizing the actual character of God" because a Theory-about-Afterlife (leading to a humanly constructed Theory-about-God that is a "claim about God") is not the Reality-of-Afterlife or the Reality-of-God. }  {more - what Realities are affected (and not affected) by our Theories about Afterlife, or God, or Planets?}

Do you see how each way of thinking, and therefore each response — by either defending or criticizing the ethics of a God who would cause Eternal Misery — can be motivated by loving God and wanting to honor Him?   And in the community of Christians, we can "take delight in honoring each other" by recognizing (in our thinking and communicating) that proponents for each of the views can be motivated by a sincere desire to honor God.

Evangelism — Motives for Becoming (and Remaining) a Follower of Christ

an option:  You can first read a short overview of this section in the Table of Contents.

The Whole News  ( is it Good News + Bad News ? )

Three descriptions of The Gospel (The Good News) — using EM, FA, UR — propose the same afterlife end-state for believers (it's Eternal Joy), but disagree about the end-state for unbelievers:

    • if we assume Eternal Misery (EM) we can tell non-believers The Whole News, which includes The Good News (that "God loves you and offers a Wonderful Plan for Your Life") plus The Bad News (that if you die without believing, then God hates you and has a Terrible Plan for Your Afterlife, for Your Zillions Of Years In Hell – and then, as in the song Amazing Grace, "when you've been there ten thousand years,... you've no less days... than when you first began");  and this Bad News will happen to most people.
    • with Final Annihilation (FA) we can explain The Good News that God offers a very good Life now, and a better Afterlife later, but (with Semi-Bad News) you must “say YES to God” during your Life, or you will lose both opportunities, because if you “say NO to God” throughout your Life, after your temporary First Death you will be resurrected to a temporary Afterlife of suffering that leads to your permanent Second Death.
    • with Universal Reconciliation (UR) The Good News remains the same, but for an unbeliever The Bad News becomes Semi-Good News because, after temporarily unsatisfactory relationships with God (now in Life, and later in Afterlife) eventually they will have a wonderfully satisfying relationship with God.   {but everyone should say YES now}   /   Also, semi-UR proposes that for people who are unsaved at the end of their Life, God graciously gives additional opportunities to repent during their Afterlife in Hell.  But anyone who continues “saying NO to God” is mercifully given FA with Death, instead of unbiblical sinful immortality with Misery.

What is the most “evangelical” view of Hell?  The dictionary meaning of evangel (Greek) is (in English) "the good tidings of the redemption of the world through Jesus Christ."  It seems obvious that the most evangelical view is UR, and the least is EM.  But if it's truly evangelical a view must be good-AND-true.  Seeking truth is important so I'm encouraging you (and challenging you) to carefully study the Bible instead of assuming you already know.  Since 1987 I've invested lots of time in carefully studying, and my current conclusion is that EM is extremely bad and is false,  FA is better than bad and is possibly true,  UR is extremely good and is possibly true.  And the more I study UR (by reading & listening, and thinking), the more optimistic I'm becoming about its truth.

an option:  You can first read a short overview of this section in the Table of Contents.

Can we praise God for His Hell?

I'm asking about "His Hell" because God is sovereign, so what will happen in Hell is what the sovereign God decides will happen and wants to happen, and will cause to happen (or at least will allow to happen, if God self-limits the actualizing of His sovereign control by allowing the thinking-and-actions of people to actually determine what will occur).

When a person “says YES to God” they will want to obey God's Two Great Commandments by fully loving God and loving people.

    As one part of fully loving God, Christians should praise God for everything He does, including what He will do to unsaved people in Hell.
    As one part of fully loving people, we should tell them what God will do TO (and maybe FOR) unsaved people in Hell.

With the Good News of Universal Reconciliation (UR), we can proudly proclaim "what God will do" FOR unsaved sinners in UR-Hell — when He transforms them into the totally righteous people He always wanted them to be — and we can enthusiastically praise God (fully with heart, soul, and mind) in our private thinking, and our fellowship with other Christians, and our conversations with non-Christians.  But this is more difficult with FinalAnnihilation-Hell, and is extremely difficult with EternalMisery-Hell.  Why?

In all three views, the process of judgment-and-hell will be very unpleasant for unsaved people.

In two views, the results also will be very unpleasant.  For unsaved people, the results of judgment-and-hell are permanently unproductive with both FA (permanent death) and EM (permanent misery).

But with UR we can proudly proclaim that the results will be permanently productive for everyone, with God achieving justice and restoration.  With UR the experience in Hell can be just and also loving because it produces retributive justice for sinners (when they reap in Afterlife what they sowed in Life) and restorative justice for their victims (with a healing of wounds), plus corrective restoration for sinners (who are corrected & healed, are liberated from their slavery to sin, to achieve reconciliations with God and with people) so the results are beneficial for everyone.     { With UR, could we see a return of “hellfire and brimstone” sermons, but instead of simply threatening sinners we also would be praising God for the beneficial results He will produce in UR-Hell? }

A Personal Perspective:  When I'm thinking about songs praising the everlasting love of God (clearly taught in the Bible) — by singing "Thou changest not, Thy compassions they fail not, as Thou has been, Thou forever will be" and "Your love never fails, it never gives up, it never runs out on me [but does it fail others, giving up on them?]" and "old things have passed away, Your love has stayed the same" — I'm wondering “how do fellow Christians make these claims about loving that doesn't change, IF they believe that What Jesus Will Do is to cause Eternal Torment for many people (in Afterlife) that (during Life) He once loved?”  Compared with me, they must be much more skilled at compartmentalizing their beliefs, if they claim WJWD is Eternal Torment and also "as You have been [in Life], You forever will be [in Afterlife]" for all of the children He created, not just for those He saved in Life.   I think it's much easier to praise God if WJWD for the Unsaved-in-Life is Conditional Immortality (resulting in Reconciliation or Annihilation) instead of Unconditional Immortality (resulting in Eternal Misery);  and I'm not thinking “God will cause Eternal Misery” so I don't need to compartmentalize my beliefs, because I'm confident that Unconditional Immortality (with God causing Sinful Immortality for most people) is not taught in the Bible, so I don't have to struggle with how to praise God for His unchanging love and also for His causing of Eternal Misery.

an option:  You can first read a short overview of this section in the Table of Contents.

Motivations for “Saying YES to God” — for Repenting and Living by Faith

When a person is thinking about The Whole News and deciding whether to say YES or NO, their Total Motivation for Saying Yes is a blending of many motivations, including these:

    • wanting better intrinsic Life-Process  —  In this Life, they want to get more true joy by more fully loving God & people, because they believe that God deserves to be loved-and-served, and they believe that God can help them overcome their own self-centered sinfulness so they can more effectively love-and-serve other people.     {loving God & people: what-and-how, why}
    • wanting better extrinsic Afterlife-Results  —  In their Afterlife, they want to get joy in Heaven and avoid misery in Hell.  They hope for Heaven, and fear Hell.

Although I'm calling these motivations intrinsic (doing life-process) and extrinsic (receiving afterlife-results), all motives are internal because all contribute to how a person internally thinks about “getting what they want” in their whole life (and possibly whole afterlife) as a whole person.

* A person can say YES to God (in a big decision) and then, many times each day in their everyday living, they will choose (in small decisions) whether to live by faith, whether they will say yes to God — because they are trusting Him — instead of saying no.

How are these motives (extrinsic or intrinsic, love-based or fear-based or joy-seeking) affected by a personal belief in UR, FA, or EM?

• An extrinsic fear-based motivation for Afterlife — due to fearing Hell — is greatest with EM, and least with UR.

• An extrinsic joy-seeking motivation for Afterlife — by hoping for Heaven — is similar with all views.

• Is an intrinsic love-based motivation during Life — by wanting to love God so He can help you love people more effectively — also similar for all views?  Or could there be a difference for some people? for most people?

    In principle, a motivation to love-and-serve should be similar for all views, but...
    in practice, I think most non-Christians will find it easiest to imagine “loving God” and “saying YES to God” if they think He will do UR, and most difficult if they think He will do EM.  In fact, some non-Christians say NO because they decide that “if God will do EM (as described in the “Good News + Bad News” Gospel of EM) by causing Eternal Misery for some people – perhaps most people – then I could not sincerely trust Him and love Him.”  And for Christians, I think EM makes it more difficult to fully love God, to trust Him and live by faith.   {but UR has the least fear-incentive to persevere, so would believing UR make it easier to “abandon the faith” when living-by-faith gets tough?  maybe, at least if a person's main motive for persevering is fear-of-God rather than love-for-God.}

Motives for Living by Faith, with Love

Love-Based Motives:  A person can more effectively become a devoted follower of Christ, a dedicated disciple who is living obediently by faith, if their main motives are intrinsic and loving, if with sincere repentance (wanting to change so they will become a better person) their heart's desire is to improve their Life-process now by more fully loving-and-serving God so they can more effectively love-and-serve people.

