How Can a Good and Loving God Condemn People to Hell?
A Conservative Biblical Universalist Response
“The idea of hell was born of revenge and brutality on the one side, and cowardice on the other…. I have no respect for any human being who believes in it … I dislike this doctrine, I hate it, I despise it, I defy this doctrine…. This doctrine of hell is infamous beyond all power to express.”
“So said Colonel Robert Ingersoll, one of the nineteenth century’s most fervent opponents of Christ, Christianity, and hell. Though one may rail, rant, rebel, or rally against it, hell stands like a monolithic tombstone in Scripture. It is mentioned on more pages of the Bible than heaven. Obviously, the Spirit of God is telling us something crucial.”
“Yet, the doctrine of hell poses questions that have run theologians from ragged to apostate.”
Universalist Response: Hell as Corrective, Not Eternal
Conservative biblical universalists acknowledge hell’s prominence in Scripture but interpret it as corrective rather than eternal. The Greek terms aion and aionios, traditionally translated as “eternal” or “everlasting,” primarily mean “age” or “age-lasting” rather than endless duration. David Bentley Hart’s translation renders these as “of the Age,” noting they “never clearly mean ‘eternal’ in any incontrovertible sense.”
Thomas Talbott argues that Scripture’s warnings about hell serve as serious calls to repentance while pointing toward God’s ultimate victory over all evil. Hell exists, but as Gregory of Nyssa taught, it functions like a refining furnace that purifies gold—painful but purposeful, leading to restoration rather than endless torment.
“While I was a student at Dallas Seminary, I befriended another student who was seeing a psychiatrist because of his severe depression. He identified the doctrine of hell as the source of his anguish: ‘I was at the beach this past summer, and while I was sitting on the boardwalk watching people walk by eating cotton candy, laughing, just having fun, I began to think about hell. All I could see was each of them burning in hell for eternity. How can God punish people for all eternity simply because they didn’t accept Christ?'”
“Still, the theologian in us cries out. If God is unchangeable (Jas. 1:17), if not a jot or tittle of the Word can pass away until heaven and earth end (Mt. 5:17–18), if the Scripture cannot be broken and God Himself cannot lie, and if we are to take the Scriptures at face value and refuse to shy from even their darkest warnings, then there is a hell, it is eternal, those who go there will suffer acute and infinite pain, and they will have no hope of ever getting out (Mt. 8:12, Mt. 25:46; Mk. 9:47–49; Lk. 16:23–24, Rev. 14:11). That is a staggering doctrine.”
“While one might think that such words alone would shiver the soul of any human so that he would flee to Christ without a backward glance, the opposite is true. Thousands mock the idea of hell. Millions more soberly reject it. And perhaps billions do not even know it exists. How can a God of compassion, love, mercy, and grace create such a place? How can a Lord who possesses all power to decree, predestinate, elect, save, and apply redemption to the lost soul speak, even hallow, such a doctrine?”
Can a Good God Justify Hell?
“We know God is good, kind, patient, longsuffering, always willing to forgive. He is love personified, magnified, and exemplified (1 Jn. 4:16). But God is also just, infinitely holy, and perfectly righteous. The Scriptures picture Jesus as both the Lamb of God (Jn. 1:29) and the Lion of Judah (Rev. 5:5). Like a lamb, He is meek, gentle, a holy sacrifice for the sin of those who confess Him. Like a lion, His claws can tear the unrepentant to pieces.”
“It is this picture that reveals a first answer to the problem of hell: God’s character demands it. While God’s love, mercy, and grace are demonstrated in the atonement of Christ, other attributes demand equal authority and actually justify hell. What are these attributes?”
“Righteousness/Holiness. That God is righteous and holy means He always acts in accordance with those things He deems just and lawful. He cannot do anything less than what is right. God’s great plan is ultimately to bring the universe back to perfect righteousness—back into harmony with His character. There are only two ways He can do that. One is by providing a way for sinners to return to righteousness—through the death, Resurrection, and power of Jesus Christ. In Christ He makes us new creatures (2 Cor. 5:17).”
Universalist Response: God’s Character Demands Universal Restoration
Thomas Talbott presents three propositions that cannot all be simultaneously true: (1) God loves all and wills their salvation, (2) God is sovereign over human destinies, and (3) some will experience eternal torment. Traditional theology sacrifices either God’s universal love or His sovereignty, while universalism preserves both by rejecting eternal damnation.
