Those who had a following were somehow special or different. Not that they were “better” than anyone, just that they seemed to know something I didn’t. They seemed just to have “it,” whatever “it” was.

Well… those people aren’t special or different. I know that, because I know myself! They just have a particular set of skills that they have learned. The good news about that is that you can learn the same set of skills.

I consumed hours upon hours upon hours of content about how to build a following. I studied the subject relentlessly as I consistently made videos myself.

The problem was that much of the content I consumed conflicted.

Some people would say things like, “Just post 10 times a day and in 6 months your life will change.”

Others would say, “Just post 1-3 times a day and 6 months your life will change.”

Well, which is it?!

I would hear, “You gotta have a good hook,” but no one ever really explained what that meant.

Here’s the truth and what will actually help you.

Getting attention online is a learning experience.

You have to learn what works for you and what resonates with people who watch you. And that will be different for everyone. The overarching principles are the same for everyone, but how that looks will be different.
Posting 10x a day does absolutely nothing for you except help you learn faster. Getting views isn’t a game of luck.

It is, quite literally, a science.

Even with 300K followers, I still, today, make content that only gets 200-500 views. Or even less!

But when I follow what I know works, I get exponentially more.

It took me 1 year and 9 months to cross over 10,000 followers. After that, things exploded.

When you start, you only need to do 3 things:
1. Post consistently. (1 post per day is plenty. Post more to learn faster)
2. Pay attention to your analytics.
3. Don’t quit. If you can’t post for at least 6 months and see zero results, this probably isn’t for you.

You quite literally can’t learn the necessary skills if you can’t learn consistency first.

The fact that we live in a world where a man advocating for women is a “Red Flag,” tells me something I already know.

This isn’t a “women’s issue.” It’s an all-of-us issue.

Here’s the reality of the situation if we assume that the Egalitarian position is correct:

Women are being oppressed, and it has been going on for generations. And we have created a culture in our churches that starts with the silence of women but ends in their exploitation by men who should never have been welcomed through the doors (Eph 5:3).

If God truly meant for the silence of women, I can’t help but think the results of the command wouldn’t be so damaging.

But the damage that has been done is staggering. And offenses are repeated every single day.

And it will take all of us to right the ship.

I don’t care only because of what has been happening to women in the church.

I care about the “Capital-C” Church. I LOVE the church! I love the institution of the Church. I love the idea of Church. I love going to church.

But this theology we have is immature and keeps us from being what we are meant to be, which is “the light of the world.”

How can we be a light to the world when our ministers repeatedly exploit those who are commanded to “keep silent”

1 Corinthians 11:5 “Every woman who prays or prophesies…”

This verse is in direct contradiction to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, which talks about how women must be silent. That is, if Paul actually intends for women to be “silent in church.” A strict reading of 1 Cor 14 directly contradicts 1 Cor 11:5. How can women be silent in one passage and be praying and prophesying in this one? The stricter your reading of 1 Cor 14:34, the less it makes sense.

Galatians 3:28 — “There is neither male nor female…”

The ancient world functioned in a caste system. Here, Paul utterly destroys the idea. In the Kingdom, everyone is on equal footing. Men and women. Slaves and Free. Jews and Gentiles. We see dividing lines between people. But in the Kingdom, those lines are erased.

Acts 2:17–18 — “Your sons and daughters will prophesy…”

The Holy Spirit is being poured out on everyone. Every voice, regardless of if it comes from a man or woman, is given an eternal and authoritative weight by the God of the Universe to spread his Kingdom.

“Okay, but that isn’t preaching from a pulpit.”

When these words were spoken, there wasn’t a pulpit in mind. The gospel began in the busy streets and packed houses of the ancient world. Not in church buildings. Our modern conceptions of pastors and churches aren’t original to Christianity.

Romans 16:7 — Junia, “prominent among the apostles”

Junia, the name of a woman, was likely an apostle.
Bible translators used to change her name to Junias because they knew exactly what the text was saying, but their paradigm of leadership didn’t allow for the contradiction.

The problem? The name “Junias” doesn’t exist in the ancient world. Junia does, however, and it’s a woman’s name.

Many will say, “She wasn’t an apostle; she was just well known to them!” But the best scholarship indicates that Junia was, in fact, an apostle. This means that she would have been seen as the Matriarch of (potentially) many ancient churches.

5. Ephesians 5:21 — “Submit to one another…”

People love quoting “wives submit to your husbands.” But how does the passage start?" “Submit to one another.”

