So if I quoted to you The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, which says that Universal Salvation was the most commonly taught and believed doctrine of the earliest Christians, particularly in the east where Christianity originated and where many of its adherents and teachers spoke/understood the Greek of the NT, indicting that it is this very doctrine that was taught by the majority of the Christian Theological Schools (until it was labeled as "heretical" some 500 years later), you wouldn't have a problem accepting that particular teaching as being true, then?:
Not that I'm a Universalist... though I don't believe in eternal or endless torment or annihilation. I don't like labels and I don't agree with everything 'Universalist'.
Did you realize that Universalism has NEVER been labeled 'heretical' by any council? It's a modern day MYTH!
Here's why:
Were Origen and Origenism
anathematized? Many learned writers believe so; an equal number deny that they were condemned; most modern authorities are either undecided or reply with reservations. Relying on the most recent studies on the question it may be held that:
1. It is
certain that the fifth general council was convoked exclusively to deal with the affair of the
Three Chapters, and that neither Origen nor Origenism were the cause of it.
2. It is
certain that the council opened on 5 May, 553, in spite of the protestations of
Pope Vigilius, who though at Constantinople refused to attend it, and that in the eight conciliary sessions (from 5 May to 2 June), the Acts of which we possess, only the question of the
Three Chapters is treated.
3. Finally it is
certain that only the Acts concerning the affair of the
Three Chapters were submitted to the
pope for his approval, which was given on 8 December, 553, and 23 February, 554.
4. It is a fact that Popes Vigilius,
Pelagius I (556-61),
Pelagius II (579-90),
Gregory the Great (590-604), in treating of the fifth council deal only with the
Three Chapters, make no mention of Origenism, and speak as if they did not
know of its condemnation.
5. It must be admitted that before the opening of the council, which had been delayed by the resistance of the
pope, the
bishops already assembled at Constantinople had to consider, by order of the emperor, a form of Origenism that had practically nothing in common with Origen, but which was held, we
know, by one of the Origenist parties in Palestine. The arguments in corroboration of this hypothesis may be found in Dickamp (op. cit., 66-141).
6. The
bishops certainly subscribed to the fifteen
anathemas proposed by the emperor (ibid., 90-96); and admitted Origenist, Theodore of
Scythopolis, was forced to retract (ibid., 125-129); but there is no
proof that the
approbation of the
pope, who was at that time protesting against the convocation of the council, was asked.
7. It is easy to understand how this extra-conciliary sentence was mistaken at a later period for a
decree of the actual
ecumenical council.
