Hello everyone! 
Below is a (possible) argument (composed of many ‘sub-arguments’) that seems to argue from God’s love to universal reconciliation. I put it together, so it may be difficult to follow, or badly presented (apologies for this). To clarify, this is not a number of independent arguments, but, instead, a drawn-out large argument, where each of parts A, B, C etc., complement each other to reach the final conclusion at the end of E.
Part A
Premise 1) Humankind is created in the “image” of God, “according to [His] likeness”.
Premise 2) If humankind is created in the image and after the likeness of God, then the flourishing of human creatures (eudaimonia) is a “good” state of affairs.
Conclusion) Therefore, the flourishing of human creatures is a “good” state of affairs.
Part B
Premise 1) God’s moral instructions to humanity, as shown in Jesus, are reflections of His good nature
Premise 2) The central moral instructions of God, given (1), are, most plausibly, at or close to the peak of goodness
Premise 3) Agape love of God and other people is at least one (if not the one) of the central moral instructions to humanity from God
Conclusion) Therefore, agape love of God and other people is, most plausibly, at or close to the peak of goodness
Part C
Premise 1) The peak of goodness in a coherent moral system is never directly contradicted by other principles in the moral system
Premise 2) God’s moral instructions to humanity are a coherent moral system
Conclusion) Therefore, God’s moral instructions to humanity do not contain any directly contradicting prescriptions
Premise 3) God’s moral instructions perfectly reflect His good nature
Premise 4) Premise (3) requires that God’s nature does not conflict with His moral instructions
Conclusion) Therefore, God’s nature also does not contain any directly contradicting traits
N.B. “Directly contradicting principles” refers to the idea that, if one principle is increased, the other is diminished. Coherence in morality makes greater sense with principles that, if one is changed, the other is enhanced or remains the same.
Part D
Premise 1) The flourishing of human creatures is a “good” state of affairs (from argument A)
Premise 2) Agape love of God and other people is, most plausibly, at or close to the peak of goodness (from argument B)
Premise 3) God’s nature does not contain any directly contradicting traits (from argument C)
Premise 4) Given (2),(3) and God’s goodness, God’s nature should not, in any way, directly contradict agape love
Premise 5) Given (1), (2) and (3), the flourishing of human creatures should not, in any way, directly contradict agape love, and therefore should not directly contradict God’s nature.
Premise 6) Given (5), (1) and that God acts in accordance with His nature, God seeks to enhance human flourishing to maximum possible levels
Conclusion) Therefore, God seeks to enhance human flourishing to maximum possible levels
Part E
Premise 1) God seeks to enhance human flourishing to maximum possible levels (from D)
Premise 2) An autonomous creature, that begins with the possibility of choosing God, and has a finite age and limited power over itself, cannot possibly freely completely reject God forever in a way in which God cannot bring about loving reconciliation.
Premise 3) It is always in the eventual interests of a given person’s flourishing to be lovingly reconciled to God.
Premise 4) Given (1), (2) and (3), the most plausible resolution is that the eventual reconciliation of all human creatures without exception will be brought about by God.
Conclusion) Therefore, the most plausible resolution is that the eventual reconciliation of all human creatures without exception will be brought about by God.
