Welcome to the forum, Mrs.O!
A quick technical note: don’t be alarmed if it takes your posts up to a few days to come through; all posts from new members go to the spamcatcher at first so we can check if someone is selling essays or Russian hacking software. (We had a swarm of that back before Christmas, which was quite hilarious as the posts were all boasting about how good they were at getting through Captchas if you could read their posts as evidence. As far as I know they were all zorched inbound. )
After three or four posts the system will flip over to allow you through automatically afterward.
I don’t have much time to type this afternoon – buckling down, and up, for an oncoming winter storm in West TN – but if justification involves people becoming actually and perfectly fair, perfectly just, and not only a legal ruling, then of course so long as we’re morally still choosing injustice then we be still making any heaven into a hell, even slightly, for ourselves or other people.
This leads to the question of whether our proclivities to do injustice can all be cured (simply or more complexly), or whether there’s more contribution from us as free willed persons involved in our bad behavior than that. If the former then of course there’s no need for God’s attitude toward us to be, relative to our sin, any amount of personal opposition against us personally; if the latter, then (as Lewis used to say) while whatever can be cured will be cured, and whatever can fairly be excused will be excused, what’s left over still needs forgiving and that’s a changing of our mind by us as responsible people – until then we’re still making ourselves enemies of the source of our own existence, even if as God says through Isaiah He actually has no wrath in Him and is only fighting us to burn up the thorns and thistles with which we go out to war against Him (so that we will throw them down and cling to Him instead as our friend).
Christian universalists disagree among ourselves on this point: some of us (myself included) do believe God is angry (although technically that’s more of a human analogy to God’s attitude toward us when we do injustice), even though we believe His anger is a mode of His love for us (against our sin) and not something intrinisc to God in itself; consequently His actions toward us can be discplinary as well as healing and instruction. (i.e. God can do or not do anger, but God can never not do love.) Others of us don’t believe God is ever angry at us personally and that all we need is curing of ignorance and/or disease, in which case God never acts in disciplinary inconvenience (i.e. punishment) toward us but only in healing and instruction.
Both sides however probably most often share an understanding of justification to mean bringing a person to be actually just (one way or another), not merely being declared just. Although I’ve seen some universalists going the legal, forensic route, too: if that was all there was to justification, I’d be even more convinced (if that was possible) that universal salvation is true, and I’ve seen some Christians arrive at Christian universalism by that route. I think this notion of justification is much of a minority among us, however. (Although those I’ve seen hold it do tend to be what we call around here ultra-universalists, with no wrath or punishment coming from God, anymore or perhaps ever. But not all ultras hold to a merely legal or procedural justification notion.)