David Bentley Hart argues that if God creates ex nihilo knowing some will face eternal torment, He becomes morally responsible for that outcome. This would make God complicit in eternal evil, contradicting His essential goodness. Robin Parry emphasizes that God’s wrath serves as “divine love working to restore what is broken,” not as vindictive punishment.
God’s righteousness demands making all things right—which means ultimately restoring all creation to harmony with His character through Christ’s victorious work, not permanently segregating part of creation in eternal torment.
“But what about those who do not seek righteousness, who desire darkness over light? There is a second option. God will confine such people in a place where they cannot affect or harm those who seek righteousness. That is hell.”
“Justice. The justice of God functions as a logical complement to His righteousness. His righteousness demands that He make things right. His justice demands that something be done about sin. Again, to bring about perfect justice for all the wrongs in the universe, God offers two options: to make payment for them Himself through the death of Jesus; or to require payment by the sinner. God cannot wink at sin, overlook it, or allow it to persist (Hab. 1:13, Ps. 5:4–6)”
“Omniscience. God’s omniscience enables Him to know everything that is, was, shall be, and could be (Ps. 139, Is. 46:10). How does this attribute require a hell? An omniscient God must eliminate evil from His knowledge. One way is to forgive that evil and choose to forget it forever. God can actually ‘blot out’ or eradicate His own knowledge on such an issue.”
“But what of those whom He has not forgiven because they have not accepted His forgiveness in Christ? God’s only other option is to gather all the evil into one place and render it dead—separated from Him forever. That is hell. While God may be conscious of the evil in that place, He does not have to have contact with it or look on it ever again.”
Universalist Response: Divine Justice is Restorative, Not Retributive
Conservative universalists distinguish between retributive justice (punishment for punishment’s sake) and restorative justice (correction leading to reconciliation). The Greek word kolasis used in Matthew 25:46 means corrective punishment, not timoria (retributive punishment). William Barclay notes kolasis was originally a gardening term meaning pruning—always given “to amend and to cure.”
An omniscient God knows exactly how to reach every heart without violating free will. His infinite resourcefulness and unlimited time ensure He can ultimately persuade all through non-coercive love. Brad Jersak argues that God’s justice serves His love, working to restore rather than eternally segregate.
The continuing existence of eternal evil alongside a good God creates theological incoherence. True divine victory means God becomes “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28), not “all in some” with others eternally separated.
“Love/Wrath. These two aspects of God’s nature are linked together in the doctrine of hell. His love requires a hell because He must protect those He loves from the defilement of His enemies. His wrath calls for vengeance—that His enemies be punished for injuring, hating, and rejecting Him.”
“Nearly any aspect of God’s character can be used to explain both heaven and hell. We have to take God and what His Word says about Him on His terms, not ours. Those who accept His grace and love but balk at the idea of justice or perfect holiness are guilty of folly.”
The Monstrous Sin of Rejecting Christ
“Still, an objection arises here. We understand these truths about God’s character. But isn’t eternal hell a rather stiff penalty for simply not believing in Christ or loving Him? The average Christian tends to think of rejecting Christ as a rather small matter: not trivial, but surely no worse than murder, theft, or rape. Isn’t it unreasonable to require such a monstrous payment for such a shortcoming, especially if it resulted from ignorance?”
“This question reveals a second reason hell is the logical and just result of man’s impenitence. Consider what the unbeliever has really done to God through His unbelief.”
“Hebrews 10:29 gives a graphic picture of the enormity of this sin. The writer says, ‘How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?’ The writer refers to people who have received the knowledge of the truth—salvation through Christ, God’s grace to the lost, and forgiveness of sin—but continue sinning anyway. In the mind of God, this person commits three reprehensible acts.”
Universalist Response: Hebrews 10:29 Describes Temporal Discipline
The warning in Hebrews 10:29 addresses Hebrew Christians considering apostasy, warning of serious temporal consequences. The “severer punishment” refers to proportional discipline leading to restoration, not eternal torment. This aligns with Old Testament patterns where divine judgments on nations like Egypt and Babylon preceded their eventual restoration (Isaiah 19:24-25).
