What Does Universal Salvation Mean?

AlexDTX said:

So, I take it by your answer, that you believe in universal salvation? Regarding what you said above, I think people tend to go to one of two extremes: either God's will is irresistible as Calvinists believe, or that we totally have free will as Arminiasts believe. Personally I believe there is a balance between the two views, that only God fully understands. The Scriptures clearly state that God is not willing that any should perish but all should come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9). But this plain statement speaks of 2 wills: God's desire for none to perish, but also man's requirement to repent.

Regarding your second comment, I can see your logic. If by one man all have sinned, then it makes sense that by one man all can should be saved. However, in my reading of Romans 5 it speaks of death in physical not in the afterlife. And the KJV says "many" not all. Romans 2 addresses salvation before the law of Moses was introduced in that those who obeyed their conscience showed the law in their hearts. As I understand it, all who knew of he promise of Messiah to come (Heb 11) were saved by that hope and all who knew nothing of the Messiah to come nor knew the law of Moses were saved by their obedience to their conscience. However those who didn't believe the Messiah would come and willfully rejected their conscience or the law perished.

From my point of view I still see we have a choice, and that choice determines our outcome.

Click to expand...

The only thing I believe in, is Christ and Him crucified. I dont put myself in any belief systems nor do i try to group myself with others people based on doctrinal beliefs. This road is too narrow to walk next to anybody else. Ultimately, my goal is to know....not believe. And I only know what God chooses to reveal to me......everything else is just opinions and Mans wisdom. When I go to God, I have to drop everything I believe and be prepared to follow anything He says.....Like a child.

It would be wise to respect all doctrines, knowing that only those who endure to the end will be saved....I plan to meet this end in this life.....and only then....can i come here and tell you the way to heaven. Before I reach the end it would be like telling you how to drive a car when I, myself have only gotten as far as studying the manuals. You dont put your body in the car with a driver who has only read the driving book. How much more careful should we be with our souls?

Apex said:

We simply cannot discount or ignore the passages that teach the reality of eternal punishment for those who do not embrace Christ be faith in this life, such as 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9.

Click to expand...

9 Who, indeed, a penalty, shall pay—age-abiding destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might— (Rotherham)

9 who shall incur the justice of eonian extermination from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of His strength" (CLNT)

who shall suffer justice -- destruction age-during -- from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his strength, (2 Thess 1:9, YLT)

Regarding the mistranslation "eternal": "166 aiṓnios (an adjective, derived from 165 /aiṓn ("an age, having a particular character and quality") – properly, "age-like" ("like-an-age"), i.e. an "age-characteristic" (the quality describing a particular age);..." Strong's Greek: 166. αἰώνιος (aiónios) -- agelong, eternal

... deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1Cor 5:5)
Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." (Jn.2:19)

Mt.25:46, punishment, kolasis, "2851. kolasis...Short Definition: chastisement, punishment..."

"...in a passage in Origen in which he speaks of “life after aionios life” (160). As a native speaker of Greek he does not see a contradiction in such phrasing; that is because aionios life does not mean “unending, eternal life,” but rather “life of the next age.” Likewise the Bible uses the word kolasis to describe the punishment of the age to come. Aristotle distinguished kolasis from timoria, the latter referring to punishment inflicted “in the interest of him who inflicts it, that he may obtain satisfaction.” On the other hand, kolasis refers to correction, it “is inflicted in the interest of the sufferer” (quoted at 32). Thus Plato can affirm that it is good to be punished (to undergo kolasis), because in this way a person is made better (ibid.). This distinction survived even past the time of the writing of the New Testament, since Clement of Alexandria affirms that God does not timoreitai, punish for retribution, but he does kolazei, correct sinners (127)."
Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena | Nemes | Journal of Analytic Theology


"Does the eschatological destruction of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 exclude all redemptive possibilities? Nothing in the text requires such a reading." Continued at:

Thomas Talbott: The Inescapable Love of God (part 5)

II Thessalonians 1:8-9

66/40 said:

But "universalism" is NOT a part of historic Christianity.

Click to expand...

Universalism is the teaching of the Holy Scriptures!

The Church Fathers on Universalism

Of course i don't have many learned men and scholars i can refer to in favour of my position during the 1200-1500 years of the darkness of the Dark & Middle ages, Inquisitions, Crusades, burnings & torturings of so-called "heretics" by the "church". That is, the "church" that supported the dogma "historic Christendom" also supported, namely that Love Omnipotent will send the unrepentant wicked to endless conscious torments.

That 1200-1500 years gave the "church" many years to destroy, adulterate, rewrite & burn any writings or any thing that disagreed with its dogmas.

