Annihilationism, inclusivism and universalism

I have read a range of blog posts in the last month dealing with these concepts. While they have dealt with them moderately well, I think there has been some lack of clarity, especially by those who do not hold to these positions. It does not help when people compare the number of inhabitants of heaven and hell without considering who, if anyone, goes there.

Universalism is widely thought to be a heretical position. It is the position that God will eventually save all men. All people will eventually respond to God's grace at some stage and end up in heaven. Such a position often allows for post-mortem salvation. People will still get to respond to the gospel after death when the evidence for God is more compelling.

Universalism is seen by some as a heretical Arminian position. While I concede that some non-Calvinists may hold to Universalism, it is not a logical conclusion of Arminianism. Arminians hold that men retain the ability to reject God; that God could force all men to eventually love and follow him is inconsistent with such belief. I would think that a Calvinist could logically hold to Universalism in that he thinks that God can save anyone and turn his will accordingly. That said, I do not wish to imply that Calvinists do subscribe to universalism. There may be some, but secondary Calvinist belief teaches that God gains glory in his wrath against evil which implies some men are in hell.

Annihilationism is the teaching that hell is not eternal. God will send men to hell. Those who reject Christ do not inherit heaven. While people are judged and sent to hell, they are destroyed there, their souls are not eternal. This is not a position that relates to the Calvinist Arminian debate, either side can be an annihilationist. While both annihilationism and universalism end up with people only populating heaven they are hardly similar positions. Hell is empty because no one goes there is markedly different from Hell being empty because the people there are destroyed.

Inclusivism is the belief that people can go to heaven without hearing the gospel. It has considerable variation and one needs to understand which position is advocated rather than condemn all variants as incorrect. Even if each position is ultimately incorrect, they may be wrong for different reasons.

Inclusivism is not a road to universalism. Of course universalists are inclusive by definition: if all end up in heaven and not all respond to God before death, then people outside Christendom must be included. But inclusivism does not imply universalism. Many inclusivists think that men will be damned, moreso, they can be annihilationists.

Universalism, annihilationism, and inclusivism all speak to different questions. One to the universality of heaven's occupants, one to the duration of hell, and one to the nature of salvation. The reason for conflation may be because they are somewhat related. Universalists could be thought to be annihillationists as there is no need for hell, but that is an inappropriate designation. Universalists are inclusivists by nature, but because the converse is not true this is an unhelpful designation.

Does God need to send men to hell for his glory?

I do not see why this should be so. I see no diminution of God's glory if all men are ultimately saved (though this will not be the case). For surely God's glory is all the greater if men who were hell-bound now belong to the kingdom of heaven. Is God's glory not demonstrated more in his salvation of sinners than his condemnation of them?

You may argue that God needs to send men to hell to manifest the glory of his justice. That justice is an attribute that is glorified by its execution. But surely laying our sins on Jesus manifests God's justice more than any human cast into the lake of fire. And if this is so, there is no need for any man to be condemned for the sake of God's glorious justice.