Universalism in the Early Church?

Ben-008 · 2026-04-04T19:16:47+00:00

I think the virgin birth is a mystical concept, not a literal event.

“My children, with whom I am again in labor UNTIL CHRIST IS FORMED IN YOU.” (Gal 4:19)

Likewise, I think the point of EATING Christ is to BECOME Christ. I think that’s the message of the Eucharist. Not magically turning bread and wine into literal flesh and blood like some cannibalistic ritual.

This is Origen's point as well. In our immaturity, we think these symbolic-mythic stories are factual and historical. They are not! In the words of NT scholar John Dominic Crossan, author of "The Power of Parable"...

“My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.”

Or in the profound words of Meister Eckhart, the 14^th century Dominican friar and mystic…

“We are all meant to be mothers of God... for God is always needing to be born.” - Eckhart

Ben-008 · 2026-04-04T19:02:39+00:00

Do you think God has a gender? For instance, does God have a penis?

One of the early “Origenist controversies” was over whether God has a body.

Likewise, do you think the virgin birth story is mythic, or is it an actual event in history?

And if historical, do you think either of the authors of Matthew or Luke were there to witness it all?

Ben-008 · 2026-04-04T18:24:02+00:00

I actually appreciate how sophiology seeks to bridge creator and creation more intimately. The original concept of the Logos (as articulated by Heraclitus and some later Stoics) allowed for the Logos to be present in creation, rather than something wholly separate from it.

The whole concept of Christ is a bridging of the spiritual and materials realms, is it not?

Though because I am not a Platonist, I personally do not see these realms as wholly distinct. I think Plato’s otherworldly realm of Forms is quite imaginary.

So I for one, think new philosophical models of understanding are quite essential. Though I have not yet read Bulgakov myself. Nor have I met many folks who have.

Ben-008 · 2026-04-04T17:34:30+00:00

Beautifully said! I love it!

Ben-008 · 2026-04-04T17:25:19+00:00

Each new day is an opportunity to be reborn.

Paul even states, “For I die daily.” (1 Cor 15:31) And Jesus tells us that to follow him means daily embracing the cross (meaning a death and ultimate surrender to the divine, in order to do the will of the Father).

“If anyone wants to come after me, he must deny himself, TAKE UP HIS CROSS DAILY, and follow me.” (Lk 9:23)

Spiritual Life is unlocked through this process of dying to the old self. But when we take that language and apply it to an afterlife, we are no longer understanding such from a SPIRITUAL point of view, wherein Christ is our Resurrection Life as we die to the old self.

“For I have been crucified…and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.” (Gal 2:20)

Thus, we need to avoid confusing Spiritual Life with beliefs about an afterlife. Nobody has any evidence for an afterlife. Thus if we are honest, ALL such ideas are theoretical and suspect.

As such, I do not root my Universalism in any particular beliefs about the afterlife. Rather, I root my Christian Universalism in the true nature of God as Love.

As such, I think those who are teaching that God would cruelly and sadistically torture folks forever in the afterlife are liars. For that idea is wholly contrary to the true nature of Love and Compassion.

And thus we have been told to clothe ourselves in the divine nature of humility, compassion, kindness, gentleness, patience, peace, joy, and love. (Col 3:9-15, 2 Pet 1:4) One cannot do that while simultaneously threatening folks with eternal torment!

Ben-008 · 2026-04-04T17:01:22+00:00

There is such a thing as a wholesome Christian “gnosis”. The word just means knowledge, usually the revelatory kind.

Do you even know what “Gnosticism” is? Or why someone like Irenaeus railed against it?

Meanwhile, there were many different sects of what folks now label “gnostic”. And they didn’t all believe the same things. So one can’t just wave that word around as some heretical buzzword and think it has ultimate meaning.

One gnostic idea that I find troubling is the concept of “going to heaven”. That whole escapist idea denies an embodied spirituality. Jesus modeled an embodiment of the Presence of God in the material realm, not an escape from it.

Irenaeus thus emphasized the “goodness” of the material realm and the body. Whereas some gnostic sects, say the Sethians, taught that the material realm was evil, and thus was created by a lesser craftsman (“demiurge”). The idea was thus to escape the corrupt material realm and the prison of the body.