The Pharisees believed in endless torments.

"Jesus warned His disciples to “watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees,” which was their false teaching (Matt. 16:6,12)."

"Not giving heed to Jewish myths, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth." (Titus 1:14). Jesus said re the Pharisees: "...in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." (Mt.15:8-9)

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (2 Tim.3:16)

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

66/40 said:

Remember what Paul said about this very same thing pertaining to "derailing" what is truth and substituting it for a lie:

2 Timothy 4:3-4 (NIV). 3-For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4-They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Click to expand...

Lusts (or desires) would include the hateful, murderous kind, those attributed to the devil by the same Greek word here:

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Groups such as the KKK, for example, attract such people with a lust for hate.

"Historically the KKK used terrorism, both physical assault and murder, against groups or individuals whom they opposed."

Gal.5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like...

The lusts, desires and works of the flesh include wrath, hatred, idolatry:

Jer. 7:30 "For the sons of Judah have done that which is evil in My sight," declares the LORD, "they have set their detestable things in the house which is called by My name, to defile it. 31"They have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire,which I did not command, and it did not come into My mind.

The lust of the flesh also includes those who delight in the thought they are special, better than others, or that others will roast in hell. They can't bear the thought that people like Hitler or tax collectors would ever be saved. In that regard, the Pharisees & their followers in Jesus' time come to mind. For various reasons the endless punishment fantasy appeals to a certain type of people and their hateful lusts.

Both sadistic & masochistic types would be attracted to the ECT teaching, including abusers, those who have been abused & feel they deserve it, etc.

2 Timothy 4:4: And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Such as the fable or myth of endless torments of the Dark & Middle ages, Inquisitions, Crusades, burning of "heretics", etc.

In contrast to the fables & myths of endless torments, Paul says again to Timothy:

1Tim.4:9This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation. 10For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

1Tim.2 1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

chaela said:

Universal redemption is actually the one thing that I would think puts Christianity over and above any other of the main religions. The threat of punitive measures in the after life is so typical of religions. Christianity has, in Jesus, something that makes it stand out, so to factor post-mortem punishments into the mix simply brings it down to the same level as any other religion, at which point one has to wonder what Christianity has to offer that any other religion doesn't. I might as well be Muslim or Zoroastrian in that case.

Click to expand...

Yes. Your post takes me back to what sparked my quest for answers many years ago: seeing a depiction of the Tibetan Buddhist Hell. It contained all the elements of "Christian" Hell - red & yellow flames, demons tormenting the damned, and on and on. I realized that the only difference in the two Hells was artistic style.

AlexDTX said:

It is ironic that Paul Young's book, The Shack, was originally written with a universal salvation point of view that neither Wayne Jacobsen nor Brad Cummings held. Because they edited and published The Shack, that point of view was withheld. Later on Paul Young sued their publishing company and I think he has revised the book for a US conclusion. Brad Cummings had the film rights and produced the movie version of the book and kept the US conclusion out of the movie.

Click to expand...

Can you tell me anything more concerning this? I've watched/read a lot of Paul Young's 'post the Shack', concerning teachings/interviews, and find this lawsuit pretty hard to believe.

When I decided to accept the doctrine of Universal Reconciliation, there were two books that were formative:
Christ Triumphant by Thomas Allin (an Anglican)
The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastatis by Ilaria Ramelli
The first is what most people would consider a very in-depth analysis of the doctrine on historical, scriptural, and logical grounds. The second is a 900 page scholarly work that examines what the early church fathers thought of the idea. Up until Augustine, it seems to have been the majority view. Confirming that the idea was not heretical was the last piece of the puzzle for me. Since I gave up the idea of God having a torture chamber in his basement, I have found it easier to love both God and man, and I am a much happier child of God. I also view a God that is able to save the whole planet despite our best efforts to confound him as a much more powerful and majestic God. If you are seriously curious, you owe it to yourself to read Christ Triumphant. The annotated edition edited by Robin Parry is worth the extra cost but you will do fine with the cheap edition. If you still need more, go for the Ramelli book, but get it through your interlibrary loan system.

You asked why one would preach the gospel if everyone is going to heaven eventually. The answer is simple: Because the gospel is true and because it is good news. People that are not living according to the truth of God's word are invariably suffering the penalties of their sins and in America at least they usually feel the emptiness of their materialist philosophy. If you love them, you will give them hope and guidance.

AndySmith said:

When I decided to accept the doctrine of Universal Reconciliation, there were two books that were formative:
Christ Triumphant by Thomas Allin (an Anglican)

Click to expand...