Fear-Based Motives:  By contrast, a threat of Eternal Misery is extrinsic and fearing, because a person wants to avoid horrifying Afterlife-results later.  This motive is totally focused on self, so it will be a much less effective motivator for “loving their neighbor as they love themself.”

The ratio of LoveMotive/FearMotive is highest with UR, lowest with EM.

Should we fear God?  Throughout the Bible, a spiritually healthy fear of God is different than the common meaning of fear, as we see in The Amplified Bible's clarifications-of-meaning [inside brackets] in Proverbs 9:10a {"The [reverent] fear of the Lord [that is, worshiping Him and regarding Him as truly awesome]* is the beginning and the preeminent part of wisdom [its starting point and its essence]."} and in 1 John 4:18 {"There is no fear in love [dread does not exist].  But perfect (complete, full-grown) love drives out fear, because fear involves [the expectation of divine] punishment, so the one who is afraid [of God’s judgment] is not perfected in love [has not grown into a sufficient understanding of God’s love]" or, in The Living Bible, "We need have no fear of someone who loves us perfectly;  his perfect love for us eliminates all dread of what he might do to us.  If we are afraid, it is for fear of what he might do to us and shows that we are not fully convinced that he really loves us."     {* In the minds of most people, a God who is "truly awesome" must be powerful AND good, but causing Eternal Misery doesn't seem good. }

Bribes and Threats:  We can think about the similarities between conversion-motivations that are...

    due to an extrinsic bribe, as when an impoverished “rice Christian” tells a missionary that they have decided to follow Christ, even though a major motivation is their greedy desire to gain material rewards;
    due to an extrinsic threat, as when a person tells themself that they have decided to follow Christ mainly due to sincere repentance (i.e. wanting to change their sinful thoughts-and-actions so they can more fully love God & people), even though a major motivation is their desire to avoid Eternal Misery.

Because these people have been motivated by a bribe (so they will get food) or threat (so they won't get hell), we can wonder if their faith is a solid foundation for authentic discipleship, for living by faith, for building a Christ-Centered Life in The Kingdom of God.

The Purpose of Salvation:  What are the main benefits of salvation by God?  What is a person “saved from”?  In addition to being saved from the penalty of death, are you saved from eternal misery in hell (and thus saved from God who would make you eternally miserable) or are you saved from the slavery of sin (saved by God who gives the wisdom-strength-love we need to reduce our sinful thinking & actions)?  Of course, defenders of EM say “both”, but which motive is more powerful for a person who justifiably feels terrorized by a threat of everlasting misery in hell?  Is this person placing a higher value on escaping hell or overcoming sin?  Do they want to be saved from the damage they are doing (to self & others) by their own sinning in Life, or just be saved from the anger of God in Afterlife?  Do they view salvation as their fire insurance, or as the beginning of their life of discipleship?     {does God save us from God?}

Your Life is Your Gift:  When God asks “what did you do with the life I gave you?”, the way you lived will be your gift to God.  Which kind of motive, love-based or fear-based, is more likely to motivate a life that will bring glory to God, and will please Him?     {abilities and opportunities in hell-education and hell-justice}

an option:  You can first read a short overview of this section in the Table of Contents.

Practical Effects for Living

Our decisions-and-actions are affected by what we believe, so we should ask:

• generally  –  What are the practical effects on living, for Christians and non-Christians, of thinking that UR (or FA) is true, or even might be true?  If people don't believe in EM-Hell, will they just say “we can do whatever we want, and we will” because their sinful desires are not restrained by a fear of Eternal Misery?   Is EM useful, or even necessary, for controlling people in a society? (and if yes, is this a sufficient reason to promote it?)     { But there are better reasons for people, both believers & non-believers, to be loving and kind.  Also, the strength of a deterrent depends on its unpleasantness AND our confidence that it will happen, so a plausible UR-Hell (or FA-Hell) could be a stronger deterrent, for many people, compared with an implausible EM-Hell. }   {more}   {more: This section ends with questions about some practical effects of a grace-based gospel message.}

• specifically  –  Defenders of EM claim that non-Christians will not seriously consider The Gospel without the fear-based threat of EM-Hell.  Instead they will just think (with UR) “even if I now say NO, later I can say YES and then I'll be fine” or (with FA) “death wouldn't be so bad.”     { But people can say NO either because they DON'T believe in Eternal Misery, or because they DO.   And a “belief” caused by fear is not a solid foundation for loving God, and living by faith;  there are better reasons to say YES. }

• specifically  –  Will a Christian do evangelism if they think non-Christians “will be fine” (with UR) or (with FA) “will just die”?     { But compared with the fear-threat of EM, there are better reasons to tell people about the love of God.  In fact, it would be easier for me to share the Good News if I didn't have to explain why The Good News is not Extremely Bad News for most people. }     /     Also, we can explain why UR-Hell or FA-Hell should be avoided.  We have reasons to expect that:  UR-Hell would be an extremely unpleasant experience, even though a person "will be fine" eventually;  or in FA-Hell a person would think “oops, if I had made different decisions in Life, now in Afterlife I would be receiving Eternal Life with Joy, instead of Death,” with psychological anticipation of non-existence that would be extremely unpleasant and frightening.

There are no simple answers about how a person WILL respond to claims for UR (or FA or EM) because each person will be affected differently, and the complex effects — the influences on thinking, deciding, and doing in all areas of life — will vary from one person to another.  Believing any view (UR, FA, EM) will affect our thoughts-and-actions, producing some good effects and some bad effects, for us and for others.  For example, believing EM will influence some people to say YES due to fear-threats, but will influence others to say NO because they are thinking-and-feeling that IF God will do EM this would be unfair (it would not be justice) and they wouldn't like His character so they could not love God and trust Him.     {also:  A belief in Eternal Misery can lead to bad psychological effects in many ways, including anxiety-producing thoughts about “what it would be like” if you – or the neighbors (your family, friends, colleagues, strangers) that you should be loving, that God commands you to love – were living eternally in hell. }

And after a person says YES, I think EM makes it more difficult to fully love God, to trust Him and live by faith.

But there is a simple conclusion about how a rational person SHOULD respond:

    When describing Bible-based Universal Reconciliation, all Christians (whether or not we think UR is likely to be true) can agree about the way people should respond to UR, so all of us should emphasize that even if UR is true, a person's overall experience (in Life and in Afterlife) will be much better if they “say YES to God” now, ASAP.
    Why?   Think about two possibilities for the afterlife-reality of an unsaved person:  either UR will happen, or it won't happen.*
        • If UR will happen, saying YES will let a person be saved from the power of sin and enjoy life-with-God NOW.  And LATER they will avoid the unbeliever's misery in UR-hell that — although it won't be eternal, and will eventually lead to salvation — will be very unpleasant, and should be avoided.     {actually, Jesus warned everyone about the unpleasant consequences of sin - now in Life, and later in Afterlife}
        • But maybe UR won't happen.  Therefore, another reason to say YES now is to avoid an unpleasant surprise LATER if the afterlife-reality will be Eternal Death (with FA) or Eternal Misery (with EM).     {if there will be an unpleasant surprise later, I think it's far more likely to be FA than EM}

* Or we can think about the analogous possibilities for FA;  either FA will happen, or FA won't happen.   For each possibility, a rational person should “say YES” now, ASAP, because either way they certainly will "enjoy life-with-God" now, and later will avoid Hell (whether the result-of-Hell will be UR, FA, or EM).  And if FA will happen, a YES avoids the extreme disappointment (in Afterlife) of knowing that (in Life) they missed their opportunity for Eternal Joy, and they'll get Eternal Death.  A YES-in-Life also avoids the possibility (which I think is unlikely but not impossible) of an extremely unpleasant surprise — and extremely unpleasant experience — with Eternal Misery.

Practical Concerns about a Gospel of Grace

After explaining God's gospel of grace, Paul anticipates (in Romans 6:1) a sinful response by sinful humans who will tend to think, after they accept God's offer of grace, "Should we continue to live in sin so that God's grace will increase?"  Paul answers "certainly not!" because "we know that our old being has been put to death with Christ on his cross, in order that the power of the sinful self might be destroyed, so that we should no longer be the slaves of sin."