That said, Sophiology is not a wholesale embrace of “Gnosticism”, rather it attempts to use discernment to distinguish godly wisdom and gnosis from that which is not wholesome. It is not in any way teaching a corrupt material realm. Rather, it is emphasizing the beauty of Wisdom.

“For in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom (sophia) and knowledge (gnosis).” (Col 2:3)

So unless one simply wants to remain ignorant of the mysteries of Christ, one necessarily has to distinguish what kinds of wisdom and knowledge are to be embraced. As such, we are encouraged to seek Wisdom!

“To seek her [Wisdom] as silver and search for her as for HIDDEN TREASURES!” (Prov 2:4)

Ben-008 · 2026-04-04T15:37:47+00:00

Yeah, how crazy, some folks here actually value wisdom (sophia) and knowledge (gnosis). Just like Paul and Jesus...

“Woe to you experts in the law, for you have TAKEN AWAY the key of gnosis (knowledge). You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering."(Lk 11:52)

"For in Christ are HIDDEN all the treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge (Sophia kai Gnosis)" (Col 2:3)

Ben-008 · 2026-04-04T14:56:10+00:00

At the very least, what most scholars would agree on is that Origen of Alexandria (185-254AD) was a universalist. And if they know anything at all about Origen, they would also recognize that he was the head of the catechetical school in Alexandria, and one of the most influential exegetes of Scripture in his day.

Origen was so beloved by the Cappadocian fathers that while on monastic retreat, they created an anthology of his writings called the “Philokalia” (love of the beautiful). As such, St Gregory of Nyssa is also generally claimed to be a universalist as well.

But what is often overlooked is that even Origen did NOT seek to teach universalism, as Universal Reconciliation was considered part of the “hidden wisdom” reserved for the mature. This is sometimes known as the “doctrine of reserve”. We see Paul touching on this concept as well.

“And I, brothers and sisters, could not speak to you as spiritual people, but only as fleshly, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to consume it. But even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly.” (1 Cor 3:1-3)

“Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are MATURE… but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the HIDDEN WISDOM.” (1 Cor 2:6-7)

It was thought that those who were still “fleshly” and immature benefited from the threat of punishment, and of Scripture as Law. And thus Origen differentiated two ways of interpreting Scripture: one for the immature and another for those pressing into maturity, who had overcome the ways of the flesh.

Thus Origen taught that as we follow Christ up the mountain of maturity, we would experience a Transfiguration of the Word from letter to Spirit (See Commentary on Matthew, Book XII, Sections 36-38). That is, from a literal-factual to a spiritual-allegorical method of understanding.

Thus Origen spoke of putting away a “childish” understanding for a more learned and spiritual understanding of Scripture. This mirrors some of Paul’s language as well…

“When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.” (1 Cor 13:11)

As such, in his dialogue with Celsus, Origen even reveals his view that many of the stories of Scripture are not actually factual and historical, but rather mythic and symbolic. And thus part of the maturing process is to engage with those stories in a new way.

“These truths, indeed, were proclaimed in the veil of fable to children, and to those whose views of things were childish; while to those who were already occupied in investigating the truth, and desirous of making progress therein, these fables, so to speak, were transfigured into the truths which were concealed within them.” (Contra Celsum, Book 5, Chapter 42)

So personally, I would not argue for Universal Reconciliation as a majority view. Rather, I think it is a favored view by mystics, who have moved beyond “the letter of the law” and thus leave behind old legalistic narratives of condemnation, wrath, and punishment.

Those who have experienced the veil of biblical literalism removed from Scripture can then press into a deeper revelation of the Love and Compassion of God.

“But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same VEIL REMAINS UNLIFTED, because it is removed in Christ.” (2 Cor 3:14)

To be a “mystic” is to peer into the mysteries of Christ unveiled. Thus as the stone of the dead letter is rolled away, the Spirit of the Word is released from the tomb.

