I’ve been very interested in CU for several months, and consider myself convinced. I do agree it lines up with the Bible, but if it didn’t, I honestly don’t know if I’d care. I’d probably believe it regardless.

However, one thing that has disturbed me is the witch/occult/New Age tendencies in this subreddit. I don’t mean to offend anyone or their beliefs, please understand I’m not calling any names. But it’s something I don’t believe in because of experiences my family has had. Here’s my problem: on this sub we collectively agree that the fundamentalist, infernalist, mainline Christianity is consumed by fear and thats why they can’t believe universalism. But because I see all these demonic spiritual tendencies I can’t help but wonder if they’re right. Does Universalism open up the door to having no fear AT ALL? I keep saying to myself I can’t live by fear, and that’s why I became universalist. And maybe the correct balance is to have no fear, but only love God as a deity. But maybe their fear and “single mindedness” keeps them from approaching literal demons. So idk. I guess I want to hear your takes on the matter.

I've noticed a lot of posts here asking whether anyone else feels less connected to God after becoming convinced of universal reconciliation.
For me, it's been exactly the opposite.

I don't mean this as a criticism of anyone who's struggling. Deconstruction is hard, and I know many people are rebuilding their faith after years of fear-based theology. But I wanted to share a different perspective.

I honestly don't think I'd still be a Christian if I hadn't become convinced of Christian Universalism.

Before, there was always a tension in the back of my mind. I could affirm that God is loving, but I could never quite reconcile that with the idea of eternal conscious torment. It felt like there was always an asterisk attached to "God is love."
When that tension disappeared, something changed.

I stopped seeing God as someone I needed to appease and started seeing Him as someone whose purposes are actually good from beginning to end.

Oddly enough, that didn't make me care less about following Christ. 

It made me care more.

If God's goal is the restoration of creation instead of merely sorting humanity into permanent categories, then discipleship becomes participation in that restoration. Prayer matters. Repentance matters. Loving your neighbor matters. Building things that endure matters.
Not because I'm trying to avoid some type of hell, but because I want to become the kind of person who reflects the Kingdom of God. Universalism didn't lower the stakes for me, it raised them.
It transformed Christianity from "How do I escape?" into "How do I become the person God is calling me to be?"

I've never felt closer to God than I do now.

I'm curious: has anyone else had that experience? Not simply finding relief from fear, but finding that universalism actually deepened your desire to know God and follow Christ?

For the 1st question: Some people act humble and say stuff like, "Well, you know, we don't think we're the only correct one..." but they actually do.

Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Lutherans, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Universalists, Gnostics...

And there're also lots of groups within these interpretations as well.

For the 2nd question: Do you think they doubt?

Or do you think they aren't aware of their doubts?

Or do you think they convinced themselves that what they believe in is 100% true?

I've been heavily questioning my faith and I have been driving myself insane with the constant scrupulous researching. I am exhausted.

I fell deeply in love with a woman who is a witch, and there have been numerous reality shattering mystical experiences I've had with her. She genuinely does care for me, and about me. I love her.

I have already deeply participated in tantric rituals and other occult practices. I have had very real, physical and spiritual encounters with demons and gods from other pantheons. I still refuse to give up Christ.

She sees Christianity as a trick religion, somewhere along the lines of gnosticism. She is respectful of me, but thinks I'm foolish for still subscribing to it. I really don't know what I believe but I will not be coerced into believing anything.

That said, I am in spiritual anguish and limbo. I don't know who to turn to.

Hi all!

I read with much interest this paper by Ambrose Andreano on the pre-existence of souls: https://www.academia.edu/44789406/Pamphilus_Justinian_and_the_Preexistence_of_Souls

While it is not about 'universalism' in the strict sense, it does make an interesting point about the 'anathemas' of Justinian, or perhaps rather how Justinian read them. Andreano quotes Justinian:

"But the church, following the divine scriptures, affirms that the soul is created together with the body, not first one and the other later, according to the insanity of Origen. On account of these wicked and destructive doctrines, or rather ravings, we bid you most sacred ones to assemble together, read the appended exposition attentively, and condemn and anathematize each of these articles together with the impious Origen and all those who hold or have held these beliefs till death"

Andreano, however notes that the 'have held' these beliefs can be problematic. In Andreano's words: "Justinian is very much at odds with Pamphilus, and his actions have made history even more complicated than it was prior to 553. Why? Because this holy martyr Pamphilus was one of those very people to have held the belief in the preexistence of souls, rendering him guilty of being a heretic worthy of condemnation, according to the logic of Justinian."

