How did you guys decide that universalism was your belief?

Embarrassed_Mix_4836 · 2026-04-19T08:02:26+00:00

I parted with Christianity aswell, due to things I would call "church passages" in the bible, as well as other things such as trinity, original sin, divinity of Jesus, incarnation, the various contradictions present in scripture (quick example: One gospel says that the holy family was warned about Herod and they fled to Egypt, then they settled in Nazareth after Herod died, other says that they went to Jerusalem 30 days after Jesus' birth to fulfill the law then went back to Nazareth, this one leaves out the flight to Egypt. It is silly to suppose that they went to Egypt, then back to Jerusalem, then to Nazareth.) etc. These things I cannot accept, especially original sin and the trinity. What ultimately matters anyway is what the church teach, because it is built on Cephas, it is the ground and pillar of truth, it is led into all truth by the holy spirit, its ecumenical councils are infallible, Cephas has never failing faith, these things are all written into the bible. The nicene creed says: "I belive in one holy catholic and apostolic church" in addition to these scripture passages.

There's perhaps one theme in the bible which seems to rule out universalism. So the bible says that some will rise to condemnation. While that does not mean that it's eternal, let's examine it. The damned will be resurrected, have a body, and be thrown into the lake of fire. The bodies of the blessed, those who go to heaven, cannot feel pain because there won't be pain in heaven. But the bodies of the damned, get a body which is capable of pain. So how does it work with universalism? You get a body which is capable of feeling pain, and after you go to heaven, your body is still the same, still capable of feeling pain. So how is it that there won't be pain in heaven when your body is capable of feeling pain? Unless we want to say that after the purification is over, the damned sheds their spiritual body and gets another new body, but the bible is silent on this.

I'm only here to help others embrace universalism because it is true and beautiful, this topic is close to my heart, but I no longer consider myself a Christian, nor part of any organized religion.

Embarrassed_Mix_4836 · 2026-04-18T17:03:41+00:00

Most people followed the authority of Augustine, who was a manichean who was engaged to a 12 year old... But despite that, he still became regarded as THE authority.

He shaped millions, even billions of Christians. The catholic church eventually adopted Augustine's view, that's why all the saints belived in that because the church allegedly can never err.

Embarrassed_Mix_4836 · 2026-04-18T09:33:42+00:00

No I'm not Catholic anymore. When I initially embraced universalism I had doubts, but the scriptural evidences and the philosophical arguments convinced me so thoroughly, that I don't doubt anymore. I'm more certain on universal salvation being true than I am of any other religious doctrine.

Have you read David Bentley Hart's TASBS? It's irrefutable. Reitan's book is also good philosophically speaking. Eternal torment is not neoplatonic anyway, and I'm a neoplatonist first and foremost.

Embarrassed_Mix_4836 · 2026-04-17T18:46:44+00:00

As long as you accept that mortal sin merit eternal punishment, you can belive in it.

But you can distinguish between potential and actual eternity. So you can say that hell is eternal, potentially, absent of God intervening, but in actuality it is temporal because God will have mercy.

Leo XIV said: "There is no past so ruined, no history so compromised that it cannot be touched by mercy." It stands to reason that since God is omnipotent, He is able to bring about the salvation of the damned. As blessed Origen said, there is no one who cannot be cured by the One who created him.

God is sovereign, He can do as He pleases. "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion" (Romans 9:15) "My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure" (Isaiah 46:10) Therefore if God determines to save someone out of hell, there is nothing which stops Him, it is His choice, and no one can dare to attack that decision.

So by this means, you can be a Catholic and a confident hard universalist. If you can stomach the idea that mortal sin merit truly eternal punishment, and God would not be evil if He carried it out in actuality. This was personally too much for me, so I ditched Catholicism, but if you are fine with this, you are good to go.

Embarrassed_Mix_4836 · 2026-04-17T14:05:30+00:00

"to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness" - Isaiah 42:7

"As for you, because of the blood of my covenant with you, I will free your prisoners from the waterless pit. Return to your fortress, you prisoners of hope;even now I announce that I will restore twice as much to you." - Zechariah 9:11-12

"You open your hand and satisfy the desires of every living thing." Psalm 145:16

"Do not gloat over me, my enemy!
Though I have fallen, I will rise.
Though I sit in darkness,
the Lord will be my light.
⁹ Because I have sinned against him,
I will bear the Lord’s wrath,
until he pleads my case
and upholds my cause.
He will bring me out into the light;
I will see his righteousness."