I have this book too, and you are right, it was good. If only those, who so fear the hell taught by the "traditions and commandments of men", had as much perfecting 'LOVE for the truth', as they have 'FEAR of hell', they too might read and be convinced of His perfect love for ALL.

1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and he who fears is not perfected in love.

I had come to so dislike the God of 'the church', that I had made a conscious decision that I loved my hellion friends more than the God of 'the church' and would rather spend eternity in hell with them. And when He came for this lost sheep, 'fear of hell' was never the motivator...it was His love for me. And it is that same forgiving love for ALL that motivates me to witness. And I do so whenever, and to whoever I am led by the Spirit to do so.

ClementofA said:

Regarding the mistranslation "eternal": "166 aiṓnios (an adjective, derived from 165 /aiṓn ("an age, having a particular character and quality") – properly, "age-like" ("like-an-age"), i.e. an "age-characteristic" (the quality describing a particular age);..." Strong's Greek: 166. αἰώνιος (aiónios) -- agelong, eternal

Click to expand...

1
The Greek word αἰώνιος has a few different possible English translations based on the literary context and grammar of the sentence.

Here is what BDAG has for the various lexical connotations of αἰώνιος (1)

1. pert. to a long period of time, long ago
2. pert. to a period of time without beginning or end, eternal
3. pert. to a period of unending duration, without end

"Eternal" or "without end" are potential legitimate translations. However, we have to ask ourselves does the context and grammar of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 suggests the first lexical connotation or one of the other two? This same grammatical structure is used to describe our everlasting salvation in John 3:16.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal (αἰώνιος) life.

2
And if you want to use Greek-speaking Early Church Fathers, here is what the 'golden-mouthed' John Chrysostom had to say about 2 Thessalonians 1:9 in ~390 AD:

"There are many men, who form good hopes not by abstaining from their sins, but by thinking that hell is not so terrible as it is said to be, but milder than what is threatened, and temporary, not eternal; and about this they philosophize much. But I could show from many reasons, and conclude from the very expressions concerning hell, that it is not only not milder, but much more terrible than is threatened. But I do not now intend to discourse concerning these things. For the fear even from bare words is sufficient, though we do not fully unfold their meaning. But that it is not temporary, hear Paul now saying, concerning those who know not God, and who do not believe in the Gospel, that “they shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction.” How then is that temporary which is everlasting?" (2)

3
We can get even older than this. The translators of the Greek Old Testament used αἰώνιος to translate עוֹלָם in Daniel 12:2.

LXX:
καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν καθευδόντων ἐν τῷ πλάτει τῆς γῆς ἀναστήσονται, οἱ μὲν εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, οἱ δὲ εἰς ὀνειδισμόν, οἱ δὲ εἰς διασπορὰν καὶ αἰσχύνην αἰώνιον. (3)

English (ESV):
And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Are you suggesting some awake to just a long, but temporary, life after their resurrection?

-----
1.William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 33.

2. John Chrysostom, “Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Second Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians,” in Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. James Tweed and John Albert Broadus, vol. 13, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889), 384.

3. Henry Barclay Swete, The Old Testament in Greek: According to the Septuagint (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1909), Daniel 12:2.

AlexDTX said:

In my last thread, because of comments by some others, I was accused of believing in Universal Salvation. As I understand the term, I categorically do not believe that everyone will be saved regardless of their response to Christ. I believe that Christ died for all mankind, taking the sins of all the world upon himself, but we still have to accept or reject that gift by believing the Gospel.

However, to be honest, I have never really researched what people believe who declare Universal Salvation. So I am inviting all those who believe it to show me why you believe it.

I am not setting this up as a bait to convince you otherwise. But I will honestly disagree or agree depending on what is said. Please let me know why you believe in Universal Salvation. Thank you.

Click to expand...

IF.... Ezekiel chapter 37 happens again and again and again and again as G-d
creates new time lines then........
if more of the Holy Spirit is poured out in new time lines then......
Messiah Yeshua - Jesus should get closer and closer and closer to that time when he
has fully......

Jhn 12:32

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Here is a topic on Multiverse that does begin to explain how it could be relevant to eventual universal salvation...... or at the minimum a greatly increased percentage of people saved over what we are seeing now......

The Philosophical implications of Multiverse Theory?