The severity reflects the seriousness of apostasy while maintaining God’s redemptive purpose. As Talbott explains, even severe judgment serves pedagogical functions—teaching through consequences rather than imposing endless retribution. The passage warns believers about rejecting known truth but doesn’t define the eternal destiny of all unbelievers.
Many who reject Christ do so from ignorance, deception, or bondage—conditions God can address without violating free will. Once barriers are removed through divine revelation and purification, the will naturally turns toward God as its true good.
“Trampled Him underfoot. First, he ‘trampled the Son of God under foot.’ The word used here is katapateo, which can be translated ‘trample, tread upon, treat with disdain.’ Characteristically, the Spirit provides us with two graphic illustrations, both used by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. He spoke of tasteless salt as ‘no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men’ (Mt. 5:13). He was referring to salt which, when it lost its savor, was thrown into the road, where at least it could keep weeds from growing. Applying that idea to Heb. 10:29, we see that the unbeliever regards Christ as being utterly worthless and useless.”
“Imagine your response, for instance, if your son went down to a neighbor’s yard, helped weed the garden, cut the grass, and watched the children while the neighbor when to work. Suppose that neighbor returned, and, after observing all the son had done, came to you and informed you, ‘Your son is absolutely worthless. I can’t stand him. Get him off my property.’ You ask, ‘But what did he do?’ The neighbor replied, ‘I don’t like his character. He does too many nice things. He’s too perfect, too friendly, too willing to sacrifice for others. I can’t stand the sight of him.’ An angry response is understandable. Simple common sense demands that God do something about those who treat His Son as worthless.”
“But Jesus paints a more piercing picture in Mt. 7:6: ‘Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.’ A pig has no sense of the value of anything. If you threw a pearl to him and he tried to eat it, what would happen? The pearl would stick in his teeth. The pig would spit it out in fury, grind it into the dirt, and then come after the one who threw him this unsavory object. In other words, the unbeliever has treated Jesus the way a pig treats non-food.”
Universalist Response: Ignorance and Deception, Not Willful Rejection
Conservative universalists emphasize that most rejection of Christ stems from ignorance, deception, or bondage rather than fully informed rebellion. Hart argues that no rational being can ultimately choose evil when fully aware of the good: “True freedom consists in choosing the good—we are only genuinely free when we choose well.”
The metaphors of pigs and pearls illustrate lack of understanding, not eternal wickedness. A pig doesn’t recognize a pearl’s value due to its nature and limitations. Similarly, those who reject Christ often cannot perceive His true worth due to spiritual blindness, which God can heal.
Talbott notes that “as long as any ignorance, or deception, or bondage to desire remains, it is open to God to transform a sinner without interfering with human freedom.” God’s infinite patience and pedagogical wisdom ensure He can eventually enlighten every soul to recognize Christ’s infinite value.
“Regarded Him as unclean. But the unbeliever has done something else: he has regarded ‘as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him.’ The Greek word for unholy, koinos, means ‘common, ordinary, profane.’ The verb form relates the idea of ‘unclean,’ and relates to the Hebrew law concerning Gentiles, who were considered defiled and not to be approached, befriended, or invited to dinner. Thus, the unbeliever has treated Christ’s blood as though it were nothing more than the blood of a dog. Yet, it is this blood that cleanses the foul heart of man and pays the penalty for a multitude of sins. Peter called it ‘precious blood,’ worth far more than gold or silver (1 Pet. 1:19).”
“Insulted the Spirit of grace. Unbelievers commit a third crime against God: they have ‘insulted the Spirit of grace.’ The word used here is enubrisas, the intensified form of ubrisas, which means to ‘treat in an arrogant or spiteful manner.’ The intensified form means to treat so arrogantly and mockingly as to inspire outrage in the mind of the victim.”
“To use the neighbor illustration again, imagine a second son who goes to the neighbor on behalf of the first son. This second lad talks quietly to the neighbor, tells him how much the first boy loved him, and repeatedly entreats the neighbor to change his mind about the boy. But the neighbor refuses to change. He treats the second son outrageously, calls him names, shoves him off his lot, spits in his face, and says, ‘Get out. Leave me alone. I want nothing to do with you.'”