A born-again person is no longer a "slave of sin."  But the process of gaining total freedom doesn't happen instantly or automatically.  If you want to live in ways that are more free from the slavery of sin, you must WANT to live less sinfully.  In another page I describe the process, and a limiting factor:

    When you are wanting to live a Christ-Directed Life — when "Christ is in the life and on the throne;  self is yielding to Christ;  interests are directed by Christ, resulting in harmony with God's plan" — you are making Christ your King, so "you are participating in The Kingdom of God as an individual."  You gradually are gaining freedom from sin when you "are not conforming yourselves to the standards of this world, but are letting God transform you inwardly by a complete change of your mind."  But "becoming the person God wants you to be, so you can think-and-do in the ways wanted by God, requires an attitude of wanting to be personally transformed in the ways wanted by God."  Unfortunately, "I've self-observed that in a supplying of love and wisdom from God to me, too often the limiting factor is my lack of cooperation... when I'm not totally willing to let God 'transform' me."   {quotations are from The Four Spiritual Laws, and me, Paul, and me}

Even more unfortunately, I've observed that "too often" other Christians also are not totally willing to let God transform them.  Why?  The Gospel has a foundation of Forgiving Grace, so it's easy to reason that "God will forgive me for everything I've done in the past, and for what I'm doing now, so instead of doing what God wants — e.g. as in consistently loving my neighbor in the way I love myself," in all of my thoughts, words, and actions — instead I will do what I want, even if it's sinful and it isn't what God wants."

My Feelings about My Views

Because we cannot be certain about what will happen in Afterlife, I have mixed feelings about two tough challenges for UR:

    First, people do have rational reasons for why they SHOULD respond by “saying yes to God now, ASAP during Life” even if (with UR) they will be saved eventually in Afterlife.  But when we're thinking about how people WILL respond if we tell them “the Totally Good News of Universal Reconciliation might happen,” there are no simple answers, because each person will be affected differently, and the complex effects — the influences on thinking, deciding, and doing in all areas of Life — will vary from one person to another.
    Second, Christians have a responsibility to avoid giving false hope (that would occur if we declare “UR will happen” but UR won't happen) or causing false fear (if we declare “UR won't happen” but UR will happen).   /   These two responsibilities are conflicting.  And due to biblical ambiguity about what will & won't happen in Afterlife, it's impossible to be certain we're not "giving false hope" or "causing false fear."  What should we do?  Maybe... and this is what I'm now doing, we should respond humbly (by not claiming the certainty of “answers”) by explaining what does and doesn't seem clear in the Bible, and why.  For me, this means explaining why I'm confident that Eternal Misery won't happen, but I'm not confident in claiming that either Final Annihilation or Universal Reconciliation will happen, instead I think either of these might happen.

But these are also tough challenges for the non-UR views, for FA and EM, when we ask “what are the practical effects for living?”

As explained earlier, I also have mixed feelings about fellow Christians, am disappointed and sad.

an option:  You can first read a short overview of this section in the Table of Contents.

Our Evangelistic Responsibilities

Christians should try to...

accurately describe what the Bible teaches by carefully studying the Bible as a whole, asking “what is the Biblical evidence for and against each view?” so we can estimate the probability that each view is true.

share The Good News because it's good, and because Jesus commanded His followers to "go and make disciples of [people in] all nations."

explain The Whole News, trying to...

    avoid giving False Hope, if a person lives their Life expecting UR, but in Afterlife they realize their fate will be FA or EM;  or they might expect FA, but get EM.
    avoid causing False Fear:  When a Christian says “EM will happen” or even “might happen,” this can produce intensely unpleasant anxieties due to fear-motives that, compared with love-motives, are less likely to be "a solid foundation for faith-based living."  And this fear-of-EM will be a False Fear if EM won't happen in Afterlife Reality.
    These two conflicting responsibilities — to avoid causing False Hope or False Fear — produce a tough dilemma.  Due to biblical ambiguity about the afterlife,* it seems impossible to be certain we're not "giving false hope" or "causing false fear."  What should we do?  Maybe... we should respond humbly (by not claiming the certainty of “answers”) by explaining what does and doesn't seem clear in the Bible, and why.     {* reasons for biblical ambiguity - why and why}

accurately describe the Character of God:  When we ask WWJD in Afterlife our answer is an important statement about the character of God, as explained below in Divine Justice.

{more about our responsibilities}

Divine Justice

an option:  You can first read short overviews of "divine justice" sections — those earlier and below — in the Table of Contents.

In this final part of the page, my goal is to show why Eternal Misery (in the afterlives of unsaved people) would not achieve justice.

Appropriate Humility:  Each of us has reasons for humility and reasons for confidence when we're thinking about the character of God, including His justice and love.  Therefore, when we're making claims about questions — like “what will happen in hell?” — that are not answered with certainty in the Bible, we should say “this is HOW IT SEEMS TO ME” with an appropriate humility (appropriate confidence) that is not too little, and not too much.     {in what ways are God's thoughts "higher" than our thoughts due to "the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God"?}

The Character of God:  All of us develop ideas & feelings based on our experiences in life — especially in our reading of the Bible — about the character of God.  These ideas/feelings will be affected when we ask “WWGD to achieve Divine Justice in Afterlife?”  I think most people will agree with my thinking/feeling that the character of God seems best with Universal Reconciliation, and worst if He will cause Eternal Misery, if His gracious forgiving suddenly changes, at the moment of a person's death, into vengeful unforgiving.     { sometimes the morality of EM is defended by claiming that anything that is done by God (including EM) should be defined as being good — i.e. if it's done by God, then it's good }

more - why it's useful to think "IF and BECAUSE" when we're thinking about the character of God (and of other Christians)

Table of Contents:  This part of the page – examining The Divine Justice of God – includes:  Appropriate Humility about The Character of God (above) and (below) Overall Changes (from Before Life thru Afterlife) - Would you choose to be born, to play The Game of Life-and-Afterlife? (questions) - The Purpose of Resurrection - Think About The Experience - Would annihilation be merciful? - The Purpose of Infinite Misery (is it necessary? productive?) — Divine Persuasion (why isn't God more obvious?) — Justice & Mercy on The Narrow Road - Situations and Results (is Life fair? could Life-plus-Afterlife be more fair?) - Do unsaved people earn (because they are evil & unwise) their Eternal Misery? — Justice for Everyone (for Victims and Sinners) - Binary Justice (can it be fair?) — Degrees of Suffering in Afterlife - Should you choose to play The Game of Life-and-Afterlife? (my responses) — Divine Generosity (how would you feel if God was extremely generous?).

also – ideas about biblical justice-in-hell by other authors (these articles are well written, with biblical ideas)

an option:  You can first read a short overview of the next few sections (plus "Divine Persuasion" and beyond) in the Table of Contents.

Justice in Overall Changes  —  from Before Life to Final State of Afterlife

We'll begin by focusing on the “basic justice” of a person's change-of-situation from their beginning to their end, by temporarily ignoring everything that happens in-between.

All views propose the same change for a saved person, who goes from nothing (before conception) to eternal joy (in their afterlife);  this is wonderful.

But for an unsaved person, there are big differences in the overall change:

    with Universal Reconciliation, it's from nothing to everlasting joy;  this is wonderful.
    with Final Annihilation, it's from nothing (before life) to nothing (because their afterlife ends with permanent death), in a neutral change that seems fair (if life to all, and takes life from some),* although it's sad because all of us should hope for everyone to have joy.   /   * also, God has the right to decide who will be in His Kingdom, so it seems fair if The King decides “these people won't be in My Kingdom” and eliminates them with FA.
    with Eternal Misery, it's from nothing to everlasting misery;  this is not wonderful.  Instead it's horrible, and for those who never asked to be born so they did not choose to have life-plus-afterlife, but they will suffer forever, it seems unfair.*   /   EM seems especially unfair for the many people who (if the claims of Calvinism are true)* were predestined for Hell with no chance to avoid it.  Or if they have free will, but are “dealt a bad hand in life.”

* If basic logical Calvinism (claiming divine total-sovereignty) is expanded to include Eternal Misery, I think this Calvinistic God — a God who will do what is proposed in Calvinism-with-EM by predestining some people for Hell, AND then causing Eternal Misery for these people — is an immoral monster, but... I don't think this is who God is, and EM isn't what He will do.    Also... I think Calvinistic predestination would be fair with Annihilation-in-Hell (with a “nothing to nothing” overall result for the damned) and it would be even better with Reconciliation-in-Hell (with “nothing to joy” results for every person);  and both of these two combinations — Calvinism-with-FA and Calvinism-with-UR — are possible, because there is no logical/theological reason that logical Calvinism should be "expanded to include Eternal Misery."

* An Existential Question:  Before you were born, if you could choose whether to be born into Life-plus-Afterlife, would you say YES or NO?  To answer this question wisely, what two kinds of information do you need?  If you want to think about this question, do it now before reading the “spoilers” in the next paragraph.

