I look at the hell topic, with 4 possible outcomes from Four Views of Hell
Literal
Annihilation
Metaphorical
Purgatorial
Mine is a combination of Metaphorical, Purgatorial Conditionalism and Eastern Orthodoxy (i.e. states - where we experience God as heaven or hell, when God becomes All in All).
For those who are either Universalists or ECT eternal hell, are the Biblical descriptions of Hell metaphorical or literal?
P.S. As a side note, I found this article interesting:
Bob Wilson has a paper on hell in his section. It is called ‘What did Jeus mean by hell’
If you have not seen it, you should check it out. 
Mine is a combination of Metaphorical, Purgatorial Conditionalism and Eastern Orthodoxy (i.e. states - where we experience God as heaven or hell, when God becomes All in All).
Same with me except if some are not saved which I think I possible then throw in a pinch of annihilationism and stir.
BTW a really good book on hell is “All you ever wanted to know about Hell” by Steve Gregg. I wanted him to add to the title “but were afraid to ask” but it didn’t make the final cut.
I think I’m pretty much in accord with you, Randy.
Of course, “hell” is not in the Bible, but to take the words that are often mistranslated as “hell”:
There is something to be investigated about this
Well, Gaz. You would be well advised to read ALL links, in order to discover my views - especially the Purgatorial Conditionalism link. Let me quote from it:
So no, Gaz. I’m not an actually universalist. I am a hopeful universalist. And there’s a strong possibility, that the purgatorial view of redemption after death - is correct. But my hybrid view takes into account free will, without playing theological and philosophical games with it. But even if I - and others here - are wrong in a purgatorial view after death, there’s a strong scriptural and Christian foundation, for an inclusivist (Roman Catholic since Vatican II, majority of Eastern Orthodox scholars and Protestant theologians like Billy Graham) and conditional immortality (many prominent, contemporary Protestant theologians) view.
The universal-reconciliation-of-all-to-God view also takes into account free will. Theological and philosophical reasoning to show why universal reconciliation to God does not conflict with free will, is not “games”, but rather rational explanation.
Actually, there are attempts to reconcile free will and universalism here - on this forum. I shouldn’t use the word games. Let’s just say that it’s more difficult to reconcile free will and universalism - while at the same time - handling objections that might arise, from professional theologians and philosophers.
I found some interesting material from Before You Dismiss Rob Bell, Let’s Learn Some Terminology.
It got me to thinking on some things:
Question A:
How does this differ from what I’ve shared before?
Or (in the The Mercy of Hell? A Review of The Skeletons in God’s Closet (Part 1))
More on this in the interview Facing the Skeletons in God’s Closet and the Hope of Holy War Joshua Ryan Butler in The Skeletons in God’s Closet: The Mercy of Hell, the Surprise of Judgment.
Footnote to myself: If I were an eteralist for the “dammed”, either of these views would be more acceptable to me then ECT. Question: do they become zombies?
Since the Anglican New Testament scholar had an interesting meeting with a Greek Orthodox clergy member, I’ll share the YouTube video here:
Question B:
Should uiversalists use other terms like Ultimate Reconciliationism?
Here is a footnote from the pastor on Ultimate Reconciliationism:
Question C:
Is Annihilationism different from Condition Immortality? I like the second term better.
Question D:
What’s holding up the universal reconciliation view from being an acceptable alternative?
Perhaps I’ll have more questions later.
each position has difficulties…UR has the least IMO.
yeh, how does one redefine God purposely planning ALL to come to repentance ? (2 Peter 3 vs 9) …what about all the ALL passages ? etc etc…‘What’s holding up the universal reconciliation view from being an acceptable alternative?’…ummm, ‘pride’ holding it up ?
I just think it’s incoherent (with Tom Talbott) to conceive of fully free,informed, and sane persons rejecting infinite delight infinitely. If they DO, that’s an indication that they are either not fully free, not fully informed, or not fully sane. (They’d have to be bat$#!+ crazy,iow.) 
EDIT–I was a little incoherent up there. I should have said:
Agreeing with Tom Talbott, I think it’s incoherent . . . .
I agree.
You (or anyone presenting a UR or other position), needs to read and respond to, the objections of professional theologians and philosophers. It’s what each theologian and philosopher has to respond to, if they wish to make their mark in history. No opinion. Just the way things are.
As an example, look at Two Objections to Universalism. How might you, Neil - or any other Universalist here - respond to these two objection examples?
Randy,
First, taking away man’s free will in order to make him into a subhuman thing does negate gods omnibenevolence. Even if you argue that it does not negate it for the man in question, it certainly negates it for those who love the man in question. In a “heaven” in which all men obey the Father perfectly, all men will love their neighbor as themselves and all men will love their enemy as themselves. We are commanded to do this that we may be LIKE our Father in heaven. If then we truly do love our enemies, we MUST love those who are God’s enemies, for who are our enemies, if not the enemies of our Father? And since we are one in Christ, who is one with God, we are one with God. If we are one with God, His enemies are certainly our enemies. If these lost force God to punish them with subhuman status, does that not show that they at least are His enemies whether or not He is theirs? Therefore, God must love these lost, since they are his enemies and we are commanded to love our enemies that we may be like our Father in heaven.