The context of female submission is mutual submission. But in this culture in Ephesus, women submitting to their husbands would have been assumed. Then Paul follows with something that would have been shocking to the original audience. The requirement for men to “love their wives as Christ loved the church, giving himself up for her.”

When you read the Bible, you will find exactly what you look for. But if you actually let the Bible be what it is, you’ll find that what it actually has to say may surprise you.

And no, not because complementarians (those who advocate for the silence of women) aren’t saved. It’s because we are robbing the world of half of God’s image.

And that’s probably worse.

If we have truly misunderstood Paul and are therefore wrong to limit women’s roles in the church and at home, then what we’re doing is more than just oppressing women, which is bad enough.

What if we’re preventing the salvation of those who would be saved through women’s voices and through a fully realized, Image of God-Church?

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden, nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 5:14-16.

Imagine a shining lamp where we put several pieces of duct tape over one half of the bulb. Half the room would be lit, but the other half would be thrown into darkness.

This is what a church that limits women is doing. We are robbing the world of half of God’s light and revelation.

What blessings might God want to bestow upon us that he can’t?
Who could be saved that isn’t?
What is the world without the full expression of a mature church?

Some might ask, “But Caleb, even if women are supposed to be able to preach, that isn’t going to be all of them! Surely limiting women in the church isn’t as dire as you say. After all, women can still evangelize, lead their children, and teach other women!”

Except when you train women to believe that their voices are subservient to men’s, you send the not-so-subtle message that they are inherently less important, valuable, and needed.

The question isn’t simply whether women are allowed to preach.

The question is what the world loses when we tell half the church to keep their light under a basket.

Because somewhere, there may be someone who needs to hear about Jesus from a woman we’ve taught to remain silent.

God created us to stand together. But when one gender stands and the other sits, it creates an imbalance that the world feels, whether it knows it or not.

The man asked him, “What is your name?”

“Jacob,” he answered.

Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with man and have overcome.”
Gen 32:26-28

Jacob was a man who did everything he could in his own power to get a blessing. It was even said that his hand was wrapped around the ankle of his twin brother when they were born.

Later, Jacob would cheat his brother out of his birthright.
And would then trick their Father into giving him the firstborn’s blessing rather than his brother, to whom it belonged.

But then Jacob met the one who blesses, the one who had the power to give life and take it.
The one who later declared, “man shall not see my face and live.”

And when he met him, he wrestled with him and refused to let him go until he finally got what he had been lying and cheating for his whole life.
And he would get it, or die.

The thing is, Jacob did die that day. Because there, at Peniel, Jacob received his blessing and became a different man, Israel, the Father of Many Nations.

¹⁷ Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: ^“The old has gone, the new is here!” - 2 Corinthians 5:17

I was mad. My friend and pastor, Wilson, was preaching this passage from the stage at church. But it was so utterly not my experience.

Because if I was a new creation and the “old man” was gone, why was I so powerless against p*rn?

“This feels like a lie,” I thought. “If this is true, why isn’t it true for me?”

I then decided that this whole Christianity thing was either truly a lie, or I was missing something.

Thus began my journey. I’ll spare you the long story. And there are a lot of things that I did differently, but most importantly, I became like Jacob.

I decided, “I’m getting free from this if it’s the last thing I do.” And it wasn’t to effort that I clung, but the presence of God.

I decided I would get this transformation and freedom from God himself, or I would die trying. The difference is this: I shifted my efforts from “trying to quit,” to…
Being. With. Jesus.

Then my decade-long struggle with p*rnography ended only a few short months later.

Where are you trying to get your blessing from? Through your own effort? Or through the one who blesses?

When I found myself considering this topic, I discovered, much to my surprise, that I was willing to let go of my dogmatic view of ECT (Eternal Conscious Torment) as being the only legitimate view. After all, there were plenty of Bible verses that seemed to indicate that universal reconciliation could be possible. For instance, 1 Corinthians 15:22, which stated, “In Adam all died, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Yet there are plenty of verses that seem to indicate that hell is well and truly eternal without escape. It has been the dominant view since the beginning of the church for a reason. But I found myself noticing these verses and thought to myself, “If we take the verses for ECT so literally and finally, why do we try to explain away the other verses that seem to indicate a different outcome? Isn’t that being disingenuous towards the text? Shouldn’t we apply the same biblical hermeneutic to the redemptive verses as we do the ECT verses? Why do we take one literally and the other figuratively?” Of course, when one does this, some interesting problems emerge, but more on that later.