3 Questions:  Would you choose to born if you knew that the Afterlife-for-Unsaved will be Eternal Misery, but you didn't know what your situation-in-life will be — so you might be born in the American Bible Belt (with a high probability of salvation) or in a country-culture-family where the dominant religion is non-Christian (e.g. where it's Hindu, Moslem, or Jewish, so you'll have a low probability of “saying YES” to Jesus)?   Will your choice be different if the final result of Afterlife-for-Unsaved will be Annihilation?   or if the final result will be Reconciliation?   When you're making your three wise choices, think carefully about The Overall Changes with each kind of Afterlife-for-Unsaved.   What would I choose? (and what information is useful?)

a change of perspective:  If God is good, how should He answer these questions?  {i.e., In each of the three worlds – with the Life we now have, plus an Afterlife of EM, FA, or UR – should He create a person, causing them to be born?}   Or, because God is good, what kind of world does He choose to create?

Or, in another set of 3 Questions, ask “would I choose to be created as a non-accountable person,* if God will cause EM or FA or UR in Afterlife?”   /   * Although “accountability” is not defined in the Bible, most Christians believe that two classes of people — those with extremely low intelligence, and those who die extremely young (before birth due to miscarriage or abortion, or during infancy or young childhood) — will not be “held accountable” by God, who thus will not live forever in Eternal Misery, if God will cause EM for people who are accountable (because they are “intelligent enough” and “old enough”) and are unsaved at the end of their Life.

The Purposes of Resurrection

Jesus tells us (John 5:28-29) that all humans, both saved & unsaved, will be bodily resurrected, and their Afterlives will begin with judgment by God.  For saved people who will have Eternal Joy, the beneficial purpose of Resurrection is obvious, so we can be sanctified-and-restored and Reconciled.  If unsaved people will be Reconciled (with UR), there also will be a beneficial purpose for them.  But if God will do FA there is no beneficial purpose for an unsaved person who will be Annihilated, although with “public” judgments,* FA (or EM) could serve a useful purpose for a saved person who thinks “wow, I'm happy-and-thankful the FA (or EM) isn't happening to me,” although this un-empathetic response is not “loving your neighbor in the way you love yourself.”  If God will do EM it's much worse for an unsaved person who would be MUCH better off without Resurrection-to-Afterlife, because their Eternal Misery would be very non-beneficial, so... for them, what would be the purpose of their personal Resurrection?

* Jesus warns us (Luke 12:2-3), "there is nothing covered up that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.  Accordingly, whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in the inner rooms will be proclaimed upon the housetops."

think about The Experience:

For 5 minutes, try to intensely feel the reality proposed by Eternal Misery, with God causing incredible pain (certainly psychological, maybe also physical)* that will never end.  Imagine yourself feeling this pain for 5 minutes.*  Then imagine enduring this torment for an hour, a week, or a year.  Or for 10 thousand years, when (as in the song Amazing Grace) you've no less days to suffer in pain, than when you first began.  At this point, you have experienced less than 1% of your Eternal Misery.  If you continue suffering pain for 13 billion years (the age of our universe), you're still at less than 1%.  If you experience Misery for a billion universe-ages (a billion x 13 billion years) you're still at less than 1%.  Is this behavior (a causing of infinite misery) consistent with the character of God, as He is revealed in the Bible?  is this What Jesus Will Do?

do The First Commandment:  While you're imagining that God will cause Eternal Misery, try to love God "with all of your heart, soul, and mind," as Jesus commands us to do.  Then instead of imagining what God will do TO people in Hell (with Eternal Misery) to hurt them, imagine what He will do FOR people in Hell (with Purgatorial Reconciliation) to help them, to sanctify them so they can be reconciled with other people and with Himself – and try to totally love Him.  When you imagine each kind of afterlife-in-Hell, while you're trying to fully love God (for who He is and what He will do), I think you will experience why "with purgatorial Universal Reconciliation [but not with Eternal Misery] we can proudly proclaim ‘what God will do’ in UR-Hell [because it's Totally Good News], and we can enthusiastically praise God."

* Or, with compassionate empathy, imagine this Eternal Misery happening to someone you love who dies unsaved, or even to an unsaved stranger, and remember that Jesus tells you to "love your neighbor in the way you love yourself."

* What kind of pain?  Many current defenders of Eternal Misery try to “soften the experience” by claiming it isn't physical TORMENT but is only SEPARATION from God, so it's only PSYCHOLOGICAL TORMENT.  But tormenting by God (in The Lake of Fire) would be a horrible experience whether it's mainly psychological, or is also physical.   So... if an experience of psychological torment (due to Separation) is Misery and is Eternal, it still would be Eternal Misery that is psychologically-terrifying forever, for MUCH longer than 13 billion years;  it still would be an unimaginably unpleasant experience.

Annihilation  —  would it be merciful?

I think Eternal Death (due to Annihilation) would be merciful compared with Eternal Misery, because an eternally miserable afterlife would not be worth living, so death would be a merciful rescue.  But compared with Eternal Joy — when the life is worth living, so losing it would be a huge loss — an Eternal Death would be a severe penalty, and it seems (I think) to be un-merciful.     {avoiding the possibility of this loss is one reason for “saying yes” now, ASAP during Life}   {more} 

Infinite Misery  —  What would be the purpose?  Is it necessary?

How can infinite punishing (in Afterlife) for finite sins (during Life) be justifiable, fair, and loving?

If you think infinite punishing (with EM) will be necessary to achieve divine justice,...

    imagine that in Afterlife you have been appointed, by God, to be responsible for afterlife-punishing in hell, and His only restriction is that your punishing cannot last forever, that it must end with either annihilation or healing-and-reconciliation.  Can you imagine any amount of punishing (with no limit on its intensity-and-duration, except it cannot last forever) that would be sufficient to achieve divine justice?

Satisfactory Justice with EM:   Maybe it's impossible.  Why?  If divine justice requires infinite punishing with EM, a serious theological difficulty is that the sin-debt will never be paid for an unsaved person.  Why?  Because IF the sin-debt ever became fully paid, at this time God would stop the punishing-for-sinning;  but the punishing never stops, so (even a zillion years into the future) some sin-debt will always remain unpaid.  Therefore, if the penalty for sin is Eternal Misery, God can never “get justice” (i.e. get retributive justice) that satisfies Him, so even if punishing continues forever — and sinning continues forever — a satisfactory retributive justice could never be achieved by God, with EM-Justice.     {

Satisfactory Justice with UR:   Yes, it seems possible to achieve UR-Justice that (for sinners) is adequately retributive and personally rehabilitative, and (for sinners & victims) is personally restorative for individuals, and interpersonally restorative for relationships, that could achieve the complete righteousness (the complete justice) that is the ultimate goal of God.  You can see why in two overviews, briefly and with , to achieve more detail.

an option:  You can first read a short overview of this section in the Table of Contents.

Divine Persuasion  —  Is “burden of proof” an argument against Eternal Misery?

Why isn't God more obvious?  God typically doesn't use powerful persuasion with difficult-to-doubt miracles and spectacular experiences (like Paul on the Damascus Road) for impressive personal evidence we cannot ignore and we should not doubt.  Why?  Maybe it's because some uncertainty in life (with reasons to believe and to not believe) is useful for building, in believers, an ability to live by faith.  And the ways we respond to ambiguous uncertainties — typically, for most people, caused by God providing evidence that is only semi-persuasive — will (Luke 2:35) "[reveal] the thoughts of many hearts" to God and (now & later, in Life & Afterlife) to each of us.  Divinely produced ambiguity — with evidence that usually is only semi-persuasive, not strongly persuasive — can perform two useful functions, by helping us learn how to live by faith, and by revealing our hearts to God and ourselves.

But... although ambiguity can be useful, in Life & Afterlife the ambiguity hurts those who choose to not believe, but who might have believed (and might have been saved by God) if the evidence had been more persuasive.  Divine decisions to use "some uncertainty" seem fair if God will cause Reconciliation or Annihilation for unsaved people in Afterlife, but not if He will cause Eternal Torment.  When we combine a fact (that God does not use maximum persuasion) with our faith (that God is good), we have an argument in favor of Reconciliation and against Eternal Torment.  Two kinds of ambiguity — the typical absence of strong personal persuasion, plus biblical ambiguity when we ask “which of the three views is true?” (is true because it's what will happen) — seems to be a "burden of proof" argument leading us to expect an afterlife-reality, for unbelievers, of Conditional Immortality that ultimately — after a very unpleasant experience in hell — results in Annihilation or (more strongly supported by "burden of proof") Reconciliation.  Why?  Because...

    it's important to avoid giving false hope that leads to a “bad surprise” in Afterlife – especially if God will cause Eternal Misery for unsaved people, because this would be an extremely bad surprise;
    so we should expect God (if He loves people, and the Bible declares that He does) to be strongly persuasive IF He will cause Eternal Misery, so He can prevent extremely bad surprises;
    but God is not strongly persuasive;
    therefore this is logical evidence that the "IF" of Eternal Misery is not true, that it will not happen in afterlife-reality.