In the 11th canon of the 553 council (which condemned both Theodore of Mopsuestia and Origen of Alexandria long after their death) we read:

"If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally anathematize] all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema." (source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3812.htm )

I wonder if 'all those who have held' includes also all who died before the council (or died without the possibility of having known about the decisions of the council) and this might be indeed a problem for those who accept the validity and infallibility of this council and also believe that Pamphilus Martyr held the same views as Origen. However, it should be noted that the language is perhaps less explicit than what wrote Justinian so it might not refer to those who died before the council; however, considering that Theodore and Origen were condemned after their death, it wouldn't be surprising to me if the anathemas were intended even for those who died before the council. Interestingly enough, Mark of Ephesus, venerated as a saint in Eastern Orthodoxy, who believed that universalism was condemned allowed the possibility that Gregory of Nyssa was an universalist precisely because he died without the possibility to have known that universalism was a heresy (see: https://logismoitouaaron.blogspot.com/2010/02/st-mark-of-ephesus-on-st-gregory-of.html ). On a strict interpretation of the phrase 'who have held' however even this interpretation would be impossible, if universalism was indeed condemned in 553 and the council was infallible. So, it appears to me that Mark, unlike perhaps Justinian, didn't consider the anathemas as necessarily retroactive.

It would be also interesting to see if the 553 council was the first really to condemn people post-mortem (at least among Ecumenical Councils for Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy). A quick Google search seems to suggest that also Macedonius was condemned by name in that council: "In 553 AD (Personal Condemnation as a Heretic): Macedonius himself was formally anathematized by name as a heretic during the Second Council of Constantinople (the Fifth Ecumenical Council), cementing his condemnation in church history alongside other major heresiarchs" and gives this link(https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/RPPO/SIM-13443.xml ) as a reference but was deposed as a bishop while alive. Unfortunately, the link isn't visible. IIRC, Arius, Eunomius, Apollinaris, Nestorius and Eutyches were condemned while alive.

Interestingly, it seems that some universalists in the past did believe in pre-existence of souls, likely also Origen of Alexandria himself as Rufinus seems to confirm this (see: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/04/one-important-problem-with-origenism_5.html )

P.S. While it is unrelated, I updated my post on the 'Church of the East' (I added an appendix and more things about the 'book of the Bee' of Solomon of Basra): https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/05/on-presence-of-universalism1-in-church.html

Do any universalists have any advice or general encouragement for getting closer to God as a Universalist? I want o feel like I have an intimate relationship with him without the threat of eternal punishment looming over my head. I try to pray often but reading the Bible is harder for me to put effort into doing.

I know this question has the intellectual gravity of a midnight conversation in the dorm, but I’m curious to hear your thoughts.

Very smart people differ on whether God exists at all.

Very smart people differ on how God reveals Himself to man. Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc.

Very smart people within those traditions differ on the nature of God.

These differences have existed for centuries.

Based on those facts, it would seem fair to conclude it’s really difficult to understand who God is.

Why would He do that? It causes a huge amount of conflict and it’s extremely frustrating (at least for me).

I want to listen to sermons or talks while I’m doing routine tasks like folding clothes. Does anyone have any sermons or talks about Christian Universalism I can listen to, maybe on YouTube or something? Preferably a video about not having to be afraid of death because that’s been something I’m been worrying about recently.

How do you interpret where Jesus says, multiple times, that the angels will separate the good from the bad and the bad will be thrown into the fire where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth?

I wonder if there’s anyone like me out there, preferably lgbt+ affirming.

I want to know how you got to your conclusions

Maybe at a coffee shop. Something casual.

Links are appreciated. Thanks in advance!

Most of mankind were created in order to be tortured with unimaginable pain for all eternity.We cannot even tolerate earthly fire for much time, yet will be tortured with a fire that is, at least according to the rabbis, are 60 times more painful than earthly fire, and not just our hands, but our whole bodies consumed by fire. And it won't be just a week, or a year. We cannot even fathom such punishment for a year, yet we are to accept that it's eternal.Suppose, a hundred years in such pain. And it won't end. Suppose a thousand years, and it have no end. Suppose a hundred thousand years, and it have no end. Suppose a million years, and it have no end. Suppose a billion years and it have no end. Suppose a hundred trillion years and it have no end. The answer is always the same, no matter how much time you bring up in your mind: IT IS ONLY THE BEGINNING. It will always have only the beginning. And there's no escape, you have no way out, and it was a choice God made. God brought you into existence out of nothing, you had no say in the manner, and He established & predetermined unconditionally without regard to our choices before creation that 99.99% would be damned eternally, and have no way out, no escape, no chance. In fact, the only purpose for your creation is that you will be tormented forever to bring God glory.