And then you have annihilationism, which has its own substantial arguments. Hell isn’t eternal, but the consequence for sin is. The soul is destroyed in hell, and the person ceases to exist. As I dove into the various verses that people use to defend each view, I realized that the Bible seems to be saying 3 things simultaneously about Hell: “It is ECT, all will be saved, and the soul is destroyed in Hell.” Bearing this in mind, it’s clear to me now that you can’t hold any one view staunchly unless you ignore the merits of the others. If you take the verses that seem to indicate ECT at face value, but treat the verses that seem to indicate a universal reconciliation, aren’t you pandering to a favored view, rather than honoring what scripture actually says? Until now, mainstream Christianity has asserted that you can only choose one or the other. But is that really the most honest reading of the text? I don’t believe it is.

One more thing before we dive in. I find it so odd that people who believe anything other than ECT are maligned as heretics, even today. But, I used to be one of them. I thought that scripture was just so clear about it, that to ignore that could only mean you had a low view of scripture, and you were on the fast track to questioning the virgin birth, the divinity of Jesus, and if he even rose from the dead. I want to say that there is nothing helpful about this attitude. If you hold scripture in high regard, questioning ECT flows naturally because there is a lot of biblical justification to do so. No one should be afraid of asking questions, and being automatically labeled a heretic for doing so is inappropriate. This attitude also stonewalls people on the outside of the faith from ever getting in. Asserting that ECT is the only legitimate view is ignorant at best, and dishonest and potentially harmful at worst. I’ll also note that although ECT has been the predominant view since the beginning of Christianity, several early church fathers were Universalist. It was seen as a legitimate position. Now, this writing isn’t a defense of Universalism. That view has its own set of issues. But we need to be willing to acknowledge its merits to get where we’re going. With all that in mind, let’s resolve ourselves to engage with scripture openly and honestly, allowing it to speak to us, rather than forcing it through all the filters of our preconceived notions which may or may not be founded on scripture.

What is ECT anyway? And why do people believe it? ECT has been the dominant view on hell since the beginning of the Church and has been held by the majority of early church fathers. But this isn’t just because scripture seems to point that direction. It fits nicely into the general philosophy of God’s justice and grace. God, being perfectly just, would be going against his nature if he were to assign a sentencing any less than death for sin, since the wages of sin is death. Besides that, many verses seem to indicate ECT:

Matthew 25:46

• “These will go away into eternal punishment...”

Mark 9:48

• “Their worm does not die.”

Revelation 14:11

• “The smoke of their torment rises forever.”

Revelation 20:10

• “Tormented day and night forever and ever.”

Luke 16:19-31

• Rich man and Lazarus.

2 Thessalonians 1:9

• They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might

Daniel 12:2

• Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt

First, I want to note that the purpose of my argument is not to argue for or against these verses indicating exactly what they seem to indicate. I’m not going to go into a deep theological synthesis of each one to determine if it means what it seems to mean. Many theologians have done that, and many books have been written. My argument doesn’t have anything to do with if these verses give us a framework for ECT. They clearly do, and I have no intent to dispute that. My argument is about whether we are relegated to only an ECT framework. I don’t think we are.

Secondly, I want to note that many of the instances where Jesus discusses hell, the word that’s used is actually Gehenna, which was the Valley of Hinnom south of Jerusalem, a place associated with child sacrifice, divine judgment, uncleanness, and later Jewish apocalyptic imagery outside of Jerusalem. So for many of the verses about Hell in the New Testament, they could be referring to a very earthly place that served as a warning to 1st-century believers. This fact weakens the idea of ECT somewhat, but not to the point where it would be unlikely.

So my issue with ECT is both philosophical and scriptural. I’ll discuss the scriptural issues when we get to Universalism. From a philosophical standpoint, there are a few obvious questions without clear answers.

• What happens to people who never heard the gospel?

• What happens to infants and children? Theologians would call them innocent, but if we all have original sin and are in the same death, why wouldn’t it apply to them? And if they are innocent, at what point do they lose that innocence?

• If God is truly good, how can he send people to hell? Usually theologians answer this by saying people send themselves to hell by not accepting Jesus. But most people don’t seem to be actively rejecting the real person of Jesus. They simply don’t believe he is God. Should they spend an eternity in hell for that?

• Bearing that in mind, the early church exploded because people were seeing miracles. The message of the gospel was often confirmed by what would be impossible without God. We seem to see miracles far less today, but are we expected to have the same faith in God?