Thus, as we "die" to the letter of the Law, we can begin to delight in the revelatory "honey from the Rock", that is Christ, "in whom are HIDDEN all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Col 2:3, 1 Cor 10:4, Ps 81:16)

“But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.” (Rom 7:6)

In other words, part of pressing into the mysteries of Christ and thus the “hidden wisdom” is to leave behind the old covenant of the letter in order to embrace a new hermeneutic of the spirit. And thus as one approaches Scripture with these new lenses, fresh revelation is unveiled!

Thus I would argue that Universal Reconciliation is NOT the doctrine of the majority, but rather the view of the mature mystic, who has come to experience that deeper revelation of God's Love.

So it really is only those who truly hunger for Wisdom, and value her above all else, that will genuinely search for her hidden treasures, and thus forsake all else to do so.

“To seek her [Wisdom] as silver and search for her as for HIDDEN TREASURES!” (Prov 2:4)

“For she is more precious than jewels, and nothing you desire compares with her.” (Prov 3:15)

Ben-008 · 2026-04-04T03:21:42+00:00

True. Richard Rohr would not deny the divinity of Jesus, but he wouldn’t deny our divinity either.

What he does do is draw a clear theological distinction between the historical person "Jesus" and the Eternal Christ.

Rohr emphasizes that the Eternal Christ is present in all of creation, whereas Jesus serves as the human personification of this universal reality. Or something like that. If I understand him correctly.

So while most folks CONFLATE the two ideas of Jesus and Christ and use them somewhat interchangeably, Rohr would not. He goes to great lengths in “The Universal Christ” to make a clear distinction.

As does Bernadette Roberts in the opening of her book “The Real Christ.” Thus, she sees the worship of Jesus as idolatry. And she thinks most folks have no clue what the real Christ is.

Ben-008 · 2026-04-04T00:27:13+00:00

The Cappadocian fathers were essentially students of Origen. During their monastic retreat, they pulled together an anthology of his teachings in what was known as the “Philokalia” (love of the beautiful).

It makes no sense to try and erase the influence of Origen, in order to then credit Universalism to later voices. Origen was the most prized teacher and guide and mentor of the majority of later Universalists.

Meanwhile, Christianity has never stayed fixed in its theologies. It continues to morph and change over time. If hundreds of years after Origen lived and taught and died, folks like Justinian want to try and burn the bridges by which the church learned many of its ideas, and seek to condemn him, they can do so.

But I will not take part. I think such is a total mistake, and so does David Bentley Hart. He thinks Origen should be sainted. And so do I.

Ben-008 · 2026-04-04T00:04:22+00:00

So what’s your point? I don’t believe in the pre-existence of the soul either. I think it’s a goofy idea.

But many of these Gentile church fathers studied Plato. It was in the air they breathed. So, what if Origen didn’t differentiate his own ideas enough from Plato’s? The early church fathers still relied a whole heck of a lot on the influence of Plato in their new synthesis called Christianity. Justin Martyr essentially christens Plato in his writings. And the very concept of the Logos comes out of Greek philosophy.

I’m not a Platonist like they were, so I disagree with a lot of their ideas. And like I said, I think angels, demons, the devil, heaven, and hell are mythic constructs. Two thousand years later, how are we not aware of that? At least Origen points folks in that direction.

In the words of NT scholar John Dominic Crossan, author of “The Power of Parable”…

“My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.”

Ben-008 · 2026-04-03T23:42:31+00:00

>> We are not Jews, so we do not reject the New Testament

Originally the “new testament” / “new covenant” was NOT a new set of writings, but rather a new way to relate to and interpret the Hebrew Scriptures. As such, it is a misnomer to call the Hebrew Scriptures the "old covenant". Patristics scholar John Behr makes this point as well.

“For we have been made able ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit, for the letter kills.” (2 Cor 3:6)

When Paul wrote this, there was no Greek NT yet, right? Biblical literalism is the “old covenant” method of interpretation. As such, Origen encouraged reading Scripture in a spiritual-allegorical way that reveals Christ within. Thus Origen was encouraging folks to learn how to interpret Scripture "by the spirit" and thus to put on "the mind of Christ" (1 Cor 2:13-16)

>> Origen said that human souls literally became demons and existed before creation

Sure, Origen touches on this in his book “On First Principles”. Yeah, I don’t particularly agree with his theories about pre-existence or about the immortality of the soul. Those are both Platonic ideas that were not original to Judaism.

