Nicked shamelessly from the RF website:
A Short Argument for Christian Universalism
- Arguments Against Hellism/Annihilationism
- Arguments for Christian Universalism
- Response to Common ECT Arguments
1) Arguments Against Hellism/Annihilationism
1A) Obvious Atrocity or Bleakness
In a nutshell: common repugnance/ bleakness at hell/oblivion is the morally valid response, akin to moral revulsion at the holocaust or child abuse. Only by searing the conscience with complex theological argument can one’s initial ethical response be considered a false reading.
1B) Inconsistency with a MGB
In a nutshell: hell and annihilation are inconsistent with an omnibenevolent being on any account that retains the most plausible understandings of the word ‘good’
1C) Inconsistency with Christ’s Character
In a nutshell: Christ’s actions seem inconsistent with a doctrine of ECT or unforgiving annihilation. It is only the words of Christ that lead one to accept hellism, yet His words can be variously interpreted. One should favour the interpretation that is most consistent with His actions.
1D) Unjust Justice
In a nutshell: ECT is built on a particular idea of retributive justice which deconstructs itself (it is incoherent) as hell never accomplishes a state of final justice. Additionally, both ECT and annihilationism seem to forward a massively disproportionate infinite punishment for the finite sins of a finite and flawed being. Furthermore, punishment on ECT/anni seems to serve no further justifiable purpose such as rehabilitation or deterrent, and thus it becomes purely vengeance. Also, no biblical restorative justice can be obtained under ECT or annihilationism.
1E) Incomplete Victory
In a nutshell: under ECT sin and suffering are granted permanent existence (contrary to scriptural assertion), under annihilation God-in-Christ fails to save some. In both cases God achieves a lesser victory over sin, evil, suffering, satan and death, which is inconsistent with biblical witness and MGB talk.
1F) A Low View of Free Will
In a nutshell: under ECT and annihilation God actualises a state of affairs where people either cannot repent, or their repentance is ignored - thus God effectively removes, or dishonours, freewill.
1G) The Infant Salvation Problem
In a nutshell: infant universalism is a modern and exegetically weak theology. The only way to present a strong case for infant salvation is under a full universalist paradigm (with its scriptural and theological support), otherwise infant only universalism falls foul of the emotional-argument accusation levelled at universalists. Infant only universalism leads to all kinds of moral and theological conundrums concerning abortion, creation, heaven, freewill, the gospel, original sin and the such like which are resolved more easily under full universalism.
1H) The Pragmatic Psychological Problem
In a nutshell: there are a number of documented cases and studies of ECTers committing suicide or infanticide, or developing depression, because of their theology. This problem doesn’t seem to exist under universalism. This points towards ECT as being ‘unhealthy’.
1I) The Apostolic Silence and the OT Silence
In a nutshell: there is a strange dearth of clear hell statements in the OT, the epistles, and Acts, which is unexpected given the severity of the issue. This is easily explained under universalism, not so easily explained under ECT or annihilationism.
1J) The Tears in Heaven Problem
In a nutshell: in heaven we will be perfected in love, becoming more like God. God loves everybody and commands us to love everybody, so in heaven we will love perfectly even those who are in hell or were annihilated. Loving (empathising with) someone perfectly yet knowing they are in torments or have lost all goods without hope of change will make people very sad. God can only resolve this problem in morally problematic ways: over-riding freewill and self-actualised character development by direct personality alteration (into something less human and less God-like), or by perpetrating the greatest cover-up/lie by hiding and removing knowledge from other beings (with many consistency problems).
1K) The Evangelism Problem
In a nutshell: many people have de-converted, or will not convert, because of the doctrine of hell.
1L) The Apologetics Problem
In a nutshell: when ‘hell’ is debated apologists lose the debate. Hell is apologetically indefensible.
1M) The Argument from Moral Authority
In a nutshell: a large number of recognised role-models of virtue were either universalist or ant-hellist.
2) Arguments for Christian Universalism
2A) Thomas Talbott’s Logical Argument
In a nutshell: there is an incompatibility between the biblically and theologically supported statements ‘God is able to fulfil His desires’ and ‘God desires all to be saved’ under both ECT and annihlationism but not under universalism.
2B) The Overarching Meta-Narrative Argument
In a nutshell: as argued by Robin Parry, the over-arching meta-narrative of the bible favours the view of a directionality towards complete cosmic reconciliation, whereas ECT and annihalitionism have to rely more on isolated proof texts.
2C) Pauline Universalism
In a nutshell: there are a number of clear Pauline proof passages for cosmic universal reconciliation.
2D) Other Biblical Prima Facie Universalist Texts
In a nutshell: there are a number of passages throughout the bible which prima facie support universalism.
2E) The Greater Victory Argument
In a nutshell: Robin Parry Puts it as,‘Let me ask you to hold in your mind traditional Christian visions of the future, in which many, perhaps the majority of humanity, are excluded from salvation forever. Alongside that hold the universalist vision, in which God achieves his loving purpose of redeeming the whole creation. Which vision has the strongest view of divine love? Which story has the most powerful narrative of God’s victory over evil? Which picture lifts the atoning efficacy of the cross of Christ to the greatest heights? Which perspective best emphasizes the triumph of grace over sin? Which view most inspires worship and love of God bringing him honor and glory? Which has the most satisfactory understanding of divine wrath? Which narrative inspires hope in the human spirit? To my mind the answer to all these questions is clear, and that is why I am a Christian universalist.’