Therefore, failing this “burden of proof” is a reason to think that claims for Eternal Misery are false, that Eternal Torment won't occur, and instead God will cause Reconciliation (when and how?) or Annihilation.

Comparing "Burden of Proof" Support for Three Views:  When we think about final results for the three views (all proposing that unsaved people will have a very unpleasant experience in Hell), we see that Eternal Misery could be an extremely bad surprise, Annihilation could be a bad surprise, but Reconciliation could not be a bad surprise.  Therefore, logically this burden-of-proof argument provides strong support for Reconciliation, and strong support against Eternal Misery, when these two views are compared.  But this argument could provide support for Annihilation (when it's compared with Eternal Misery), but support against Annihilation (when it's compared with Reconciliation).

What Will God Do with His people, with Jewish people?

Jesus often taught in parables for the purpose of hiding the truth, so it would be more difficult for people to understand & believe, because "to them [to most Jews in the time of Jesus, and since then]* it has not been granted... to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" so that "while hearing they... will not understand" so they will not "see with their eyes, hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and return, and I would heal them." (Matthew 13:11-15)   Although hiding the truth was God's intention while Jesus was living among us, will God continue doing this forever, by eternally refusing to heal the Jews?  will He continue rejecting His people forever?  will He continue keeping them alive in Eternal Misery?     {* God also "hides the truth" from most non-Jewish people, by providing them with ambiguous life-experiences, without strong divine persuasion.}

Paul asked "what will God do with His people?" and struggled with this tough question in Romans 9-11, before he answered it by concluding (in Romans 11:32) that "God has shut up all in disobedience [due to Adam] so that [through Christ] He may show mercy to all," with His loving "mercy to all" inspiring (Romans 11:25-12:1) our worship: "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! ... To Him be the glory forever.  Amen."

more:  we can compare What Hitler Did versus What Jesus Will Do if... — while we remember that Christians are using "if... → because..." logical thinking when we're thinking about the character of God with appropriate humility.

more about these ideas — my main page asking “Why does God not use Maximum Persuasion?” claims that some uncertainty in life (with reasons to believe and to not believe) is useful for building, in believers, an ability to live by faith — and in my first page-about-hell a section briefly explains (in a way that's a little different than what's above) why an absence of strong divine persuasion is evidence against Eternal Misery.

In another page, I describe some of the personal evidence that has persuaded me to believe in the existence-and-activity of God.  Why did God graciously do this?  I explain that "God knows me well, and He knows that I'm ‘basically a scientist’ in the ways I think, because in all areas of life I place a high value on the logical reality checks that are the foundation of scientific method.   Each of us does a scientific reality check whenever we ask, in science or everyday life, an important question:  How closely does “the way I think the world is” match “the way the world really is” when I observe reality?   I believe that God has graciously given me evidence-for-theism experiences... for the purpose of persuading me that my observations of reality are a close match with a theistic view of the world, so [because God has provided "a solid foundation for my theistic worldview"] I should believe that God exists and is actively involved in my world" and because of this I should live with faith, and pray with faith.

The Narrow Way  —  only Now, or both Now and Later?

Now:  IF God will cause Eternal Misery, it's difficult to imagine how any binary justice (with God causing either Eternal Misery or Eternal Joy in Afterlife) could be fair, especially if only a few people will be saved, as implied by Jesus (Matthew 7:13-14) telling us "the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.  For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. {NASB}"  The "few" seem to be very few because Jesus was saying this to Jewish people who were trying to follow God with their Bible-based religion of Judaism.  But the overwhelming majority of people, now and in the past, lived in cultures where most people don't even try to follow the biblical God — e.g. because they haven't heard The Gospel, or they are devoted to another religion, or to no religion — so the "few" seem to be an extremely small fraction of all people created by God.  Will all other people (the extremely large fraction) be forced to experience an eternity of misery?   {even though they were never given a chance to decide rationally – by having essential information about God's “rules for the game” – whether they wanted to play The Game of Life-and-Afterlife}

a temporary disclaimer:  Currently (in May 2020) I think the distinction below — with "finding" instead of "find" — is correct, but I want to check this with people who know more about verb-tenses in Greek language.  My humility (leading to this disclaimer) is partly because I just discovered that Rotherham's Study Bible and Green's Literal Translation (two very-literal translations, in addition to the two quoted below) say "find" while the Modern Literal Version and Concordant Literal Version and Emphatic Diaglott New Testament and Berean Literal Bible (page 19) and Literal Standard Version (page 581) say "finding".  Therefore, I want to become more confident about the actual meaning of the original Greek, and I'll learn more soon, probably during July 2020.    {my tentative conclusion, temporarily:  "finding" is the translation in most of the more-literal translations, but not all.}

Later:  In most of our translations-into-English, Jesus seems to be telling us that “only a few will be saved.”  So is He saying “Universal Reconciliation won't happen”?  No.  Why not?  Because the original Greek indicates that only a few are being saved NOW, that "few are the ones finding {DLNT}" the narrow road.  In the Disciples' Literal New Testament (DLNT) we see "finding" (to describe what is happening Now),* by contrast with most modern translations — even those that usually are more-literal, like NASB, ESV, KJV, NRSV — that say "find" (to state that “only a few” will ever be saved, either Now or Later, including both Now AND Later) even though this interpretative implication about present-AND-future is not justified by the original text in Greek.  These biased non-literal translations (implying that “only a few” will be saved, either now in Life or later in Afterlife) are not justified by the Greek wording, so it's another example of how biased translations are misleading, to definitely cause confusion & possibly cause error.    There is a MAJOR difference-in-meaning between finding (the correct translation of Greek into English) and find (as implied by the common mis-translations).     {two clarifications:  1) the pUR-view I'm describing agrees that only a "few" are being saved Now, and that it's wrong to claim “all roads lead to God” because Jesus offers the only way to be saved.   2) If UR (or semi-UR) is correct because it will happen, even though only a few are being saved now during Life, many more will be saved later during Afterlife.  But if either EM or FA is correct in its claim that God will not save anyone during Afterlife, then the only people who will be saved are "the few" that are now being saved during Life. }     /     * As in DLNT and (more important) in Greek language, Young's Literal Translation – written by Robert Young, author of the famous Young's Analytical Concordance – uses the present tense, to say "many are those going in [now during Life] through it."

The Narrow Way with EM or FA, and with UR:  If the Bible teaches us that "few are the ones finding [now during Life]" the road leading to salvation,  then Bible-believers should reject (as I do) a pluralistic claim that “all roads lead to God, and to salvation.”   IF you believe (as I do) that the Bible teaches a strong exclusivism so only Jesus offers salvation and explicit belief in Jesus is required for salvation, then...

    all views (UR, FA, EM) agree that only a "few" are finding (now during Life) the road to salvation;
    IF God will not save anyone later during Afterlife (as claimed by EM and FA),  then only a few will find salvation, and most people will not be saved, instead God will cause most people to have permanent misery (with EM) or permanent non-existence (with FA);   but...
    IF God will save people later during Afterlife (as claimed by UR),  then all people can be saved, and will be saved.     {or if semi-UR happens, more people will be saved than during Life.}

Therefore, the “narrow way” teaching of Jesus is compatible with the final results-of-Hell proposed by all three views (by EM, FA, UR),  so “the final results” could be that only a few are saved (if God will cause EM or FA) or all are saved (if God will cause UR).

Situations and Results:

Life isn't fair, in a wide variety of ways, regarding our situations (abilities & opportunities)* and results (journeys & outcomes) in Life.  But with UR, Life-plus-Afterlife would be more fair, compared with only-Life, because God could do justice-with-love for everyone, for victims & sinners.   Or with FA, Life-plus-Afterlife would be less unfair than with EM,  and with FA the overall change would be neutral for unsaved people, instead of the infinitely negative change with EM.     {* an important part of each person's situation is how much God "persuades" them by providing personally meaningful reasons to believe. }

more:  Stories and Principles - for example, our perceptions about the character of God that is proposed in Calvinism would be much better with a better combination of Life-plus-Afterlife, if the Calvinism claimed that God supplements His unconditional election of some people (for salvation-and-service during Life) by adding (in Afterlife) the election of more people with semi-UR, or all people with UR, or even by mercifully killing His non-elect — who are all of the people He decided to not-elect during Life, the people He thus condemned to Hell — with FA, by Annihilating them instead of keeping them alive so they can have Eternal Misery.

an option:  You can first read a short overview of this section in the Table of Contents.

Damnation-by-Merit logically REQUIRES Salvation-by-Merit:

With EM, do unsaved people EARN their Eternal Misery because they are evil and stupid?