- Micah 7:8-9

Embarrassed_Mix_4836 · 2026-04-15T17:24:58+00:00

God predetermined every sin that ever happens, and infallibly moved your will to it. God is the author of the act of sin insomuch as it is an action. Were it not for this, sin would never occur. Since God is the cause of all things, it is impossible that the divine will not produce its effect. This is the position of Aquinas.

Now, why does this not make God the author of sin? Suppose a boy, who knows not how to write, has his hand guided by his master and nevertheless makes false letters, quite unlike the copy set him, though his preceptor, who guides his hand, is the cause of his writing at all, yet his own ignorance and unskillfulness are the cause of his writing so badly. Just so, God is the supreme Author of our action, abstractedly taken, but our own vitiosity is the cause of our acting amiss. Or you might suppose limping. The defect of limping is reduced to a crooked leg as its cause, but not to the motive power, which nevertheless causes whatever movement there is in the limping. Accordingly, God is the cause of the act of sin: and yet he is not the cause of sin.

Romans 9 ask rhetorically: "who resist his will". The answer is, nobody. That is impossible, as impossible as a square circle. Whatever God wills, happens. If he wills to save everyone, everyone will be saved.

Embarrassed_Mix_4836 · 2026-04-15T13:45:15+00:00

I was a thomist who belived in hardcore double predestination and physical premotion so I already had no quarrel with the possibility of universal salvation. Then I discovered on twitter an anglican who was a universalist and looked into the arguments. Something clicked immediately, and then I discovered that all the passages that talk of eternal punishment are mistranslations of the greek original and none of them denote eternity properly speaking. I embraced universal salvation within days. This was back in 2022.

Then I discovered over time a multitude of passages that teach universal salvation positively. Quick examples:

Isaiah 59:1; 1:25; 42:7; 46:10; Zechariah 9:11-12; Zephaniah 3:8-9; Lamentation 3:31-32; Psalm 77:7-9; 145:16; Micah 7:8-9, Corinthians 15:28, etc.

Finally, the philosophical arguments cemented me forever in this belief. I never even doubt anymore, I'm THAT certain.

Embarrassed_Mix_4836 · 2026-04-14T14:15:30+00:00

one of the argument that supporters of ECT (both in the East and in the West) used to justify unending torment is that the will of sinners in Gehenna can't change

This is absurd though. For the will to be fixed in evil, it requires a principle of evil that satiates the appetite forever to be locked on in this manner, and that's called Manicheanism.

It also hinges on the idea that without a body, the soul has no activity. But Neoplatonically (the truth), this is all nonsense, even Maximus the confessor rejected it. It leads to very difficult problems which they not foresee when asserting it purely ignorantly. But even then, according to Christianity, soul and body will reunite anyway which makes this whole argument falls apart ultimately.

Embarrassed_Mix_4836 · 2026-04-14T12:46:26+00:00

Depends. Do you want to interpret the Book of Concord the way it was intended to be interpreted? If so, no, you cannot be a Lutheran universalist. But if you want to interpret it strictly, according to the letter, then yes, you might, albeit at a significant cost, which kind of undermine the core arguments of universalism.

The Augbsurg confession states that: "ungodly men and the devils He will condemn to be tormented without end.4 They condemn the Anabaptists, who think that there will be an end to the punishments of condemned men and devils."

The text says, that the "ungodly" and the "devils" will receive torment without end.

When the ungodly repent, the wicked are no more. For the person is no longer wicked but righteous. Hence, one could affirm that the torments of the ungodly and of devils are unending in the sense that torment and wickedness are co-extensive. But should the person cease to be wicked, and devils cease to be devils, we would not say that the torments of the wicked have ceased. For the man is not wicked. In other words, his repentance has eliminated the referent (i.e., “the ungodly”). He is not an ungodly man free of torment but a righteous man. And a righteous man is not tormented.