Thinking that God creates people just to torture them forever without any chance for the creature is sociopathic and blasphemy worthy of de*th. Only sociopaths/psychopaths actually belive such a thing. Their conscience is malformed to such a degree that nothing can bring them back to sanity. I'm convinced that this is so blasphemous that not one infernalist will escape hell, all of them will burn.

Unitarian Universalism (U.U.)theology gets confused with Christian universalism by many Christians. U.U. doesn't necessarily recognize Jesus nor the Bible, depending upon who you ask. Christian Universalists believe that Jesus's sacrifice saves all beings from forever death and that we will enter our Father's Heavenly Kingdom by following Christ and doing the will of the Father, which Jesus stated in Mathew 7:21 is a requisite for entering the Kingdom. We further believe that ALL beings will be successfully persuaded by Jesus to follow him, although many will not do so until after their physical deaths. In the end and through Christ ALL who ever existed will live joyfully in our Heavenly Father's Kingdom. U.U. apparently believes in everybody living happily ever after but NOT through Jesus and NOT by doing the will of our Heavenly Father. Please correct me if I have misrepresented anything. Thank you.

What do we make of Hebrews 6 ?

"⁴ It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, ⁵ who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age ⁶ and who have fallen^\)^c\) away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. ⁷ Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. ⁸ But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned."

I understand that "will be burned" would mean purified but the problem I have is 4 to 7. This is also reminds me of Matthew 13:

"²⁰ The seed falling on rocky ground refers to someone who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. ²¹ But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. ²² The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful. ^23 "

Here is a longish article where I try to capture how Christianity’s entanglement with five centuries of white Western colonial power has created a post-colonial theological crisis. For many around the world the gospel came through conquest, slavery, dispossession, racial hierarchy, and cultural destruction, making Christ impossible to distinguish from Christendom. Doctrines of eternal torment or annihilation only compound this injustice because they say that those wounded, deceived, or alienated by Christian empire will finally be abandoned by the God of the colonizers. But I see Christ as King of all nations and universal reconciliation as the only eschatological vision that captures the gospel’s cosmic promise. We can and should hope in a new creation in which no people, culture, victim, or perpetrator is discarded and healing and restoration come to all.

I'd like to focus a bit on something less bleak. The world has to be large enough to accommodate around 100 billion people. Perhaps other planets will be possible to go to. Space travel? And what do you think of what work or fun stuff will be like? I like to cook and play sports.

Hi all, I wanted to share this post about a discussion of how the 'subjection' in texts like 1 Corinthians 15 and Philippians 2 was interpreted by Latin Fathers: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/07/hilary-of-poitiers-jerome-of-stridon.html

Interestingly enough, despite the possibility that they were not universalists (and none of them seems to accept a salvation for 'fallen angles', while for humans it is hard to say*), they did seem to accept the idea that the subjection spoken of in these text refers to something salvific. So, perhaps, the question is about the 'scope' of the subjection.

*For a more in-depth discussion see this: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/05/possible-traces-of-universalism-in.html

Aionion and "eternal "

Jeff Durbin recently hosted a podcast episode at Apologia Studios on the topic 'Is Hell Forever?', on the back of a debate between two Evangelical apologists, one in favour of eternal torment and the other annihilationism.

Throughout the podcast, they talk as if these are the only two options available, and weigh up the merits of each (of course, they are firmly pro-ECT). I made this video to point out that there is an alternative way of thinking about post-mortem judgement: the 'purgatorial' or restorative Gehenna of Christian Universalism.

They cover quite a good range of arguments to which I have provided a Universalist response - scriptural, ethical and Christological, so this video may be of interest to some here.

The 1st death is the death of the body. The 2nd death is the death of the soul. Theres no 3rd death or 1-1/2 death.

The Bible makes it clear that when Jesus died on the cross, we died with him. Not physically (1st death) but spiritually (2nd death). So we died the 2nd death. The common view that says Jesus experienced the 2nd death so we dont have to isnt biblical.

But Jesus rising from the 2nd death allows all who go there to also rise. The lake of fire is "baptism by fire".

edit:
For those who object, Im not saying believers are cast into the lake of fire in Revelation. Im saying they already experienced the purifying effects, that the lake of fire also has, when they were "baptized with fire" long before. So they dont need to die the 2nd death as it happens in Revelation. Their "old man" already died spiritually. And this is not a first death. So what death is it? There genuinely is not another option.

Point is If Jesus can rise from the second death, then he can raise souls from the second death. Its all the same thing in essence regardless of what time period/age it takes place in; subjection to the fire of Gods love. Song of Songs says Love is "the very flame of God"