With the extremely different binary results of EM — if God, after He makes decisions about salvation and non-salvation, will give every person either Eternal Joy or Eternal Misery — it seems more fair if a Saved Person earns their Eternal Joy (because during their Life they had an extremely good heart, and an extremely wise mind in their decision to “say YES to God”) and if an Unsaved Person earns their Eternal Misery (because during their brief Life they had an extremely un-good heart and/or an extremely un-wise mind),  if God gives salvation-by-merit AND THUS damnation-by-merit.

Here is the summary from my Table of Contents:  Does a saved person earn their Eternal Joy because they have a good heart and (by making a wise decision) a smart mind?  Does an unsaved person earn their Eternal Misery because they are extremely evil and extremely unwise?  (logically, the answer to both questions should be either “yes” or “no”, so we cannot say “no, salvation is not earned” but “yes, damnation is earned”)  (if rewards & penalties are not earned by our merit, are they justifiable and fair?)

seems more fair if binary everlasting afterlife-results (of Joy or Misery) will be based on merit.  But most Bible-believing evangelical Christians say “no, when God makes binary decisions about salvation (and thus about binary afterlife-results) He does not reward some and punish others based on personal merit, based on their own goodness & wisdom;*  instead, salvation is a free gift of grace from God,” although — and this is extremely important — the typical claim is that a person must accept God's gift or He will damn them, and accepting depends on goodness-and-wisdom, so (in this common way of thinking by Christians) salvation does depend on merit.     {* According to the currently popular (but controversial) view of “once saved, always saved” a person earns their salvation when they wisely make The Decision to repent-and-believe.  Or if "always saved" is not guaranteed, a person earns their salvation by their persistence in believing, and their good/wise persistent decisions to continue living by faith. }

But if God's decisions about salvation (and thus about Joy or Misery) are not based on the goodness-and-wisdom of each person's heart-and-mind, it's difficult to imagine how anyone can rationally defend a claim that Eternal Misery would be fair, would achieve justice.

{accountability & forgiveness, for the saved and unsaved}

{more about earning afterlife-results, about grace & merit, faith & works, salvation & sanctification, for Calvinists and Arminians}

an option:  You can first read a short overview of this section in the Table of Contents.

Justice for Everyone (for Victims and Sinners) with Universal Reconciliation:

We can imagine how UR-Hell could be a way for God to achieve justice (with love) for victims and sinners:

    victims get Restorative Justice leading to their reconciliation with other people (with those who harmed them during Life) and with God.

    sinners get Retributive Justice (for the suffering caused by their sinning) that is intrinsically fair and also is educational & healing & corrective, that leads to their Rehabilitation when God transforms them into Sanctification (when God makes them Righteous to achieve His Justice) and gives them Salvation, so they can have Reconciliation with other people and with God.

In UR-Hell the suffering would be individually beneficial for every person, including those in Hell, to get restorative justice and to rehabilitate sinners, so ultimately God produces justice-AND-love for everyone.   FA-Hell could be societally beneficial for The Kingdom of God, by eliminating sinners and their sin.   But it's difficult to see any useful purpose for EM-Hell, any way for EM-Hell to provide benefits beyond what would be achieved with FA-Hell.

Do you see why, when all things are considered, it's easiest for a Christian to enthusiastically (with their whole heart/soul/mind) praise God and proudly proclaim “what He will do to sinners (and for sinners!)” if they think God will do Universal Reconciliation, and is most difficult if they think God will do Eternal Misery?

Compared with this Justice for Everyone with Universal Reconciliation, do you think it would be more fair if God will do Binary Justice with results that depend on salvation-or-damnation?

an option:  You can first read a short overview of this section in the Table of Contents.

Binary Justice  —  Can it be fair?  (for a Wide Variety of Life-Situations)

In an Afterlife with Eternal Misery, there would be an immense difference between the fates of saved and unsaved people;  with the binary justice of EM, each person is given (by God) either totally good Eternal Joy or totally bad Eternal Misery.  But when we look at the entire population of the world, our faith-and-actions seem to vary along a continuum, instead of a binary splitting into “good people” and “evil people”.  Even though God has omniscient super-knowledge that helps Him judge each person's faith-and-actions in divinely wise ways we don't understand, the immense difference in afterlife results — if people will receive either Eternal Joy or Eternal Misery — makes it difficult to imagine how any binary EM-Justice can be fair, especially if only a few people will be saved.  How can God be fair to people in a wide variety of common life-situations, for the MANY people...

• who are feeble-minded, or die when they're young?   {is abortion the perfect strategy for evangelism?}

• who are (if Calvinism is correct) predestined for Hell?   or who are free to choose, but are “dealt a bad hand in life” because they...

    have life-experiences that make it difficult to say YES to God?
    are devout followers of a non-Christian religion (Judaism,*  Islam, Hinduism,...) that is dominant in their family & culture? (it's highly probable that they will follow this dominant religion instead of Christianity, if they want to follow God, unless God is extremely persuasive but usually He isn't.)     {* What will God do with His chosen people, with the majority of Jewish people who do not accept Jesus as their Messiah?}     [[ luck-of-birth seems to be a major factor in determining who gets saved during LIFE -- e.g. if a person is born into a family/culture of another religion, they probably will adopt that religion, or none. ]]

• who were devout Christians for awhile, but then faded away?  or who think they have been followers of Christ, but later (as in Matthew 7:21-23) He judges them to be failures?   /   What is the binary “dividing line” between saved and unsaved?  what kinds of faith and living-by-faith (with how many good works?) are required to be among the "few" who "enter through the narrow gate"?  There seems to be no way for Christians to have the certainty of knowing, and this can produce anxiety about salvation for themselves and for people they know & love.   {more about the "few"}

For any of these situations, UR (with its personally customizable suffering for sins in afterlife-education) provides more flexibility for God to achieve Divine Justice-AND-Love during the overall experiences of each person in their life-plus-afterlife.

The difficulties of binary grading would be less severe with FA, compared with EM, due to its less extreme differences in binary results, and its nothing-to-nothing overall change.  But with FA an unsaved person still would have the infinite loss of Eternal Joy.

The Challenge (for justice) of Borderline Cases:  It seems that when God considers all factors — degrees of faith, amounts of faith-based good works, sins of omission & sins of commission, personal motivations, loving God and loving people,... — it seems necessary to have a “cutoff point” where someone above this line will be saved, but someone below it will be damned.  For example, imagine that the cutoff-minimum is “70 points” and Saved Sam has 70.0, but Damned Dan has 69.9, so Sam gets Eternal Joy but Dan gets Eternal Misery.  Do you agree with me that this doesn't seem fair?     {more - analogy: binary grading by a human teacher and by God}

Degrees of Suffering in Afterlife

Jesus describes different degrees of suffering in Afterlife.  Would "different degrees" be possible with the binary results of Eternal Misery, if in EM-Hell there will be infinite suffering for everyone? (yes, but...)   By contrast, how might God produce different degrees of suffering (due to different degrees of sinning) with UR-Hell?

Would you choose to play The Game of Life?   (if UR, FA, EM)

For 3 Questions asking "would you choose Life?" (if Afterlife-for-Unsaved will be UR, FA, or EM), my answers are yes, yes, and NO.  Why?  I think the logical reasoning is obvious & simple, so I assume you would make the same choices.     { to choose wisely, you need to know “what kind of Afterlife will God cause for the unsaved-in-Life?” and “am I likely to be unsaved-in-Life?” or even “is it possible for me to be unsaved-in-Life?  i.e. do I have a 100% guarantee that I will be saved?” }

And I think that God has answered “yes, yes, NO” (because He is good and loving) and therefore He has created a world with Conditional Immortality and thus with either UR or FA in Afterlife, but not with EM.

And if I could choose to be created as a non-accountable person (due to either death at a very young age, or having very low intelligence) who would never experience EM, “yes, yes, yes” would be my answers.  {so... is it logical to conclude that abortion is the perfect strategy for evangelism?}

{more – including the reason that, in The Game of Life for an accountable person, the rational choices (yes, yes, no) seem simple-and-obvious.}

an option:  You can first read a short overview of this section in the Table of Contents.

Divine Generosity  —  How would you feel if God was extremely generous?

Jesus told parables about all-day workers and a faithful older brother that inspire questions:  Would it be fair...

    if you worked all day, but your wages are not more than the wages of late-arrivers who worked only part of the day?   (the all-day workers complained, thinking “this isn't fair” – in Matthew 20:1-16)
    if you always have obeyed your father, who then forgives your younger brother (a disobedient prodigal) and throws a joyful “welcome back” celebration for him?   (the faithful brother complained, thinking “this isn't fair” – in Luke 15:11-32)

When will it be too late to love God? (i.e. what has God decided? WWJD?)

If a wicked man (who has caused much suffering for others) believes-and-repents on his deathbed after a lifetime of rejecting God, will God forgive him and save him?  Along with most Christians, I say “yes”.  What do you think?