The more strict your view is on ECT, the harder these questions become. The stricter your view of God’s justice, the more difficult it becomes to defend. There are some Christians who believe that infants and children go to hell and that God is perfectly justified in sending them there. This leads to complicated questions about God’s justice and God’s mercy, which is also one of his inalienable characteristics. But where does God’s justice end and his mercy begin? Can God be just for sending an infant to hell? What about a 10 year old? What about a 15 year old? 18? Maybe his justice becomes more prominent when the frontal lobe is developed at around 22-25. But it’s difficult to ask this question seriously without treating God like an absolute monster. So, let’s move to Universalism.

When you hear “Universalism,” you might be hearing something like, “All roads lead to God,” or “God is in everything.” But that’s not what we’re talking about here. Christian Universalism, or “Patristic Universalism,” acknowledges virtually all the same things that the ECT view does: Hell is real. People will go there. The only way to escape is by trusting in Jesus. Where Universalism differs is when people can accept Jesus’ forgiveness and provides a mechanism for salvation post-mortem. Most Universalists propose that Hell is somehow punitive and redemptive. Some have even suggested that the fires of Hell are actually the fires of God’s love, purifying and cleansing the unrighteous. It is only torturous for those who have turned their backs on God. Many early church fathers such as Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215), Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–253), and Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–395), taught Universalism as a legitimate and defensible view. Additionally, there are many verses that seem to indicate that salvation will be universal. Not just available to everyone, but is the ultimate destination of every created person.
1 Corinthians 15:22

• “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”

1 Corinthians 15:28

• “Then the Son himself will be subjected... that God may be all in all.”

Romans 5:18

• “As one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.”

Romans 5:19

• “As by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.”

Colossians 1:19-20

• “Through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven.”

Philippians 2:10-11

• “Every knee should bow... every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.”

John 12:32

• “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

1 Timothy 2:3-4

• “God our Savior... desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

1 Timothy 4:10

• “The living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.”

Ephesians 1:9-10

• “To unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.”

John 1:29

• “The Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.”

John 3:17

• “God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.”

John 4:42

• “This is indeed the Savior of the world.”

Romans 11:32

• “God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.”

Romans 11:36

• “From him and through him and to him are all things.”

Titus 2:11

• “The grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people.”

Hebrews 2:9

• “He tasted death for everyone.”

2 Corinthians 5:19

• “In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself.”

1 John 2:2

• “He is the propitiation... for the sins of the whole world.”

1 John 4:14

• “The Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.”

Isaiah 45:22-23

• “Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth... every knee shall bow.”

Psalm 22:27

• “All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord.”

Psalm 65:2

• “To you shall all flesh come.”

Psalm 86:9

• “All nations you have made shall come and worship before you.”

Zephaniah 3:9

• “That all of them may call upon the name of the Lord.”

What I think the most compelling argument for Universalism is “every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord” (Romans 14:11) combined with, “Believe in your heart and confess with your mouth and you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9). Putting these two together, we see that every person will meet the requirements of salvation. That is, if you take these verses as seriously and as literally as many proponents of ECT take their verses.

That would be, of course, if ECT didn’t make such a strong case and have such strong scriptural support. Outside of being utterly contradictory to the verses about ECT, there are some other issues with Universalism.

• There is no scriptural justification for the redemptive nature of Hell. There isn’t a single verse that would indicate anything about Hell being punitive or escapable, at least with the mechanism that Universalism lays out.

• Additionally, Universalism turns sin into a quantitative issue rather than a qualitative one. It’s like once you’ve done your time, you can leave. This seems to go against what we understand about original sin and how God’s grace interacts with it. Universalism takes the state of spirit death and reverses it, without really detailing how that works.

• Like ECT, Universalism completely undermines the idea of free will. With ECT, if you want to get out of hell, too bad; there’s no escape. And with Universalism, if you want to stay out of God’s presence, too bad; it’s only a matter of time until you’re forced out of hell, since you’re not capable of resisting his love. I have a hard time believing that no one will ultimately continue to choose hell, even if it earns its name.

Here is a short summary of only some of the contradictory passages between ECT and Universalism.

Pair 1: Are all men justified? Or are some going into eternal punishment?
ECT

Matthew 25:46

“These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Universalism

Romans 5:18

“As one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.”

Pair 2: Eternal Torment vs God Becoming All in All

ECT

Revelation 20:10

“They will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”

Universalism

1 Corinthians 15:28

“Then the Son himself will be subjected... that God may be all in all.”

Pair 3: Everlasting Destruction vs Reconciliation of All Things

ECT

2 Thessalonians 1:9

“They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction away from the presence of the Lord.”

