On The Patristics Project website there is [a blog post entitled "Patristic Universalism"](https://www.patristics.co/patristic-universalism/) , which provides quotes from twelve of the ancient Christian writers popularly known as the Church Fathers, regarding how they, among others, "either believed in the universal restoration of all things, or stated things with Universalist implications." The post goes into some definitions of universalism although this, I think, is best elucidated by references in the post's section "The Universalist Majority," which says: > In the work “De Asceticis,” St Basil allegedly states, “The mass of > men say there is to be an end to punishment and to those who are > punished.” St Augustine concurs by allegedly saying, “There are very > many in our day, who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not > believe in endless torments.” The last section of the post is titled "The Divine Liturgy," towards the end of which its author offers the following (with my own emphasis [and footnote]). > Personally, I do not identify as a Universalist, so I do not want > people to get the impression I am trying to sell it, as I am merely > presenting the objective patristic data... I have my own reasons for > disagreeing... I would probably be much more zealous in my rejection > of universalism, if it were not for the liturgy making a hypocrite out > of me. I say evil people who reject God will not be saved, yet I pray > for the salvation of those same evil people who reject God even after > they die. **I have heard that there are even monks on Mount Athos who > pray for the devil.** Is it any wonder why Fr. Sergius Bulgakov✭ > arrived at such a place? Like Moses, it is the heart of love that > persistently seeks to *change God’s mind* (so to speak) to actually > give people precisely what they *don’t* deserve (Exo 32:14). This > Mosaic prayer is constantly uttered unto God by the saints on behalf > of all humanity. The two Church Fathers who are most famous (at least in the modern era) for having been universalists, namely Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa, are incidentally also the ones known for having espoused the idea that not only all humanity was or would be saved by/through Christ, but that the devil and evil spirits/entities/demons in general, as *logikoi*, i.e. rational beings, are likewise beneficiaries of this aspect of God's grace. That being as radical as it appears to be when compared to the majority of Christian tradition over the course of history, I had never before encountered the yet more radical idea of praying ***for*** the devil, presumably for his salvation(?). (I don't see what other reason there could be to do this, at least as far as the most mainstream Christian views of the devil and his role are concerned.) As far as I have read, neither Origen nor Gregory mention such an idea. In the modern era there are both children and adults who have given the question serious enough thought to ask authority figures about it, based on the commandments and doctrine of loving and praying for one's enemies, as I discovered on [Billy Graham's website](https://billygraham.org/answer/should-we-pray-for-satan-so-hell-change-his-evil-ways/) , the [Catholic Answers website](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/should-i-pray-for-the-devil) and the [Answers in Genesis website](https://answersingenesis.org/angels-and-demons/satan/feedback-should-we-pray-for-satan/) . I tried to contact the cited blogger for more information on my Question but have received no response, and my research on it turned up just one hit, from the St Andrew Greek Orthodox Church in South Bend, IN, USA. It has a website with a page entitled "Satan and Demons," written by the parish's priest, the Rev. Fr. George D. Konstantopoulos, Protopresbyter, who says: > It is said that Saint Paisios used to pray for the Devil, until one > day Saint Paisios saw him laughing in a distance from his cell and I > think ridiculing the Geronda (Elder). From that day Saint Paisios > stopped praying for the repentance of the Devil, since **he understood > that it was futile** [*emphasis in original*]. Paisios of Mt Athos was a Greek Orthodox ascetic (1924–1994) who spent a good chunk of his life on Mt Athos. This is the only other reference that I have found to a monk from that mountain praying for the devil, and it is the only place I have seen this story told about Paisios. Similarly to the conclusion arrived at by the paragraph which tells the story, the aforementioned websites pretty much roundly denounce the very thought of praying for the devil, for essentially the same reason. It seems to be across the board regardless of whether the specific Christian tradition in view is Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Protestant, none of which is surprising. But how obscure is this idea or practice, considering that, as early as Origen (200s AD), and Gregory of Nyssa (300s AD), there were Christians who did *not* dismiss out of hand the concept that the devil would or could be saved (along with all of humanity)? Is Paisios the only Mt Athos monk who ever prayed for the devil? Are there other Christians elsewhere who have gone beyond mere inquisitiveness regarding this (see the websites above) and thought to do the same in an overt manner or an "official" capacity? ---------- ✭ Sergius/Sergey Bulgakov (1871-1944) was a Russian Orthodox theologian, philosopher and economist who apparently believed in universal reconciliation or was quite hopeful about it being the destiny of humankind.

I web-searched the expression, 'universal election', used on SE-BH, but without success. I keep finding information about 'universal salvation' which, I assume, is not the same thing. I am interested in when this expression was coined and by whom. I am aware that some say 'election' means that God foresaw who would 'choose Christ' and by looking into the future, as it were, he 'chose' those who would, in time, make this decision. I am also aware that some say 'election' conveys the concept that the Father, before the foundation of the world, purposed to beget sons and purposed to bring them to glory. But I have only today read the words 'universal election' and I am interested in which Christian groups use the word and what they, themselves, would understand by the term, and when it became common parlance.