“That is what the Spirit of God does—he seeks to woo the unbeliever to change his mind about Christ and God. But ultimately, the unbeliever thrusts him out, screaming, ‘Leave me alone.’ In the last resort, that is what God will do—leave them utterly alone where they can do no one any more harm. In hell.”
Universalist Response: God Never Gives Up on Anyone
The parable of the persistent widow (Luke 18:1-8) and the seeking shepherd (Luke 15:3-7) reveal God’s relentless pursuit of the lost. Would the Good Shepherd really say “Leave me alone” to any sheep? Hart asks whether we should preach “a gospel where the good shepherd goes out to search for the one lost sheep, but eventually returns to his flock, his head bowed in resignation.”
The Spirit’s persistence reflects God’s nature as perfect love that “never fails” (1 Cor. 13:8). Even apparent rejection often masks deeper pain, fear, or misunderstanding that God’s infinite wisdom can address. Jersak notes that God’s love is more persistent than human resistance—He has unlimited time and resources to reach every heart.
Romans 11:32 declares God “shut up all in disobedience in order that he might have mercy on all.” The same “all” in disobedience receive mercy, demonstrating God’s universal salvific purpose that cannot ultimately be thwarted.
“On every front, Christians must reject the lies of Satan that tell us, ‘It’s not so bad to reject Christ. God is being unreasonable. How can He put these harmless people in hell?’ Rather we must rely only on the truths of God’s word, which reveal the unbeliever as far more malicious and pernicious than they might appear to be on the surface.”
The Unbeliever’s Choice
“A third important justification of hell is that the lost have consciously chosen to reject Christ and to follow the lies of darkness. It was their choice. No one forced the decision upon them.”
“Still, an objection arises. Was it really a conscious choice? Does an unbeliever realize what he’s doing? Can we somehow excuse his behavior? Paul’s argument in Ro. 1:18–32 leads to several clear conclusions.”
“His wrath is revealed. First, Paul says God’s wrath is ‘revealed’ (apokalupto) from heaven against the godless (Ro. 1:18). This Greek word indicates clear disclosure, revelation, an unmistakable statement. Unbelieving people know that God stands against unrighteousness, hates it, and punishes it. How? Simply by observing life. Criminals are punished. The wicked are slain. Righteousness (in general) survives and lives on.”
Universalist Response: Romans 1 Describes Bondage, Not Free Rebellion
Romans 1:18-32 must be read within Paul’s larger argument culminating in universal declarations. Keith DeRose notes that Romans 5:18 states “one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men,” and Romans 11:32 declares God “consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all.”
The “giving over” in Romans 1:24-28 represents God’s pedagogical process—allowing humans to experience consequences as eventual correction. Hart explains that divine hardening serves redemptive purposes, as with Pharaoh, whom God used to accomplish His goal of universal mercy.
Paul’s argument demonstrates humanity’s need for divine intervention, not our capacity for eternal self-damnation. The passage reveals our bondage to sin requiring God’s liberating grace, not free rebellion deserving infinite punishment. As all are condemned in Adam, all will be justified in Christ—the same “all” experiencing both judgment and mercy.
“But even if simple observation didn’t help, Paul says later that certain things about God are ‘clearly seen.’ Those things are His power and nature, which includes His wrath and indignation at sin. The word here for ‘clearly seen’ means ‘to make manifest, to reveal.’ While this can indicate a general, impersonal revelation, it can also indicate a personal effort (1 Tim. 3:16, 1 Jn. 1:2). God has personally declared to each person His wrath against sin, most likely through conscience. Thus, while the unbeliever may deny knowledge of God or the truth about punishment and hell, he is lying. All people know the facts about God’s wrath against sin.”
“They suppress the truth consciously. What then do they do? Paul reveals a second conclusion about their conscious choice to reject God. He says they ‘suppress’ or ‘hold down’ the truth. The word in the original language pictures something that keeps bubbling up which the unbeliever stomps on and tries to squelch. This knowledge of God’s wrath then, is something that keeps pricking his thoughts, jarring him when he sins, and nagging him after he’s sinned. But he fights it, repels it, restrains it. He literally doesn’t want to hear it.”
“They are without excuse. Paul’s conclusion is the third thought. He says they are ‘without excuse.’ They have no acceptable reason that relieves them of full, final, and personal responsibility in the matter.”