2F) The Greater Coherence Argument
In a nutshell: universalism ties together MGB talk, justice, ethics, atonement theories, FWD, God’s desires, heavenly bliss, soteriology, etc in a better fashion than alternatives.
2G) Majority Mystical and NDE Reports
In a nutshell: the vast majority of NDEs describe blissful afterlives even for those normally rejected by ECT or annihilationism; a large number of mystics report God as all-encompassing love.
2H) Anecdotal Reports of Psychological and Spiritual Benefits
In a nutshell: lots of anecdotes of how universalism has brought peace and comfort to troubled people, and how the HS testifies to its truth.
3) Response to Common ECT Arguments
3A) The Use of ‘Eternal’ in Scripture
In a nutshell: the best and most recent scholarship show that the biblical word ‘eternal’/‘neverending’ is not a simple word corresponding to modern ideas of without end, and thus passages speaking of neverending punishment cannot be taken at their face-value English meaning.
3B) The Use of ‘Punishment’ in Scripture
In a nutshell: the biblical word 'punishment in hell contexts speaks more corrective discipline with a remedial purpose rather than ECT.
3C) Jesus’ Gehenna Warnings
In a nutshell: all of the Gehenna warnings in the Gospels can be harmonised with universalism, either by noting the context, or by word study, or by adopting preteristic hermeneutics.
3D) The Unforgivable Sin
In a nutshell: there are many interpretations of this passage and some are compatible with universalism. These compatible interpretations are held by non-universalists as well as universalists.
3E) Revelation and The Lake of Fire
In a nutshell: there are loads of interpretations of Revelation and one should interpret the less clear by the more clear not the other way around. Also, Revelation deconstructs its own hyperbolic judgement language in the last chapters leaving hope for those outside the city and the door open for universalism. Also, word studies can indicate that the lake of fire might have had a purgative purpose, again deconstructing the hyperbolic judgement language.
3F) Universalism as Pluralism
In a nutshell: there are clear differences between pluralistic universalism and Christian universalism. One can be an evangelical Christian particularist and a universalist.
3G) Universalism as Innovation
In a nutshell: contrary to some accusations, universalism has been held by Christians right throughout the millennia right back to the Early and Apostolic Church. Some pro-universalist church historians have argued for universalism being the majority view in the early church, but more modern and less partisan scholarship casts doubt on that. It is more likely that universalism was a widespread, but minority, early church viewpoint. Either way, it certainly isn’t innovative.
3H) Universalism as Heresy
In a nutshell: universalism isn’t technically a heresy (depending upon definition). It was an accepted part of the early church and some respected church fathers were universalists. Most people talk about Origen, but Origen was never declared heretical for his universalism, but rather for other teachings associated by his universalism. Other non-Origenist universalists were well respected during the period. Universalism can be harmonised with both the Apostle’s and Nicene creed (but not the Athanasian, but that is of very dubious provenance). Universalism (of various sorts) is tolerated or accepted in many denominations.
3I) Universalism as Incompatible with Free Will
In a nutshell: Calvinistic universalists side-step this issue; Molinist and Arminian universalists can side-step the issue if they adopt an ‘all can be saved’ hopeful universalism, or an ‘all will be saved’ prophetic universalism. The only real issue is with LFW Open Theist universalists and convinced ‘it is impossible for all not to be saved’ universalists. Even here, the free will issue has been dealt with in the philosophical works of Talbott and Reitan. The four key responses are: no fully rational being can choose to reject God forever, and a theology of freewill which presupposes such is biblically, ethically and philosophically flawed; no being can resist the beatific vision, in accordance with Thomisitic explanation; Reitan’s coin tossing analogy and argument, where infinite time means that there is an ever vanishing towards infinitely small chance of agent rejection; and the idea that although it is not logically impossible for a freewilled agent to resist God, it is psychologically impossible given our human limitations.
3J) Universalism as Incompatible with Justice
In a nutshell: arguments for the injustice of universalism fall foul of a variety of universalist responses, including: purgatorial universalism; proportionate judgement and punishment; the absurdity of the Anselmian infinite sin idea; and the argument for universalism being the only eschatology to fulfil both retributive and restorative justice.
3K) Universalism Renders Life Meaningless
*In a nutshell: a variety of possible universalist responses to this charge exist, including (and possible combinations of) an expanded vale of soul making theodicy; non-dispensationalist eschatologies which posit no destruction of the current universe; FWD cosmic warfare theodices; self-unfolding evolutionary theodices; and epistemic collapse or moral influence atonement theories. *
There’s loads of (often critical) discussion of Universalism on that board, and there’s a sort of meta-list of relevant threads here:
reasonablefaith.org/forums/choose-your-own-topic/recent-threads-collection-hell-6026742.0.html
I did want to bump it up so everyone would have a chance to see it though. 