As the question states: who defended the devil's salvation? I know I've read of a Catholic saint who supposedly defended the devil's salvation. And why not? Maybe the devil has been greatly misunderstood in the great plan of God? Anyways, I've searched, and the closest I could find was Lawrence Justinian, a Catholic priest and a saint within the Catholic Church. I also know that I've read that this person, maybe a philosopher, was a contemporary of St. Thomas of Aquinas. Does anyone know any of this?

It seems to me that if God chooses not only those who will go to heaven, but those who will go to hell, a Calvinist would hold the position of Universalism, that being that all people will be saved. Why shouldn't they? If God is merciful and loving and decides the fate of every human, why would he send them to hell? Why doesn't he send them all to heaven since he makes that final decision?

I've been listening to this pastor from AoC Network that has been talking about Hades as there is/was a place of torment and a place of peace, before Christ's resurrection. This is where people who God deemed as men of God or Godly men and women went before the resurrection of Jesus on the Cross. He says he believes (because the bible is not clear on this subject) that people who have died now days who have not had the opportunity to know enough about Jesus or know who he is, can make a decision to invite Jesus into their heart to be their savior, this is where they go. This sounds like the Catholic belief in Purgatory. I know the Bible isn't clear on the matter of "The Bosom of Abraham" in today's world, but I've been taught that "The Bosom of Abraham" was closed off when Jesus came back for his disciples after his death and brought them to heaven with Him. Now, this pastor from AoC says he believes that the Hades that *was* called "The Bosom of Abraham" (which this pastor describes as a place of peace) still exists (but of course is *not* called "The Bosom of Abraham" because Abraham is up in heaven,) for those who have not heard of Jesus or had the opportunity to accept his free Gift of Salvation, i.e Babies who are unborn and those who die as infant babies who cannot know Jesus yet, because they cannot understand yet. My question is: "Does the side of Hades that was once "The Bosom of Abraham" still exist? Is this what the Catholic's call Purgatory, and where is this found in the Bible?"

Particularly, "Lead all souls to heaven, especially those most in need of thy mercy" implies a belief that everyone will eventually be saved. After all, who is more in need of God's mercy than someone who dies in a state of mortal sin?

My understanding is that the Unitarian Universalist Association has no creed, but its name suggests otherwise. As a Unitarian church, are its members expected to deny the Trinity or Jesus' status as the Son of God? The second label, "Universalist," suggests a belief that everybody will eventually go to heaven. Does this imply an expectation that members profess belief in an afterlife?

When I say “conservative”, I’m thinking along the lines of a church that holds to Biblical Innerancy, the virgin birth, and Trinitarian doctrine. Are there any such denominations that adhere to those things and universalism?

Annihilationists and universalists argue that the Greek word translated "eternal" (aionion/aionios) is more appropriately translated "eon-like", and thus New Testament terms like "eternal fire/punishment" (in e.g. Matt 18:8, 25:46) should be interpreted to mean long lasting but still finite fire and punishment. Given that argument, do annihilationists and universalists have any New Testament basis for believing that "eternal life" is really eternal and not merely long lasting?

I hold to universalism, but am perfectly willing to change my mind on the subject. I just have never received good defeaters to the universalist passages that I present. 1. First Corinthians 15:22 "for as all in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." 2. Romans 5:18 "as one man's trespass lead to the condemnation of all men, so one man's act leads to the acquittal and life for all men." 3. Corinthians 1:19-20 4. Romans 11:32 "For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all." 5. 1 John 2:2 "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." Here are the verses, I'm sure there are more. I'm looking for a different interpretation of these passages that points to condemnation for some.

I've been having a rough week, wondering what it would be like to give up Catholicism and be a Unitarian. But I was wondering, how have universalist leaders taught their adherents to avoid temptation without the constant threat of Hell? As a Catholic I really hate sinning because: 1. It makes me unhappy or sort of badly happy. 2. It chops me off from grace in some way that I can't quantify. 3. I have to go to confession and I REALLY don't want to do that. So, without the Sacraments and the threat of Hell, what do Universalists do to stay on the straight and narrow?

Universal salvation, or universal reconciliation is the belief that God will eventually reconcile Himself with every *immortal soul*. That is, everyone will be saved. This doctrine has a long history. It's always been a minority view, but there have been proponents since, at least, the third century. It seems to me that this belief quite clearly contradicts the teaching of the Bible. For example, reading 2 Thess 1:7-9 (NLT): > And God will provide rest for you who are being persecuted and also for us when the Lord Jesus appears from heaven. He will come with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, bringing judgment on those who don’t know God and on those who refuse to obey the Good News of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with eternal destruction, forever separated from the Lord and from his glorious power. Now, clearly it can't be this simple, since there have been a lot of people that believed in Universal salvation. Origen , for example, probably knew the scripture quite well. What are the Biblical arguments **for** Universal salvation?

Having heard of the arguments put forth by Origen regarding universal salvation to an extent that includes even the devil, I have recently been considering the inverse, that is, the possibility of the Enemy’s permanent damnation. For theologies given to that premise, does it ever follow that hatred and contempt and ill-will, prohibited by Jesus when directed at your neighbors/enemies may be a virtue when directed at spiritual enemies such as demons and/or of Satan himself?