Should your thinking be different when you ask, “will God also let a similar sinner believe-and-repent after death in their Afterlife?”  If a Christian thinks “no” because “this wouldn't be fair to us, because we diligently loved-and-served God during Life,” their thinking is like that of the all-day workers or faithful older brother.  But this thinking — with “mixed feelings” that could decrease their hoping for salvation-in-Afterlife that leads to Universal Reconciliation — is criticized by Jesus.  When the all-day workers complained about the full-day wages for part-day workers, the vineyard owner defended his generosity by saying "I am not being unfair to you... are you envious because I am generous?"  When the faithful older brother complained about the joyful “welcome back” party for an unfaithful younger brother, their father defended his generosity by saying "we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again;  he was lost and is found."

Evidence for Universal Reconciliation?

Are these parables — about a Generous Owner and Forgiving Father, plus (earlier in Luke 15) diligent searching for a lost sheep and lost coin — teaching us that God's love is persistent?  Yes.   Will our Heavenly Father continue searching for lost sinners (no matter what road they're on) after they die?  Maybe.   {does God have faithful compassions that "fail not"?}

Do these parables provide support for post-death repentance and thus for Universal (or Semi-Universal) Reconciliation?  Yes.  But it's not proof because non-UR interpretations also are possible.

Don't Wait:  Either way, whether God will or won't provide opportunities to repent after death, Jesus warns us to Don't Wait until it's Too Late because a person who is wise will “say YES to God” now so they can live their life for God now, so they can fulfill their God-given purpose. [== and in case UR won't happen, to avoid being a victim of false hope]     {more}

Conditional Immortality  —  Part 3

Logically Defining Terms that have Related-yet-Different Meanings

This section is Part 3 so it builds on Part 1 and Part 2 about logically defining a system-of-terms that describe different kinds of immortality:  conditional vs unconditional, dependent vs intrinsic, and universal.  Here the focus is on one term, asking “What is Conditional Immortality?  and which view(s) would produce it?”

Unfortunately, the term Conditional Immortality (CI) often is used in a way that is logically incorrect.  To understand why, just think about the basic logic.  We call it conditional immortality because there is a condition.  The if-then Condition of Conditional Immortality — IF you accept The Grace (offered by God) so you are saved by God, THEN you get The Life (supplied by God) through His "tree of [everlasting] life" — could occur in two ways, either with Final Annihilation (FA) because all unsaved people would be gone, or with Universal Reconciliation (UR) because all people would be saved – but not with Eternal Misery (EM).  Therefore, CI is FA-or-UR.     {also, there is a confusion-of-meanings between conditional immortality and the dependent immortality that allows it}

Reasoning-Process and Afterlife-Result:  When we're asking “is UR included in CI?” we should distinguish between process and result.  Why?  Because different people can conclude “I think UR will happen” in either of two ways:

    1) In one way, their Process of Reasoning begins with Conditional Immortality by first concluding “only if saved, then immortal” {this is the conditional immortality that is taught in the Bible} so “unsaved people will not be immortal” — because they don't satisfy The Condition, producing a result (not saved, thus not immortal) that would occur with either UR or FA, but not with EM — and then evaluating UR-versus-FA before finally concluding “it will be UR instead of FA.”     {during my personal history this is the process of reasoning that I did use, and continue to use, although my currently-inconclusive “conclusion” is only that “it will be either UR (I hope) or FA.”}
   2) In another way, their Process of Reasoning begins with Universal Immortality by first concluding “everyone will be immortal” {this is the universal immortality that most people assume, although it isn't biblically warranted) — this would occur with either UR or EM, but not with FA — and then evaluating UR-versus-EM before finally concluding “it will be UR instead of EM.”

But with either process of reasoning, the actual Afterlife-Result of UR (if UR will occur) would be the same, and this Afterlife-Result is consistent with The Condition of Conditional Immortality (as explained here) so "therefore, CI is UR-or-FA" if we're thinking logically.

comment:  Much of the sloppy thinking/writing that occurs in this area of term-defining (by not defining a system-of-terms logically) could be avoided by understanding & applying related logical principles, e.g. when we think logically...   A1) by distinguishing between the two kinds of causal relationships that occur when a particular factor is sufficient for causing a result or is necessary for causing that result, and   A2) by thinking carefully (using logical Venn Diagrams) about categories that contain sub-categories.     {an application of A1-and-A2 when we're thinking logically about how to define CI}

In principle, a decision-about-defining should be simple if we're thinking logically, and this section should end here.  But...

in reality, our defining-of-CI is influenced by three criteria:  Logical, plus Traditional & Personal.

    LOGICAL:  As explained above, logically it's easy to see that CI should mean FA-or-UR.
    TRADITIONAL:  In church history, the most common meaning for CI has been only-FA.
    PERSONAL:  Proponents of FA want CI to mean only-FA.  Why?  Because this definition seems to provide apparent support for their view.  How?  There is very strong biblical evidence to support CI,  and if “CI is only FA” so “CI is not-UR” the strong biblical support for CI seems to provide strong support for FA (and against UR), even though this apparent support is not logically warranted.
    {more about Traditional & Personal}

In the current community of people who are re-thinking what the Bible teaches us about hell, what are the relationships between these criteria?  Most proponents of FA claim that “CI is only FA” so “CI includes FA but excludes UR”.*  This claim can be made explicitly, but usually it's implicit when they say “my view can be called FA or CI, either Annihilationism or Conditionalism” or they simply say “my view is CI” so they are claiming that saying “CI” is sufficient to define their view as “FA” (i.e. you should not then ask “is your view FA or UR?”) because FA and CI are synonyms,* and “everyone knows that CI is only-FA”.   This claim-by-FA is not warranted by LOGIC — because although FA does have one logically justifiable argument when they ask whether UR would require immortality-before-salvation this argument doesn't seem conclusive because FA has two logically justifiable responses — so instead FA is often defended by appealing to TRADITION.  But defenders of FA also use LOGIC by trying (without success, I think) to provide other logical reasons — beyond their question about "immortality before salvation" — for only-FA.     /     * This illogical definition also is typically used by others (not just by proponents of FA) due to the inertia of tradition.     /     * Sometimes there is an attempt to logically distinguish between CI and FA, but the distinction is very subtle, and it doesn't include the MAJOR distinction that logically “CI is FA-or-UR” while “FA is FA” so the meanings of CI and FA are very different, not just subtly different.

A prominent example of "trying (without success, I think) to provide a logical reason for only-FA" is Peter Grice (in August 2016) who says, with my comments in [green text inside brackets],  "As a Christian doctrinal position, conditional immortality [explicitly] affirms that immortality — living forever and never dying — is a gift from God given only to the saved. [this is THE PRIMARY MEANING, based on The Condition, that is logically justified]   It also tacitly [implicitly] rejects universal immortality, the view that all people... will be immortal. [this is A SECONDARY IMPLICATION, not based on The Condition, that is not logically justifiable;  there is a logical reason for why the term is conditional immortality, instead of non-universal immortality]*   Since this [universal immortality] is a tenet of both eternal torment and universal salvation, [but it could be either an assumed tenet or a logical conclusion, as explained above in Reasoning-Process and Afterlife-Result] conditionalism necessarily denies those two positions."  [when he claims this Secondary Implication, Peter is ignoring an essential distinction between two different ways that God could cause universal immortality:  with the universal immortality of EM, unsaved people would be immortal, living forever (being eternally tormented) even though they DO NOT satisfy God's Condition;  but with the universal immortality of UR, no unsaved people would be immortal because everyone is saved so all immortal people DO satisfy God's Condition;  this is an extremely important difference,  it's why (logically) universal immortality that includes some unsaved people (who are living in torment without salvation) is not-CI,  by contrast with universal immortality that includes only saved people (who are living in reconciliation after their salvation that occurred either in Life or Afterlife) is CI.     /     Here is an application of the two closely-related logical principles outlined above:  A1) unconditional immortality (obviously violating conditional immortality, CI) is sufficient for universal immortality, but is not necessary; and   A2) by using the logic of Venn Diagrams, we see that universal immortality is a broad category that includes both EM (with unconditional immortality, thus violating CI) and UR (without unconditional immortality, thus consistent with CI) as two sub-categories, because unconditional immortality is sufficient to produce universal immortality, but unconditional immortality is not necessary to produce universal immortality.  Why is an “unconditional giving-of-life to all” not necessary?  Because universal salvation that is totally conditional will happen if God uses purgatorial UR-Hell (in Afterlife to give all people who were unsaved (during Life) experiences of educational corrective healing by sin-purging that will convert them into people who have been saved (during Afterlife) so they will satisfy The Condition for Immortality.]