Love never fails. You can read the rest of the description of love in First Corinthians 13. This description can only describe God’s love, since none of us are capable of such love. If God loves his enemies and love never fails how can God fail to reconcile his enemies? The writer is willing to postulate that God may remove the free will of these enemies. I do not think that God would do such a thing; I think that God is in the business of MAKING men free, not of making them unfree. Nevertheless, going with the writer’s supposition, why would God then not infringe upon their free will in a manner that would be of benefit not only to them but also to all those who love them, including Himself?
I will never be a professional theologian. I will never “make my mark.” I am completely okay with that. So I will stop here, rather than address the remaining objections the writer puts forth, I think that’s more than adequate in any case, since his whole argument seems to ride upon this proposition: that is to say that God would be willing to remove the free will of those he deems unworthy. I realize there’s no way that my little laymen’s explanation would get through to this writer or possibly to you either, Randy, and that’s okay. Nevertheless, I do not find him at all persuasive. I don’t even know how he persuades himself, except that person perhaps he persuades himself of something that he believes he is obligated to believe, to wit: that God is in fact not good in the sense that we call good. Yet if God is not that which we recognize as good, what is that but to say in slightly different words that God may possibly not be good?
Blessings, Cindy
Randy,
First, taking away man’s free will in order to make him into a subhuman thing does negate gods omnibenevolence. Even if you argue that it does not negate it for the man in question, it certainly negates it for those who love the man in question. In a “heaven” in which all men obey the Father perfectly, all men will love their neighbor as themselves and all men will love their enemy as themselves. We are commanded to do this that we may be LIKE our Father in heaven. If then we truly do love our enemies, we MUST love those who are God’s enemies, for who are our enemies, if not the enemies of our Father? And since we are one in Christ, who is one with God, we are one with God. If we are one with God, His enemies are certainly our enemies. If these lost persons I only pray that God will not love ME in such a way force God to punish them with subhuman status, does that not show that they at least are His enemies whether or not He is theirs? Therefore, God must love these lost, since they are his enemies and we are commanded to love or enemies that we may be like our Father in heaven. I only pray that God will not love ME in such a way, nor anyone whom I love. Because we love our enemies and God loves his enemies (who are one and the same), we could never be happy and blissful without a care and without tears wiped away in paradise knowing that these whom we love dearly suffer horrendously or have become subhuman things.
Love never fails. You can read the rest of the description of love in First Corinthians 13. This description can only describe God’s love, since none of us are capable of such love. If God loves his enemies and love never fails how can God fail to reconcile his enemies? The writer is willing to postulate that God may remove the free will of these enemies. I do not think that God would do such a thing; I think that God is in the business of MAKING men free, not of making them unfree. Nevertheless, going with the writer’s supposition, why would God then not infringe upon their free will in a manner that would be of benefit not only to them but also to all those who love them, including Himself?
I will never be a professional theologian. I will never “make my mark.” I am completely okay with that. So I will stop here, rather than address the remaining objections the writer puts forth, I think that’s more than adequate in any case, since his whole argument seems to ride upon this proposition: that is to say that God would be willing to remove the free will (or suffer the removal of same) of those he deems unworthy. I realize there’s no way that my little laymen’s explanation would get through to this writer or possibly to you either, Randy, and that’s okay. Nevertheless, I do not find him at all persuasive. I don’t even know how he persuades himself, except that perhaps he persuades himself of something that he believes he is obligated to believe, to wit: that God is in fact not good in the sense that we call good. Yet if God is not that which we recognize as good, what is that but to say in slightly different words that God may possibly not be good?
Blessings, Cindy
Just to make sure I’m on the right track in following this thread - are the following things true?
God loves His enemies!!! (Sometimes I think I should repeat that about 10,000 times to get it through my thick skull.)
We are saved by grace. In the end, everyone who is saved, will be saved by grace. If they are very bad people, haters of God, grace can save them. It is not by their will alone, but by our Father’s grace, and the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.
He saves the sons and daughters of Adam - all of us in other words - not the self righteous. He died to save sinners. Some sinners hate God, I hear - He died to save them, by His grace.
What if they don’t consent? So what - are any of us so good in our fallen nature that we would choose God? And yet, here we are glorifying HIm for his salvation, by grace.
He will save whomever He wants to save - and I believe that means everyone.
I think the ‘haters of God who will resist Him forever’ is a fiction, a straw man. We are ALL like that by ‘nature’ - I don’t think any of us believe that we are saved because we were ‘better’ than the others??
This does not answer the philosophical question, perhaps, but it does bring a measure of Heart’s Ease. Priceless.