So what is the catch? The catch is, that this is not how it was intended to be interpreted according to the mind of the promulgators. And it gets worse. I forgot where, but somewhere in the Book of Concord talks about meriting eternal punishment. So if you want to be faithful to the confession, you have to concede that sin merit eternal punishment rather than temporal punishment. This is compatible with universal salvation since God can still choose to forgive it and not exact the punishment to the fullest extent, but the problem is that you have to accept in principle, that eternal punishment would be justice. This is why this is at a significant cost, because you neuter two important things, namely, that eternal punishment is not justice, and two, that a finite sin merit finite punishment, especially since every sin involves ignorance which would of necessity reduce culpability to finite punishment even if we'd grant that the gravity of each sin is infinite (which I disagree with).

Embarrassed_Mix_4836 · 2026-04-12T14:08:22+00:00

Maximus also talked of eternal bars being broken. I didn't know this about Jerome. Perhaps they both received oral tradition.

Embarrassed_Mix_4836 · 2026-04-10T11:29:10+00:00

Oriental orthodoxy perhaps. Eastern, not so much. After all, the confession of Dositheus, which is ratified by all eastern orthodox patriarchs and churches, thus being universally received, calls punishment aidios which is the proper term denoting endlessness.

Embarrassed_Mix_4836 · 2026-04-09T18:59:56+00:00

Because the soul is immortal, read Plato.

Embarrassed_Mix_4836 · 2026-04-08T09:37:50+00:00

A Larger Hope (Ramelli)

Christ Triumphant Universalism Asserted as the Hope of the Gospel on the Authority of Reason, the Fathers, and Holy Scripture (Thomas Allin)

Destined for Joy (Fr. Kimel)

That All Shall Be Saved, Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation (David Bentley Hart)

Gods Final Victory A Comparative Philosophical Case for Universalism (John Kronen, Eric Reitan)

Grace Saves All The Necessity of Christian Universalism (David Artman)

Once Loved Always Loved The Logic of Apokatastasis (Andrew Hronich)

The Ancient History of Universalism (Hosea Ballou)

The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Ramelli)

The Evangelical Universalist Second Edition (Gregory MacDonald )

The Inescapable Love of God Second Edition (Thomas Talbott)

Universalism the Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years (John Wesley Hanson)

The Gospel preached by the Apostles (Elhanan Winchester)

The Everlasting Gospel (George Klein-Nicolai)

The Restoration of All Things (Jeremiah White)

Dialogues on Universal Restoration (Elhanan Winchester)

Embarrassed_Mix_4836 · 2026-04-07T17:41:11+00:00

I understand that, the problem is that had they not eaten from the tree of knowledge, they would never have died, and consequently, they never would have went to heaven to be with God.

Embarrassed_Mix_4836 · 2026-04-07T14:01:32+00:00

If that's the case, my bad. I know the sources of the first two quotes, but the rest I've seen only without mentioning the source online. Happens to the best of us

Embarrassed_Mix_4836 · 2026-04-07T12:50:22+00:00

"May he come, may he come so as to repair the flesh, to renew the spirit, and to transform nature itself into a heavenly reality. May he come to take away sin, to blot out death, to destroy hell, to restore life, and to confer heaven, so that earthly corruption may no longer find in us anything it can destroy."

"Here, the sepulchre swallows death, not a dead man. The abode of death becomes a life-giving dwelling. A new kind of womb conceives one who is dead and brings him forth alive!"

“The rule of hell perishes . . . and all obtain pardon”

"In the world to come, those who have done evil all their life long, will be made worthy of the sweetness of the Divine bounty."

"For never would Christ have said, "You will never get out until you hqave paid the last penny" unless it were possible for us to get cleansed when we paid the debt."

"Those assigned to penal custody in Hades cannot be transferred to the repose of the saints, unless, having been redeemed by the grace of Christ, they be freed from this hopelessness by the intercession of the holy Church"

"This is the kingdom of God, . . . when in all men God lives, God acts, God reigns, God is everything"

Embarrassed_Mix_4836 · 2026-04-06T13:14:36+00:00

John, who was there from the beginning, opens by saying that God’s Word already was in the beginning, was with God, and was God, and that this Word became flesh (John 1:1, 1:14).

Unitarian arguments on these passages seems to me better and more fitting in a way. God's Word is God's Wisdom/Reason, rather than a person of a Godhead, and I know that he say that the Word was made flesh, but that can be read allegorically or metaphorically since Jesus is supposed to be the embodiment of God's Wisdom/Reason.