Before continuing with logical analysis, here is a personal comment:  I respect Peter Grice.  He is intelligent, is a skillful writer, has invested lots of time studying this topic.  But he is trying to defend a position that (in my opinion) cannot be logically defended.  Therefore the best efforts by Peter — or by anyone else who tries to logically justify a claim that CI is only-FA — cannot succeed.

* In another article (January 2016), Peter tries to justify his Secondary Implication:  "In theological labeling convention, conditional is a technical term implying that conditions will not be universally met." [but... why? (is there a logical reason for it?)  and is this "technical term" widely accepted by non-annihilationists?  In his article he first claims that "something can’t be both universal and conditional" and then responds to the obvious objection — "but isn’t a condition that is universally met still a condition?" — by admitting that "technically, yes" so his claim is “technically false” and thus is “logically false.”  This is easy to see in many everyday-life situations where policy-Conditions are universally satisfied.  For example, imagine these situations:  the policy of a college is that “if you pass your courses, then you can play on our basketball team,” and all 15 roster-players pass their courses;   the policy of Megabus is “if you buy a ticket, then you can ride on our bus,” and all 40 passengers buy a ticket;   the owner/pilot of a skydiving plane has a policy, “if you pay the fee and sign the liability waiver, then you can ride on my plane and jump from it,” and all 20 skydivers pay-and-sign;   in each situation — with conditional playing, conditional riding, conditional jumping — there is a condition so the situation is conditional, yet a claim that "conditions will not be universally met" is wrong. ]     /     When we're logically evaluating Peter's claim that "conditional" implies "conditions will not be universally met" — and we're wondering “why would an intelligent person (like you are) think it's justifiable to claim this?” — another perspective is to ask...   Would a non-universal semi-Universalism be accepted as conditionalism if instead of 10% salvation (a common current estimate of those who are traveling “the narrow path” now during their Life) God decides that He wants 20% to be saved?  but what if it's 51, 80, 98, or 99.99999%?  does The Condition become a Non-Condition only if 100% satisfy The Condition, if semi-Universalism becomes Universalism?   Where do advocates of “UR is not-CI” want to draw the line?  And how can this line be logically justified?

It is not logically justifiable for a defender of Annihilationism to say “sometimes I call my view Annihilationism, and sometimes I call it Conditionalism” because whenever they say “my view IS Conditionalism” it's a logically false claim, because they are declaring that “CI is only Annihilation” so “CI would not occur with Universal Reconciliation.”

Reasons for Choices — Logical, Traditional, Personal

If, as I explain above, a claim that “CI is only FA” cannot be logically justified, why do many proponents of FA continue to claim that “CI is only FA” so “CI does not include UR” and “UR is not-CI”?   It seems to me, although of course I could be wrong, that:

    they recognize the biblical/logical weakness of their definition, so
    instead they emphasize the historical tradition supporting it,
    and one of their personal motivations is wanting to maintain the significant rhetorical benefits arising from a claim that only their own position is Conditional Immortality.

This section describes these three factors.

LOGIC:  Above and below, I explain why — if we use the Bible to define the meaning of Conditional Immortality (CI), and then use logic — our biblical/logical conclusion should be that CI could occur with either FA or UR, so our meaning for CI should be “either FA or UR”.

TRADITION:  In church history, the most common meaning for CI has been only FA.  I think this historical tradition should be considered, as one factor in our defining of CI.  But it should not be the most important factor.  We should not be bound by tradition when there are logical reasons to question the tradition, to examine it and then reject the tradition if this seems wise, if the tradition seems wrong.  And I think the tradition that "CI = only-FA" is wrong.     {two questions of Tradition-versus-Logic:  when defending EM, and defining CI}

PERSONAL Reasons:  A claim that “CI means only FA” is not justified when we use Bible-based logic, so we have Biblical/Logical Reasons to reject the tradition.  Despite the weak logical support for “CI = only FA” — so appeals to Tradition are necessary — why do defenders of FA argue for “CI is only FA” so strongly?  And why do I strongly argue for “CI is either FA or UR”?  Here are brief descriptions of what I think are Personal Reasons by them, and by me.

their personal reasons:  It seems to me that defenders of FA strongly want CI to mean “only FA”.*  Why?  Because the Bible strongly teaches CI (making it one of my two main Bible-based reasons for rejecting a claim that God will cause Eternal Misery), CI is a persuasive term.  Due to the strong biblical support for Conditional Immortality (and for the closely related Death Penalty for Sin), IF we use their restrictive definition (if “CI = only-FA”) this is an implicit “hidden argument” favoring FA (if CI is FA) when it's compared with UR (if CI means not-UR).  As part of an effective rhetorical strategy for making their own view appear to be stronger — when FA is compared with EM and (especially) is compared with UR — proponents of FA should rationally want their own view to get all of the credit for strong CI-based arguments against EM, so FA doesn't have to “share the credit” with UR.

Terrance Tiessen, as part of the comments responding to his article — that he wrote to logically explain why CI is FA-or-UR, before he realized that proponents of FA are not committed to defining CI logically — observed, re: the strong commitment to using “CI is only FA” despite its lack of logical support, that he "was not fully aware of the extent of the emotional commitment, of annihilationists who have commented here, to ‘conditional immortality’ as the descriptor of their position."

* They can "want CI to mean only FA" as individuals (with reasons arising from their psychology) and in groups (with reasons arising from their sociology), with complex interactions between these levels of life, affecting motivations that are emotional and also strategic.

my personal reasons:  I also have an "emotional commitment" because — in addition to thinking “CI = either FA or UR” is logically justifiable — I strongly want CI to mean FA-or-UR.  Why?  As explained above, "because the Bible strongly teaches CI" it is "a persuasive term," and I don't want “CI is only FA” to be used as an implicit “hidden argument” for FA (if it's defined to be CI) and against UR (if it's defined to be not-CI) when FA is compared with UR.  A definition of CI as “either FA or UR” also makes it easier for me to explain my semi-agnosticism in two steps:

    Step 1:  First, I explain why CI has strong biblical support and why EM is not compatible with CI so I think EM probably won't happen in Afterlife,* and this is a strong reason to claim that it will be either FA or UR because both views are compatible with CI, because an Afterlife-with-CI could be either FA (Conditional and non-Universal) or UR (Conditional and Universal).     {* EM also seems much less compatible with the biblically revealed character of God.}
    Step 2:  Second, I've discovered, in my evaluations of FA-versus-UR, that the overall biblical support for FA and UR seems to be similar.
    Combining these two steps — when we first ask "WHAT is the penalty for sin?" and then "Who receives this penalty" — produces a summary of my views:  I'm very confident that EM won't happen, but I'm not confident when asking “what will happen? will it be FA or UR?”   I'm a Conditionalist (Step 1) who currently thinks there is not enough evidence to confidently choose (in Step 2) between FA and UR.     /     regarding Universal Reconciliation, I'm Hopeful, and am Optimistic but not Confident:  I think everyone (of course including me) should be a Hopeful Universalist who hopes UR will happen;  and, based on what the Bible teaches, I'm Optimistic in thinking “UR might happen,” but not Confident in claiming “UR will happen.”

Logic versus Tradition:  Earlier, I describe how some prominent defenders of FA appeal to Historical Tradition as a strong reason to conclude that CI is only-FA.  So should they also claim that Historical Tradition is a strong reason to conclude that the Bible teaches EM instead of FA?   No.   They rightly want us to focus on Biblical/Logical Reasons to evaluate EM versus FA, and they also should want us to focus on Biblical/Logical Reasons when evaluating the benefits of defining CI as only-FA versus FA-or-UR.

MORE -- later (IOU) I will develop the following summary-ideas:

a problem:  (all people will be in General Resurrection, so at beginning of General Afterlife the total population includes unsaved who eventually would violate CI) but

two solutions:  it would be CI-ok if (for all unsaved people) God either SAVES (→ UR) or KILLS (→ FA), or some of each (→ semi-UR).

two processes-of-reasoning:  a process of deciding "it's UR" could be done in two ways, in two sequences (1 2) of proposing what God will do -- 2) it isn't CI-logic if you think "A) all immortal, B) so all saved" but   1) is CI-logic if think "A) all saved, thus B) all immortal."

    but either way, 1 or 2, → same UR-result, and this UR is CI-ok. (only EM is not CI-ok)

    generating ideas and evaluating ideas (a standard distinction in philosophy of science is generative "context of discovery" and evaluative "context of justification";  e.g. Kekule's dream about benzene (that its structure is a ring) wasn't "evidence" for benzene, but it also wasn't counter-evidence, instead his creative process of "imagining the structure" was independent of the logical process of evaluation, done by scientists);  and whether a UR-proposer "imagines" the afterlife-process as being A or B, this doesn't affect the critical evaluation of UR, and whether UR is or isn't consistent with CI, because logically UR is CI-ok because all saved-people satisfy The Condition so God can make them immortal and this does not violate His policy of CI.)