In 1648 John Owen (1616-1683) published his definitive work The Death of Death in the Death of Christ which produced an almost immediate response, in the next year, from Richard Baxter (1615-1691) and an ongoing, controversial, public debate between the two. In a summary, in 1846, of Baxter's theology, Thomas W Jenkyn states part of Baxter's views as follows : >The atonement of Christ did not consist in his suffering the identical but the equivalent punishment (i.e., one which would have the same effect in moral government) as that deserved by mankind because of offended law. **Christ died for sins, not persons**. *The benefits of substitutionary atonement are accessible and available to all men for their salvation.* I have highlighted two parts with bold and italics. Paul specifically says that 'the Son of God loved me and gave himself for me', Galatians 2:20, and Peter says of Christ, that 'he bore our sins (not just 'sins' - 'our sins') in his own body on the tree', 1 Peter 2:24. This appears to be personal, to me. I cannot see how it could be more 'personal'. But I can see in Richard Baxter's theology the beginnings (or the first strong public expression) of what would later become a very widely accepted 'gospel' - that of a 'universally available' 'salvation' which, actually, applies to none, and has to be 'accessed' to 'activate' its efficacy. I am interested in how Richard Baxter supported his view, particularly regarding such texts as the ones I have quoted, where it would seem that scripture is not on his side in saying 'Christ died for sins, not persons' and 'the benefits are accessible and available to all' (when we are told that 'a sword turns every way to keep the way to the tree of life', Genesis 3:24.). This view is certainly the antithesis of what John Owen published and I am interested in what arguments Baxter relied upon to counteract Owen's theology. ------------------------- Personal Note : I have never agreed with the term 'limited atonement' since Jesus says, Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45, that the Son of man 'gave his life a ransom for many' (though 'strait is the gate that leads to life and and few find it' Matthew 7:14) and since John saw in vision, Revelation 7:9, 'a great multitude whom no man can number'. 'Many' and 'no man can number' does not sound 'limited' to my own ear. My own understanding is that some limit themselves, through unbelief, and exclude themselves from benefit and have only themselves to blame. That some are chosen 'before the foundation of the world', Ephesians 1:4, is irrelevant to the culpability of those who spend their life in activity contrary to their own humanity and detrimental to their own, ultimate, destiny. Perhaps Richard Baxter has arguments against what I have just written in which case I am interested in hearing about them.

"God is merciful and He wants all people to be saved, thus, all the humans, even the worst ones, having fully redeemed themselves from their wrongdoings by spending some adequate time in the hell, will finally make it to the paradise..." What's the official name of this doctrine? I heard something like "optimistic eschatology", but I am not sure. And also, I heard that the Eastern Orthodox Church has condemned this doctrine as a heresy. If it's true, when and where (on which counsel) did this take place?

I've been reading George MacDonald as of late and have heard in a few places that he argues for universalism. I though that had something to do with unitarianism, but in looking it up a tad more, I guess it means the idea that everyone will be saved. Is this theology considered a heresy to the Catholic Church? If so, when where and why was it condemned?

Unfortunately, we can hear some lay Catholics (sometimes even a bishop) say that: "We can have reasonable hope that all will be saved". It seems obvious that the statement is untrue, however, is it a heretical statement? And would for example bishop who persists in this error becomes a formal heretic? We know that the Church condemned the following proposition: > If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious > men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a > restoration (ἀποκατάστασις) will take place of demons and of impious > men, let him be anathema. It seems that corollary of this statement is: Corollary: **Punishments of impious men will never end.** Imagine now that the statement: "We can have reasonable hope that all will be saved" is true. However, if the hope were to be reasonable, then the object of hope should be really possible, namely, it should be really possible that all are saved. But if all were saved, then the previous corollary would really be attributing some property to an empty set and then the condemnation would be vacuously true . But the opposite of the corollary would also be true (because we can attribute anything to an empty set, see a previous link to "Vacuous truth") in that case. Therefore, the case where all are saved seems logically inconsistent if we want to say that condemnation can not be empty. Edit. My question is not duplicate. I am not searching an answer to a viewpoint on universal salvation, but I explicitly deny that as untrue. I am searching for what kind (degree) of error is to hold universal salvation (or rather, that "we can have reasonable hope that all will be saved").

By "evangelical" in this context I am referring to those with the common evangelical view that the Bible is the word of God and inerrant in the autographs. The idea that Judas might be ultimately saved would be required to hold to universalism, but it seems irreconcilable with the idea that he would be saved and yet be one of whom woe is pronounced and that it would be better for him not to have been born. ([Matthew 26:24](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+26:24&version=ESV) , [Mark 14:21](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+14:21&version=ESV))

Which early church fathers (including those now considered heretics like Origen) pre 1054 taught that "all will be saved", including all of the dead without "hearing and believing"? In other words, who taught a form of involuntary universal salvation?

If universal reconciliation is true- so that everybody will *eventually* come to know God because of his son Yeshua, and therefore nobody will have their flesh burned forever and ever- why should we obey God?