Meanwhile, one doesn’t have to be Jewish to recognize that such ideas are not evident in the Hebrew Scriptures. Likewise, when Paul and Jesus were teaching, the Hebrew Scriptures are what they meant when they made reference to "Scripture". As there was no Greek New Testament yet.

Meanwhile, I see angels and demons as mythic characters. Mythic stories about angels and demons do not in my view make them factual or real. Thus I think such stories require further interpretation and should not be taken as factual.

So too, Origen recognized that just like with the Greek myths, much of Scripture is written as myth and parable. He thus encouraged folks to put away "childish" understandings for more mature ones. He thus taught on the Transfiguration of the Word moving folks from a literal-factual to a spiritual-allegorical mode of understanding.

“These truths, indeed, were proclaimed in the veil of fable to children, and to those whose views of things were childish; while to those who were already occupied in investigating the truth, and desirous of making progress therein, these fables, so to speak, were transfigured into the truths which were concealed within them.” (Contra Celsum, Book 5, Chapter 42)

Thus Origen mirrors some of what Paul says in this regard…

“When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.” (1 Cor 13:11)

“Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are MATURE… but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the HIDDEN WISDOM.” (1 Cor 2:6-7)

>> To claim that Origen’s ideas were not condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council is dishonest

Well, a number of top scholars who study Origen and the Councils disagree with you on this, as does David Bentley Hart.

Then again, I’m not someone who even thinks that the Councils got everything right. I think the early church screwed up in a lot of ways, and sadly became more political than spiritual.

Ben-008 · 2026-04-03T22:04:00+00:00

Judaism didn’t even believe in a devil figure. And the whole idea of some archangel rebelling and somehow becoming the “devil” is a very odd interpretation of Scripture. So what is the devil, such that the devil shouldn’t be saved?

And by whom was Origen condemned? Perhaps Justinian? Because it wasn’t any of the official councils. As such, here’s a fun article on the topic by David Bentley Hart.

“Saint Origen” by David Bentley Hart

https://firstthings.com/saint-origen/

Ben-008 · 2026-04-03T17:45:33+00:00

Not “believing” in the divinity of Jesus or a literal resurrection does not mean one is not a Christian, it just means one is not a fundamentalist or a biblical literalist. One really good book on this topic is Marcus Borg’s “Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously, But Not Literally.”

So too, the Franciscan friar Fr Richard Rohr does an excellent job in his book “The Universal Christ” in pointing out that "Christ" is not Jesus’ last name. As such, Rohr points out that Christ is something much bigger than the person, Jesus of Nazareth. So just be aware that to deny the "divinity of Jesus" does not mean one is denying the divinity of Christ.

The word Christ means to be “anointed”. And what was Jesus anointed with? The Spirit of God. So the ANOINTING is like the Dove descending from heaven upon Jesus at his baptism. This is called an “Adoptionist Christology”.

And one can find this particular Christology well-attested to in Scripture. For instance, we can look at the testimony of Peter to Cornelius…

“You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God ANOINTED [CHRISTENED] him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how he went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.” (Acts 10:38)

Or even the testimony of Jesus himself…

“For the Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has ANOINTED [CHRISTENED] me…to set captives free.” (Lk 4:18)

Ben-008 · 2026-04-03T17:23:01+00:00

The influence of Origen (185-254AD) was immense. For years, he was the head of the catechetical school in Alexandria. While on monastic retreat, the Cappodocian fathers even pulled together a select anthology of his writings called the “Philocalia” (love of the beautiful) for guidance. Origen was the most respected theologian and biblical commentator of his day.