Universalism

Colossians 1:20

“Through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven.”

Pair 4: Unquenchable Fire vs Drawing All People

ECT

Mark 9:43

“To go into hell, into the unquenchable fire.”

Universalism

John 12:32

“And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

Pair 5: No Escape vs Every Knee Bowing

ECT

Luke 16:26 (This is the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus)

“Between us and you a great chasm has been fixed.”

Universalism

Philippians 2:10-11

“Every knee should bow... every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.”

This comparison doesn’t only show the unignorable tension of the Bible in regards to Hell, but exposes the thought process of those who are predisposed to believing in ECT as the default correct view, including myself. I find myself blindly accepting the ECT verses at face value, and explaining away or allegorizing the Universalism verses. But there isn’t a good reason to do this. What this demonstrates is that evangelicals seem to tend to reinterpret scripture (especially these) according to what they have already accepted to be true. But I think if we’re willing to lay down our preconceived notions here, we can see the tension of these verses, and that there isn’t a quick or easy solution. For now, let’s let the tension sit.

Finally, we have Annihilationism. Annihilationism proposes that although hell is real, it isn’t ECT, but the spirit ends in a sort of final destruction that causes it to cease to exist entirely. There are a few key verses to consider.

Matthew 10:28

• “destroy both soul and body in hell,”

2 Thessalonians 1:9

• “everlasting destruction,”

Romans 6:23

• “the wages of sin is death,” seeming to indicate actual death, not eternal life in torment.

There are more, of course, but again, my intention here isn’t to discuss the merits of each one as they stand by themselves in scripture, but to show the contradictory nature of each view when held up against the others. Each scores points for itself. And that’s the issue. What Annihilationism has going for it is it leaves God’s justice intact while softening the cruelty of an eternity spent in Hell. For many, the idea of an eventual and final end alleviates some of the felt tension. Additionally, it takes the destruction language more literally than ECT, which some would say scores points in its favor.

It has a few key issues though:

• The true meaning of the “destruction” language is highly contested. Is it to be taken totally literally? Or is it referring to the state of a person who has wound up in hell?

• This view also undermines free will. If a person wants to escape ultimate annihilation, they can’t.

• Is annihilation really any better than ECT? It doesn’t solve any of the issues raised that ECT does, except that it lessens the brutality of it. Every question in ECT ultimately applies to Annihilationism.

Considering everything above, do you see the problem? None of the traditional views of hell adequately explain all of the data we have about it from scripture. It’s like no matter the bucket you choose, you can’t fit all of the pieces neatly, or even roughly, into one. You need all three buckets simultaneously to get everything to fit. And maybe that’s actually the key.

Conditional Redemptivism

In my endeavor to be both biblically faithful and understand how the tension between all the contradictory scriptures can occupy the same space without canceling each other out, I have concluded that all three views may be simultaneously true. I’m coining this position as Conditional Redemptivism. What it means is simply this: Post mortem, there remains the possibility of both reconciliation and annihilation inside of hell. It’s as if in hell are two doors. One leads to eternal life, one leads to final destruction.

This view accepts different points from each of the views laid out above. Hell is real, and the only way to escape it is through the saving work of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection. However, death doesn’t get the final say in how a spirit spends eternity. Free will remains active as a spirit transitions into Hell. Inside of hell, a spirit has an indeterminate or an effectively infinite amount of time before either ultimate salvation or total destruction. Think of ECT as the default state of the spirit, while reconciliation and destruction remain as real exits.

This view may be the most honest synthesis of all the scripture about hell because each of the 3 views above accepts some scripture but writes off the rest of it. The real tension is that the Bible pulls in 3 equal directions towards the respective views. Conditional Redemptivism, rather than privileging a select group of verses and throwing out the rest, holds all of them simultaneously in tension.

The scriptural foundation for this view is, in fact, every verse referenced above. Conditional Redemptivism leans into the tension of the seemingly contradictory verses and philosophies around hell, while acknowledging all of it and refusing to discount any of it. In this view, I accept the full consequences and weight of sin without barring Jesus’ way into hell to save, should he choose to go.

Although this view of hell as I have articulated is novel (as far as I can tell) other theologians like Oliver Crisp and Randal Rauser have also argued for holding hell with a more open-handed attitude. We have felt and discussed the tension of these contradictions for millennia. We just haven’t synthesized them in a way that’s coherent yet. That’s what I’m hoping to do here.