Universalist Response: “Without Excuse” Doesn’t Mean “Without Hope”
Being “without excuse” establishes moral responsibility but doesn’t determine eternal destiny. Paul uses this to demonstrate universal need for grace, not to justify eternal punishment. The apostle who wrote “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Rom. 5:20) wouldn’t conclude that human inexcusability limits God’s redemptive power.
Suppressing truth indicates internal conflict, not settled rebellion. The very fact that truth “keeps bubbling up” shows God’s persistent work in every conscience. This ongoing divine activity suggests God never stops pursuing the lost, even when they resist.
Talbott argues that moral responsibility and eventual salvation aren’t mutually exclusive. People are accountable for their choices and face consequences, but God’s corrective judgments ultimately lead to restoration. Being without excuse means facing God’s refining fire, not eternal abandonment.
“There is a subtle yet important truth here: when Christians explain the gospel to nonChristians, the unbelievers will often deny everything, scoffing at the truth, saying, ‘Who can believe that?’ They may appear to be truly in darkness. Yet, even while they’re lost, dead in sin, and blinded by Satan, these things are clear: they know God punishes sin; they suppress what they know is the truth; and they are without excuse. They have consciously made a choice to reject God, the truth, and Jesus Christ. In fact, Paul says ‘their thinking became futile,’ their ‘foolish hearts were darkened.’ Though they even claimed to be wise, ‘they exchanged the truth of God for a lie …’ (Ro. 1:21–24). The unbeliever will speculate—come up with theories such as ‘God is dead,’ ‘Christ was a great teacher,’ etc.; he will fall into deeper and darker mental murk; and he’ll even announce that he has arrived at true wisdom—and worship and serve himself. Clearly, while God has done everything to make it possible for the lost man to be saved, he chooses to reject it all.”
The Logical Result of Rejecting God and All That is His
“A fourth justification of hell is more a logical consequence than a theological statement. Hell is the result of the unbeliever rejecting God and all that He stands for.”
“When a person rejects God, what is he really rejecting? Everything that God is, has made, and owns. God created water. Therefore, if the unbeliever rejects God, he also rejects God’s good gift—water. Hell will be a place of infinite thirst.”
“God is love. When the unbeliever rejects God, he loses every contact with real love. Hell will be a place of infinite hate and anger.”
Universalist Response: Perfect Revelation Makes Rejection Impossible
Conservative universalists argue that ultimate rejection of perfect goodness is philosophically incoherent. Hart contends that when God’s nature is fully revealed in the afterlife, no rational being could continue rejecting infinite love, beauty, and goodness. “True freedom consists in choosing the good—we are only genuinely free when we choose well, not when we can choose evil.”
The problem isn’t that sinners reject God knowingly, but that they misunderstand Him due to ignorance, deception, or spiritual blindness. Once these barriers are removed through divine revelation and purification, the will naturally turns toward God as its true good and source of all joy.
God’s infinite resourcefulness ensures He can reach every heart without violating freedom. As Talbott argues, “as long as any ignorance, or deception, or bondage to desire remains, it is open to God to transform a sinner without interfering with human freedom.” In the full light of truth, all will freely choose God.
“Name anything that comes from God or is Godlike—joy, peace, hope, food, sex, rain, light. Hell will be the absence of all of those things because God will not give His gifts to those who reject the Giver. Thus, hell is the habitation of those who want nothing to do with God. As a consequence, they also lose everything He has to offer.”
Self-Imposed Torment
“A final answer relates to the agonies of hell. Will God actually inflict pain on the unbeliever in hell?”
“In Lk. 12:47–48, Jesus says that the ‘servant who knows his master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows,’ while the one who didn’t know God’s will but sinned, will receive few. Clearly, the punishment of hell involves individual judgments. Some will suffer more. Some less. But does God personally cause greater suffering to the unbeliever?”