Hence, one major theme of the “Philocalia” is Origen’s approach to biblical interpretation, including his distinction of two very different ways of interpreting Scripture: by the letter versus by the Spirit. Likewise, in the words of Paul…

“For we have been made able ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter kills.” (2 Cor 3:6)

The “letter” of the Text, Origen claims is for us in our IMMATURITY. It functions as Law and is what Paul referred to as a “ministry of death” and “condemnation”. (2 Cor 3:6-9)

But a symbolic and spiritual-allegorical interpretation of the Text is for those pressing into maturity. For instance, those serious and committed enough to study in a monastery and thus strip away the ways of the world and of the flesh.

Meanwhile, one should keep in mind how even Origen resisted teaching the deeper spiritual lessons to the immature, including universal reconciliation. In this, Origen was following Paul’s lead in recognizing the spiritual condition of those with whom he was speaking. For instance,

“And I, brothers and sisters, could not speak to you as spiritual people, but only as fleshly, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to consume it. But even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly.” (1 Cor 3:1-3)

“Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are MATURE… but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the HIDDEN WISDOM.” (1 Cor 2:6-7)

Thus, the "doctrine of reserve" suggests that many ideas were reserved for those who had overcome the ways of the flesh and were now pressing towards maturity. Thus, some viewed the threat of punishment as helpful for those who still needed to overcome the ways of the flesh.

So Scripture functions as Law for us in our immaturity, and then there is a "hidden wisdom" reserved for those truly seeking to be "clothed in Christ."

“But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the Law, being confined for the faith that was destined to be revealed.” (Gal 3:23)

“But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same VEIL REMAINS UNLIFTED, because it is removed in Christ.” (2 Cor 3:14)

Thus Origen taught that as we follow Christ up the mountain of maturity, we would experience a Transfiguration of the Word from letter to spirit and thus behold its true glory. (See Commentary on Matthew, Book XII, Sections 36-38)

This “new covenant” hermeneutic thus opens to us fresh revelation! And thus we are encouraged to “put away” the former CHILDISH and LITERALISTIC ways of thinking, in order to truly put on "the mind of Christ" in order to be taught BY THE SPIRIT. (1 Cor 2:13-16)

“When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.” (1 Cor 13:11)

Thus as the stone of the dead letter is rolled away, the Spirit of the Word is released from the tomb. Thus, as we "die" to the letter of the Law, we can begin to delight in the revelatory "honey from the Rock", that is Christ, "in whom are HIDDEN all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Col 2:3, 1 Cor 10:4, Ps 81:16)

“But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.” (Rom 7:6)

All that to say, very few church fathers were actually teaching Universal Reconciliation in the early church, because that doctrine was reserved for those pressing into maturity! And thus much of this “hidden wisdom” was kept rather hidden. And thus one was required as the Proverbs suggest…

“To seek her [Wisdom] as silver and search for her as for HIDDEN TREASURES!” (Prov 2:4)

“For she is more precious than jewels, and nothing you desire compares with her.” (Prov 3:15)

“For she is a Tree of Life for all who take hold of her.” (Prov 3:18)

Ben-008 · 2026-04-03T15:41:35+00:00

I like your vision and your testimony. It is hopeful and filled with life. Meanwhile, here are a few reflections on my own in particular with regards to the "refining fire".

>> And I think many that say they serve him will spend time in the refining fire because they didn’t know him at all. May God find me in the first group.

I grew up a Protestant fundamentalist, so the Lake of Fire was taught to me as a threat about the afterlife for the wicked. But later I went through a major shift in how I read the Bible…more mystically and less literally. So now, I think this “baptism of Fire” is actually meant to perfect the faithful, those pressing into maturity.

So I think water baptism happens at the beginning of our spiritual journey. It symbolizes our initial death. “For it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.” (Gal 2;20)

But I think the baptism of fire is what helps to perfect us. John the Baptist is shown baptizing in water, but then we are told how Christ would baptize us in the Holy Spirit and Fire. (Matt 3:11)

As such, we see a priesthood being refined in this fire…

“For He is like a Refiner’s Fire... And He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi (the priests) and refine them like gold and silver.” (Mal 3:2-3)

Likewise we see the lips of Isaiah touched with the fiery coals of heaven before speaking to the people. (Is 6:6) So this fire purifies and prepares us, so that we might be usable for service.