This view’s strengths are robust. It allows us to be totally faithful to the Bible’s scriptures about hell without discounting any of them. It preserves human agency and doesn’t put God’s salvation in a box or relegate it to a certain time-frame. Conditional Redemptivism solves the negative moral implications on God’s end by leaving a person’s ultimate fate in their own hands. If they choose continued torment or annihilation, it’s entirely their choice. God doesn’t force them in either direction, but leaves the door to reconciliation always open, which seems more in line with his character.

Additionally, there is a precedent for this exact phenomenon. Paul details Jesus as “descending into the lower parts of the earth to preach freedom to the captives.” These captives were perhaps in what we may call “Hell” (actually Hades) and had been there for an indeterminate amount of time that perhaps felt like forever to them. However, when Jesus died, salvation was presented to those who had already died. So if the ultimate question is, “Is post-mortem salvation possible, or something God does?” The answer is that he has already done it. Jesus didn’t die only for those who were living at the time of his ministry; he died for those who were already dead. And to say that he wouldn’t or couldn’t preach to those who died after his resurrection would be an assumption.

Conditional Redemptivism isn’t without its own weaknesses, of course. What is the mechanism by which someone actually chooses redemption post-mortem? Universalism at least has a mechanism, even if the mechanism isn’t really defensible biblically. Conditional Redemptivism doesn’t have a mechanism, as its basis is strictly scriptural. And since a mechanism for post-mortem salvation isn’t articulated in the Bible, this view doesn’t have one. This isn’t a soul earning redemption or somehow deserving grace more than a living soul. It’s simply left with a choice after death. The only thing I could say here is that the mechanism may be similar to how a living person receives salvation. Through faith and confession. “Every knee will bow,” after all.

Objections

“If universal reconciliation is possible, then doesn’t that nullify the urgency to preach salvation to the lost?”

No. Imagine your loved one, who is saved and knows Jesus, were to unknowingly begin to walk out in front of a speeding semi-truck. Would you say, “Oh well, they’re saved, so no need to rush to them.” Of course not. You would rush to them and would maybe even sacrifice yourself to protect them from harm, even though their final destination is settled. Why? Because it is our instinct to protect people we love from harm. Now imagine I told you that if you don’t preach to the lost, they will only suffer in hell for 100 years before they come to Christ. Would you not have the same urgency to show them Jesus? What if it were only one year? I would propose that “loving our neighbor as ourselves” dictates that we preach to the lost out of love, rather than what we believe about eternity. Additionally, Jesus is life. The faster someone is connected with him and life, the better.

How about Hebrews 9:27: “it is appointed for man to die once and after that judgment.” Doesn’t this verse seem to indicate that judgment of hell is final? To that I would simply say that being sentenced to Hell is judgment. But to assert what happens after judgment is built only on assumption. Imagine a judge sentences someone to prison. They have been judged. But there can be appeals, acquittals, or changes to the sentence based on other circumstances. If anything, I would expect God’s courtroom to be more equitable and merciful than a human legal system.

What about the Rich Man and Lazarus? Doesn’t that show an uncrossable chasm and comfort being denied to someone in Hell?

I suppose the first thing to note here is that the Rich Man didn’t go to Hell. He went to Hades. And that is precisely where theologians believe Jesus went to preach “salvation to the captives,” as discussed earlier. So this significantly weakens its use as an apologetic for ECT. Secondly, drawing doctrine from parables is tricky business and isn’t primarily where Christian doctrine comes from. The story certainly could illustrate a reality about hell (even though Hades and Hell are two completely different places), but you’d have to prove if that’s what Jesus’ intention was when he gave the parable, and it isn’t clear that’s what his intention was.

For too long, Christians have been told that their theology must fit inside of a box, and that it needs to be the “right” box or they’re not actually taking scripture seriously. For too long, critics of a staunch ECT philosophy have been simply told, “I’m sorry, this is just what the Bible says.” For too long we have been told it’s already settled and not to question. But now, we can confidently ask, “Is it really? Are you sure you’re being totally honest about that?” Now we have a framework that is biblically faithful and prevents it from being a stumbling block to those who don’t believe, and to those who hope to continue believing.

Hell has always been an uncomfortable reality and point of contention among believers and non-believers. But even if Conditional Redemptivism doesn’t describe the exact reality of post-mortem experience or provide answers about how redemption would actually work, the question remains: If Jesus could descend into Hades/Hell once, is it reasonable to declare with absolute certainty that he couldn’t do it again? I hope that it at least provides the freedom to ask this important question: “Are we sure everything is as we have been told?”