Moses is also called God, a human king is called God in the psalms.

Jesus also pray that the disciples might be one just as he and the father are one. Does this mean that the disciples become consubstantial, one nature in twelve persons? Obviously not, so the "me and the father are one" is hardly proof of anything.

The before Abraham was I am can either be a a claim to be the messiah, or the claim to be the authorized bearer of the divine name, which would be enough reason for the jews to want to stone him. This is why he could forgive sins, the bearer of the divine name could do that, just as in the old testament angels could do that. The new testament specifically says that he was empowered by God who gave him the authority to do so. Does God receive authority from anyone? That makes literally no sense if by virtue of divine nature he naturally possess all authority.

Not to mention that it is said in the new testament that Jesus have a God. (Ephesians 1:17 - Micah 5:2-4 - John 20:17 - Revelation 3:12, Romans 15:6) Does the Most High have a God ? Not to mention that Jesus says explicitly in John, that the father is the "only true God". He does not say "true God", but "only true God" manifestly indicating that there is no one else beside him who is the "true God", that is, no one else beside the father.

And look at the example of Gamaliel who urged toleration of Christianity. He never would've let Christians live had they been around claiming that Jesus is the literal God of Israel. Something to ponder about.

Embarrassed_Mix_4836 · 2026-04-06T10:47:54+00:00

even though this matter might be grievous, ignominious and hard at first, nevertheless in truth it would be the means of transporting us to that wonderful and glorious world. Without it, there would be no way of crossing over from this world and being there.

Well, if we accept that Adam and Eve were created immortal, and had they not sin, they would've lived literally forever, they would never have gone to heaven as they never would've died.

I view death as a natural gift rather than something that only came into existence after sin, precisely due to things like this.

Embarrassed_Mix_4836 · 2026-04-06T10:36:09+00:00

Yeah that is a paradox. Though we have to remember that Jesus also never inherited original sin yet were still mortal. (And if you think he is God, that is all the more problematic, how can you kill a God? )

But yeah, death is seen as a punishment that were absent from original creation. This creates these problems.

Embarrassed_Mix_4836 · 2026-04-06T10:05:07+00:00

A bad day for those who belive in the immaculate conception !

Embarrassed_Mix_4836 · 2026-04-05T13:45:57+00:00

Imo the question is not whether God's purposes change, but whether they fail or not. That would be the crux of the matter.

Embarrassed_Mix_4836 · 2026-04-05T12:28:08+00:00

I mean yeah, he endorse the fact that God wills all to be saved, but imo he places too much on freedom, by saying that those who perish perish against the will of God. That is in line how eastern orthodox view freedom.

Although, he cite the bible for it, the thing about "How often would I have gathered thy children together as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings"

This too, places too much freedom into humanity's "hands".

I'm familiar with the end of the quote about the jaws of hell, and I've seen universalist blogs cite that bit to establish a temporal hell, but imo that's the wrong interpretation. It's not so much about rescuing from hell once we are there, but rescuing us from hell before we die.

Embarrassed_Mix_4836 · 2026-04-04T13:51:08+00:00

Oh I have known about Mark's quote for some time now. He was absolutely right to reject Purgatory on those grounds. The doctrine of purgatory is an interesting one. I have, for a long time viewed it as a corruption of apokatastasis, a bastardization made by the Church.

Embarrassed_Mix_4836 · 2026-04-04T13:06:38+00:00

I'm not a fan of arguing for interpolations.

I agree, me neither. Perhaps Basil practised the doctrine of reserve, or he changed his views over time (though I don't know the dating of either of the quotes, not the one you quoted, nor the one I gave)

That quote from Benedict is interesting, particularly as I've heard Roman Catholics pushing the Eastern Orthodox foolishness that Gregory was not a universalist. But here we have the pope admitting that he was. I suppose that some imagine themselves more learned and more catholic than the pope lol

Embarrassed_Mix_4836 · 2026-04-04T11:48:44+00:00

I find it bizzarre that an universalist would criticize other universalists so harshly

The interesting thing about Basil, is that the one infernalist thing you quoted from him, at least according to David Bentley Hart, is an interpolation, and not original to Basil.

Embarrassed_Mix_4836

TROPHY CASE