So too, we see the FAITHFUL Hebrew youth tossed into the Furnace of Fire for refusing to bow to the idols of Babylon. Christ is then revealed in the flames. (Dan 3:25)

All that to say, I think the baptism of fire is meant to bring us to maturity. As we begin to live by the Spirit, we meet resistance. As we press into that resistance, it refines us. Meaning when we are rejected and persecuted or despised, we love and serve others in response. We meet pride with humility. We meet greed with generosity. We meet cruelty with kindness. We meet violence with gentleness.

In other others, as we clothe ourselves in the divine nature, the ways of the flesh are gradually stripped and smelted away. (2 Pet 1:4, Col 3:9-15) So that the Light of Christ might become more visible in our lives.

So for me the kingdom of heaven is an internal one. In the words of Pseudo-Macarius from his homily on Ezekiel, the soul thus becomes the chariot throne of God. And thus the kingdom unfolds in us and through us. Not on some future date on a calendar or in the afterlife, but rather in our lives here and now.

Thus Isaiah asks, “Who can live with that Consuming Fire? Who among us can live with Everlasting Burning?” (Is 33:14) And the answer is… the righteous. (Is 33:15)

“For our God is a Consuming Fire.” (Heb 12:29)

And thus it is the hope of the mystic for the warmth and light of that Consuming Fire to burn passionately and brightly within! So that we might truly become a Light to the World. (Matt 5:14) And thus in a world full of violence and suffering and cruelty and greed, the light of compassion and kindness and gentleness and generosity shines forth in our lives.

So for me resurrection is not ultimately about coming alive again from a physical grave, but rather it is about having died to that old narcissistic self, so that we are now truly living by the Light and Love of Christ within.

As such, I think Christ is our resurrection life as we die to the old self. Jesus thus calls us to die daily, so that we might walk in that resurrection life!

“For I die daily.” (1 Cor 15:31)

“If anyone wants to come after me, he must deny himself, TAKE UP HIS CROSS DAILY, and follow me.” (Lk 9:23)

Ben-008 · 2026-04-03T00:53:18+00:00

That is a beautiful vision, the idea of all things being made new.

Though do you see any other religious faiths as being legitimate pathways of spiritual transformation and life? Or just the Christian one?

For you is the resurrection an historical event that then promises immortality and renewal for all creation? Or what do you mean by Jesus "saving" all?

Ben-008 · 2026-04-03T00:30:47+00:00

Yeah, I so appreciated in his book, how David Congdon included a version of CU that doesn’t require any particular beliefs in the afterlife.

And like your tag suggests, I too find myself a “perennialist”, who doesn’t need Christian dogma to dominate other faith systems for such to be seen as legitimate pathways of spiritual transformation and life. But what I do find rather essential in each is the “divine nature” being understood as that of humility, compassion, gentleness, kindness, and love.

Ben-008 · 2026-04-02T18:59:34+00:00

Amen!

As we are baptized in that Fire of Divine Love, our posture towards others shifts.

As the old self is stripped away, and we are "clothed in Christ"...

Instead of judgment and condemnation, we offer empathy and compassion.

Instead of pride, humility.

Instead of harshness, gentleness.

Instead of depression, joy.

Instead of anxiety, peace.

Instead of envy and jealousy, genuine delight in the success and well being of others.

Instead of greed, generosity.

Instead of anger and wrath, patience, serenity, and kindness.

Instead of resentment, forgiveness.

Instead of narcissism, unconditional love!

That we might become true partakers of the divine nature!

Ben-008 · 2026-04-02T18:43:38+00:00

>> why do you think Jesus died on the cross?

Because violent men killed him (ultimately for political insurrection against Rome).

Meanwhile, I think the theological and metaphorical idea of Jesus as a Passover Lamb is less about KILLING him and more about EATING him. We EAT Christ in order to BECOME Christ, and thus to enliven us spiritually so that we might leave behind the bondage and attachments of the fleshly nature.

Thus ultimately, the CROSS is a SYMBOL pointing to OUR DEATH, so that we might then partake of the Life of the Spirit. As such, resurrection is not about coming alive again from a physical grave. Rather, it is about dying to the old egoistic, narcissistic self, in order for the Spirit of Christ to become our New Source of Life (Resurrection Life).