“As you study the agonies of hell—total solitude (Mk. 9:42); absolute darkness (Jude 13); utter worthlessness (Job 18:5–21); fire and burning (Rev. 14:10, Rev. 21:8); thirst (Lk. 16:24); weeping and gnashing of teeth (Mt. 22:13); sleeplessness (Rev. 14:11); shame and disgust (Dan. 12:2); hopelessness (Mt. 25:46)—you begin to see its nature as the exact opposite of all that is of God. He offers hope; hell writhes with despair. He gives peace; hell screams with pain. He wipes the tears from our eyes; hell is nothing but shrieks and weeping. He gives us His rest, water, food, and fulfillment; hell offers only thirst and hunger. He is light; hell is ‘blackest darkness’ (Jude 13). Hell ultimately is complete and total deprivation of everything God created that people need, want, and enjoy. Thus, hell is nothing more than existing in a world totally bereft of God. The person in torment will have only what his own mind and powers can create.”
Universalist Response: Hell’s Torments Are Purgatorial and Restorative
Conservative universalists reconceptualize hell’s torments as purgatorial rather than purely punitive. Gregory of Nyssa compared hell to “the process whereby gold is refined in a furnace,” where fire separates good from evil in the soul. The pain comes from purification, not vindictive punishment.
Robin Parry explains that “hell can play an educative function insofar as it can alert us, can make us aware of our condition, and can make us turn, reorientate ourselves, turn towards God, and then that hell becomes experienced as purgatory.” The suffering leads to repentance and restoration.
Luke 12:47-48’s graduated punishments support restorative justice—different degrees of correction based on knowledge and responsibility, not infinite punishment for finite sins. This proportionality points toward remedial purpose. As Gregory taught, “the flame lasts so long as there is any evil left to destroy,” after which restoration follows.
“What can a person lost in hell generate? Only those things intrinsic to the human psyche—desires, feelings, thoughts, movements. Much of his agony will arise, I believe, from his own lusts and unsatisfied needs.”
“For instance, what happens when a person is thirsty? The desire builds from mild irritation to inflamed passion to rapid lust. It becomes a fire. Hunger builds to a burning passion until the mind can think of nothing else.”
“Take every human need and imagine it multiplied by feelings of total deprivation and magnified through time. The unbeliever becomes an agonized lump of fire, screaming for a satisfaction that can never come.”
“Thus, while God himself may appoint degrees of punishment in hell, the unbeliever ultimately causes his greater agony because he has rejected the only one who can meet his raging needs.”
Universalist Response: God’s Love Never Fails
The description of hell as self-imposed torment actually supports the universalist position. If the agony comes from unsatisfied desires and separation from God, then the solution is reunion with God, not eternal segregation. A loving God with infinite wisdom and patience can eventually reach even the most hardened heart.
Key universalist texts proclaim God’s ultimate victory: “As in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22). Colossians 1:19-20 declares God will reconcile “all things” to Himself. Philippians 2:10-11 envisions every knee bowing in genuine worship, not forced submission.
Hart argues that believing in eternal hell makes God’s love inferior to human love: “A father who could eternally reject his own child, no matter how vile, would be a monster.” How much more should we trust the Father whose love surpasses all human understanding to never give up on His children?
“Clearly, hell is not a pleasant picture. It is not meant to be. It is the prison for all those who willfully reject God and His Son. Hell is not some tactic on God’s part to scare us into repentance. It’s the only thing He can do with those who hate and reject Him.”
“The reality of hell is a painful knowledge, even for those of us who know that we will escape eternal torment through our faith in the One who has already borne our punishment. It is a reality we must face as we walk every day among those who continue to live in darkness. May that knowledge not lead us to despair, but give us a new urgency as we share with others the good news of Jesus Christ.”
Final Universalist Response: The Complete Victory of God’s Love
Conservative biblical universalists maintain that hell is real and terrible, but not eternal. Through careful exegesis of Greek terms, examination of God’s character, and philosophical reasoning, they argue that Scripture teaches ultimate restoration of all through Christ’s complete victory over sin and death.
The early church included prominent universalists like Origen and Gregory of Nyssa, who weren’t liberals but orthodox theologians finding universal restoration throughout Scripture. Their purgatorial universalism asserted that hell is remedial—neither everlasting nor purely retributive.
Thomas Talbott summarizes: “God’s love is not only unlimited in its scope, but also inescapable in its ultimate success.” The gospel truly is good news for all creation—not partial victory with eternal collateral damage, but complete restoration where God becomes “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28). This vision preserves both divine justice and love while offering genuine hope that no sheep will ultimately be lost from the Good Shepherd’s flock.
© 2010 – 2025, Matthew. All rights reserved.
