I know I'm a late comer to this thread, but the topic is near and dear to my heart as I didn't truly fall in love with God until I really started to explore another possibility to the answer to this question.
The answer to this question that I will now defend is: hell is not eternal conscious torment, and it is not the end for anyone. I defend this view in detail on my blog in the series "
Checkmate for Hell".
The defense of this position is quite simple, really - so simple, that it's somewhat baffling so many intelligent Christian theologians have missed it for so long. There are three propositions which have been defended by a majority of theologians throughout history:
1. God's will is inescapable. In other words, God get's what God wants in the end. In other words, God is omnipotent/sovereign.
2. God wants all men to be saved. The negative form is that God doesn't want anyone to perish.
3. "Non believers" will end up in a place of eternal conscious torment, or possibly be annihilated. Thus, not all men will be saved.
As you can plainly see, these three propositions are logically incompatible. And yet, historically a majority of Christians have concluded with #3, but have done so by throwing out propositions 1 or 2. The first camp of theologians we will call the Calvinists, though they should really call themselves Augustinians, and they affirm propositions 1 and 3, but deny proposition 2, while not calling those who affirm it "heretics" (they're just mistaken, according to the Calvinists-who-should-really-be-called-Augustinians). The second camp we will call Arminians, and they affirm proposition 2, but believe that man's free will can ultimately escape God's will, and thus they reject proposition #1 (without calling the Calvinists-who-should-really-be-called-Augustinians heretics either - strange that both camps like to call those who throw out #3 heretics) and keep proposition #3. There is ample Biblical evidence to support both #1 and #2, which I demonstrate in the
first part of my blog series (though only in part - I do not list every single reference one could provide). Furthermore, I show evidence in support of the logical conclusion that in the end, all will be saved in the first part of my blog series as well. Because of this evidence, I then call into question the passages that have been used to support the illogical conclusion of proposition #3, and find that they are based on faulty translations and misunderstandings of ancient concepts due to a lack of historical knowledge - this is defended in
part 2 of my series.
This view helps one to form a much more coherent view of Christianity that avoids the frankly offensive and nonsensical proposals that say that it is impossible for an atheist to do anything good at all and undermine morality and empathy for all living beings. It also helps one to form a more compassionate understanding of the rich metaphor of salvation that avoids what I like to call the "magical incantation view of Christianity", whereby one is "saved" by saying the magical incantation called the "sinner's prayer" and dropping the right name at the end (make sure you get that name right - if you say "Buddha" or some other name, you're toast!). By the way, there is no "sinner's prayer" appearance in the Bible, and I go into detail in one my later posts in the series to explain how there are many different ways the Bible describes a person being "saved", a fact that does not mesh well with those who have this "magical incantation" view.
Furthermore, the universalist view helps one to gain a much healthier view of the purposes of evangelism. In the "magical incantation" view, the only purpose is to get people to say the incantation. That's your only goal, and once someone has said the incantation, there's really no reason to care about that person any more, as they are now "saved" and that's all that matters. But when we look at the apostle Peter's calling, we see a model of salvation that does not mesh with these views very well. Peter had three separate confessional moments. The first was when Jesus came to him and said "follow me." We don't see Jesus discussing doctrine with Peter, or demanding that Peter accept certain dogma into his head. Jesus merely said "follow me", and then took him around showing him how to show love to people - caring for the poor and outcasts and the marginalized of society, and providing for their physical needs. Then, after doing this for a while, the second confessional moment comes when Jesus asks Peter "who do you say that I am?" And Peter responds, after having worked alongside of Jesus for all this time and having experienced the reality: "you are the Christ, the Son of God!" Now, most Christian "evangelists" who believe in eternal conscious torment want to jump straight to this second confessional moment, without having ever gone through the process Jesus took Peter through of working alongside Jesus and seeing the evidence of his lordship all this time. Rather, they insist people confess the words of Peter right off the bat without any rational reason to do so, and if the person refuses, they pound fear of eternal conscious torment into them (which is a strange thing for a Christian to do in light of I John 4:18, which says that perfect love casts out fear). The third confessional moment of Peter is after he has denied Jesus, and is now sitting by the fire with him after the resurrection, and Jesus says "Peter, do you love (he uses the word agape - perfect, unconditional, infinite love) me?" Peter, after having failed with his three denials, says "Lord, you know all things - you know that I love (phileo - conveys fondness) you." Peter is admitting to his limitations. Jesus responds by saying "feed my lambs." I believe that Jesus is providing the map for one to reach a point where they can agape - rather than merely phileo - Him. I say this because what follows is that Jesus and Peter repeat the exchange a second time, with the exact same words, and then on the third time Jesus says "Peter, do you phileo me?" When Peter responds to the affirmative, Jesus once again says to feed his lambs. In this third repetition with a change, I believe Jesus is showing his acceptance of Peter's limitations, but once again repeating the command to feed the sheep - and this feeding is the path one must walk to learn agape.
In the eternal conscious torment or annihilationist views, one merely needs to know what the minimum of what they must do is in order to avoid such a horrid fate. But in the universalist view, the path of love IS salvation itself. Love is an infinite loop whereby one accepts God's love and pours it out upon those around, and one does not truly accept grace if grace is not freely given in return.