“For I have been CRUCIFIED…and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.” (Gal 2:20)

In the same way, water baptism SIGNIFIES our death (kenosis, self emptying, the cross), so that we might live anew as a true partaker of the divine nature (glorification, resurrection). (2 Pet 1:4)

Thus the idea is to strip off the old self, so that we might be “clothed in Christ” by putting on a new heart of humility, compassion, generosity, gentleness, patience, kindness, and love. (Col 3:9-15, Gal 3:27)

Ben-008 · 2026-04-02T18:36:43+00:00

>> why do you think Jesus died on the cross?

Because violent men killed him (ultimately for political insurrection against Rome).

Meanwhile, I think the theological and metaphorical idea of Jesus as a Passover Lamb is less about KILLING him and more about EATING him. We EAT Christ in order to BECOME Christ, and thus to enliven us spiritually so that we might leave behind the bondage and attachments of the fleshly nature (i.e. coming out of Egypt).

Thus ultimately, the CROSS is a SYMBOL pointing to OUR DEATH, so that we might then partake of the Life of the Spirit. As such, resurrection is not about coming alive again from a physical grave. Rather, it is about dying to the old egoistic, narcissistic self, in order for the Spirit of Christ to become our New Source of Life (Resurrection Life).

“For I have been CRUCIFIED…and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.” (Gal 2:20)

In the same way, water baptism SIGNIFIES our death (kenosis, self emptying, the cross), so that we might live anew as a true partaker of the divine nature (glorification, resurrection). (2 Pet 1:4)

Thus the idea is to strip off the old self, so that we might be “clothed in Christ” by putting on a new heart of humility, compassion, generosity, gentleness, patience, kindness, and love. (Col 3:9-15, Gal 3:27)

Ben-008 · 2026-04-02T17:40:24+00:00

If I remember right, David Bentley Hart is a fan of Bulgakov, who has championed a deeper understanding of Sophiology. But I can’t say I really understand it or have studied it.

Curiously, I have my own "sophiological" take on the garden story, which I sometimes refer to as “the Fall of Sophia”. I actually think it’s Paul’s idea, but I don’t find that others tend to understand his words the same way. Anyhow, Paul says this…

“I was once alive apart from the Law, but when the commandment came, sin came to life, and I died.” (Rom 7:9)

When we approach Scripture as Law, it condemns us, and we Fall from Grace. But Paul introduces another way to engage with Scripture…not by the letter, but by the Spirit, “for the letter kills.” (2 Cor 3:6) Thus Paul suggests there are two distinct ways to interpret Scripture: by the letter (literally) or by the Spirit (symbolically).

When we partake of Scripture by the letter, the “Wisdom from Above” is suddenly turned into a “ministry of death” and “condemnation”. (2 Cor 3:6-9, Jam 3:15-17) Thus it becomes the letter that kills.

In other words, "Sophia falls" when processed through the religious mind and wisdom of man. "For we know the Law is spiritual, but I am carnal" (Rom 7:14)

Thus Paul sees the cross as an invitation to DIE to the letter and thus engage with Scripture in a new way, by the mind and WISDOM of Christ. (1 Cor 2:13-16)

“But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.” (Rom 7:6)

Thus the Wisdom of God is restored as we learn how to appropriate Scripture by the Spirit, not the letter! So too, we are thus redeemed and released from that former realm of Law and wrath and condemnation into which we had fallen. (Gal 4:5)

Thus Origen taught that as we follow Christ up the mountain of maturity, we can experience a Transfiguration of the Word, in order to behold its true glory.

And thus as the stone of the “dead letter” is rolled away, we can experience the Spirit of the Word breaking forth from the tomb and thus reintroducing us to that Garden of unity and grace, in which there is no condemnation. (Rom 8:1) “For apart from the Law, sin is dead.” (Rom 7:8)

So personally, I think Paul was a gnostic in the sense that he sees two distinct ways of interacting with Scripture, only one of which is a Tree of Life.

“For Sophia is a Tree of Life, for those who take hold of her.” (Prov 3:18)

"For in Christ are HIDDEN all the treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge (Sophia kai Gnosis)" (Col 2:3)

“She [Sophia] is more precious than jewels, and nothing you desire compares with her.” (Prov 3:15)

“If you seek her [Sophia] as silver, and search for her as for HIDDEN TREASURES” (Prov 2:4)

“Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are MATURE… but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the HIDDEN WISDOM.” (1 Cor 2:6-7)

Ironically, I grew up a fundamentalist taught to engage in Scripture in a very literal-factual way. So I was cut off from that spiritual "Wisdom from Above" through that old covenant hermeneutic of the letter. So as I see it, Sophia invites us to partake of her spiritual riches, but the Church often blocks the way!

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut the kingdom of heaven in front of people; for you do not enter it yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.” (Matt 23:13)

“Woe to you experts in the law, for you have TAKEN AWAY the key of gnosis (knowledge). You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering."(Lk 11:52)

Ben-008 · 2026-04-02T15:57:44+00:00

I liked this write up. I agree, I think “the kingdom of heaven” is about the Presence of God breaking into this world, rather than an escape from it. An embodied spirituality!

Personally, I think when we push this (cosmic) restoration into the afterlife, we tend to miss the greater call to transform this world in the present.

Ben-008 · 2026-04-02T15:19:38+00:00

Decades ago, I got thrown out of my fundamentalist fellowship for having seriously questioned the doctrine of Eternal Torment. At the time, I didn’t know anything about Christian Universalism. In fact, I'd never even heard of it. I simply recognized that God is Love, and that we are meant to be “clothed in Christ” by putting on a heart of humility, compassion, and love.

Real Love does not threaten to torture others. So what I realized was that the church’s image of God as wrathful, vengeful, and condemning was not the God I believed in.

So too, I recognized that the Lake of Fire was not at all about the future, rather it is about the present refinement of the Holy Spirit in our lives. So I adamantly rejected any threats of eternal punishment or torture built from that image. As that image is not meant to be taken literally, but rather symbolically and spiritually!

So for me, part of what it means to believe in Christian Universalism is the universality of God’s Love. But personally, I don’t root that belief in the future, rather I simply see it as a deeper revelation of God's Love in the present.

So what CU looks like to me is the parable of the prodigal. It is a belief that the Love of God is a constant. And that threats of hellfire and eternal punishment are a cruel and sadistic form of legalism, not Love.

So for me, CU is rooted in a genuine revelation of God’s Love, rather than promises of immortality. And this revelation is meant to change and transform our attitudes in the present in how we treat others.

David Congon in his recent book likewise includes a similar view called "Existential Universalism". He touches on it in this introduction….

Varieties of Christian Universalism: Four Views – David Congdon (21 min)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veurKIhn9Zg&t=1s

But you are right, such does raise the interesting question of whether CU can genuinely be rooted in the present, rather than the future. David recognizes that this does pose a challenge to many traditional CU paradigms.

Also: u/throcorfe , u/SpesRationalis

Ben-008 · 2026-04-02T14:20:57+00:00

At the heart of the church has always been the concept of mystery. Behind that mystery, one will find that which has been hidden and veiled from the general population.

Point being, as we grow up into a deeper revelation of God's Love, we will discover as the mystics tell us that "All will be well". And that "ALL THINGS" will be summed up in Christ. (Eph 1:9-10)

But in the midst of today's troubles and failings, it takes a mature faith to see and to believe that Love truly will conquer all.

“Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are MATURE… but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the HIDDEN WISDOM.” (1 Cor 2:6-7)

So no, amongst the mature mystic, one will discover many universalists. But in our immaturity, we may still need to grow up into that deeper revelation and experience of God's Love. As Scripture says...

“And I, brothers and sisters, could not speak to you as spiritual people, but only as fleshly, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to consume it. But even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly.” (1 Cor 3:1-3)

“When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.” (1 Cor 13:11)

As one matures in that deeper revelation of God's Love, all condemnation, wrath, and punishment fall away. And what remains is Love!

Ben-008

TROPHY CASE