AndySmith said:

When I decided to accept the doctrine of Universal Reconciliation, there were two books that were formative:
Christ Triumphant by Thomas Allin (an Anglican)
The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastatis by Ilaria Ramelli
The first is what most people would consider a very in-depth analysis of the doctrine on historical, scriptural, and logical grounds. The second is a 900 page scholarly work that examines what the early church fathers thought of the idea. Up until Augustine, it seems to have been the majority view. Confirming that the idea was not heretical was the last piece of the puzzle for me. Since I gave up the idea of God having a torture chamber in his basement, I have found it easier to love both God and man, and I am a much happier child of God. I also view a God that is able to save the whole planet despite our best efforts to confound him as a much more powerful and majestic God. If you are seriously curious, you owe it to yourself to read Christ Triumphant. The annotated edition edited by Robin Parry is worth the extra cost but you will do fine with the cheap edition. If you still need more, go for the Ramelli book, but get it through your interlibrary loan system.

You asked why one would preach the gospel if everyone is going to heaven eventually. The answer is simple: Because the gospel is true and because it is good news. People that are not living according to the truth of God's word are invariably suffering the penalties of their sins and in America at least they usually feel the emptiness of their materialist philosophy. If you love them, you will give them hope and guidance.

Click to expand...

Thanks, brother (and welcome, as I see this was your first post ) - I haven't read either of those books and they sound very interesting and helpful. God Bless.

Apex said:

1
The Greek word αἰώνιος has a few different possible English translations based on the literary context and grammar of the sentence....

Click to expand...

There are whole books written on the proper translation of αἰώνιος. If I remember right, Ramelli's book deals with the issue as well. You can read them and form your own opinion. What universal reconciliationists generally believe is that it is best translated as something like "of the αἰών" or "of the age". So we are resurrected to the life of the age, or experience corrective punishment (κόλασις) of the age. We then apply context that would say that corrective punishment doesn't make any sense unless it corrects and move on. Given the general thrust of the Bible, life of the age seems to make the most sense as being an eternal life. Are there some apparent exegetical contradictions in Universal Reconciliation? Maybe, but overall I see many, many more problems with the traditionalist position that πᾶς (G3956) does not really mean "all" all the time. Which, getting back to the OP, is one of the many, many reasons I believe the Universal Reconciliation position is closer to the absolute truth than the traditional position is.

But arguing about words doesn't get you any closer to the truth unless those words are fundamentally stopping you from believing. Just know that there are interpretations taken up by learned Greek scholars that could satisfy you intellectually if you wanted them to satisfy you. Or not. For a wholistic view, I really, really recommend reading Christ Triumphant by Thomas Allin.

Apex said:

The Greek word αἰώνιος has a few different possible English translations based on the literary context and grammar of the sentence.

Click to expand...

Considering that the Greek word aionios has a range of meanings, it should not have been rendered with the word "eternal" according to theological opinions. Thus it was not translated but interpreted. OTOH the versions i posted gave faithful translations & left the interpreting up to the readers as to what specific meaning within the "range of meanings" the word holds in the specific context. What the biased so-called translations of the KJV tradition have done is change the words of Scriptures to their own opinions, which is shameful.

"Add not to His words, lest He reason with thee, And thou hast been found false."(Prov.30:6)

"After all, not only Walvoord, Buis, and Inge, but all intelligent students acknowledge that olam and aiõn sometimes refer to limited duration. Here is my point: The supposed special reference or usage of a word is not the province of the translator but of the interpreter. Since these authors themselves plainly indicate that the usage of a word is a matter of interpretation, it follows (1) that it is not a matter of translation, and (2) that it is wrong for any translation effectually to decide that which must necessarily remain a matter of interpretation concerning these words in question. Therefore, olam and aiõn should never be translated by the thought of “endlessness,” but only by that of indefinite duration (as in the anglicized transliteration “eon” which appears in the Concordant Version)."

Eon As Indefinte Duration, Part Three

Apex said:

We can get even older than this. The translators of the Greek Old Testament used αἰώνιος to translate עוֹלָם in Daniel 12:2.

LXX:
καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν καθευδόντων ἐν τῷ πλάτει τῆς γῆς ἀναστήσονται, οἱ μὲν εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, οἱ δὲ εἰς ὀνειδισμόν, οἱ δὲ εἰς διασπορὰν καὶ αἰσχύνην αἰώνιον. (3)

English (ESV):
And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Are you suggesting some awake to just a long, but temporary, life after their resurrection?

Click to expand...

The context supports the view that both the life & the punishment referred to in v.2 are of finite duration (OLAM), while v.3 speaks of those who will be for OLAM "and further".

2 From those sleeping in the soil of the ground many shall awake, these to eonian life
and these to reproach for eonian repulsion." 3 The intelligent shall warn as the warning
of the atmosphere, and those justifying many are as the stars for the eon and further."
(Dan.12:2-3, CLOT)

The Hebrew word for eonian (v.2) & eon (v.3) above is OLAM which is used of limited durations in the OT. In verse 3 of Daniel 12 are the words "OLAM and further" showing an example of its finite duration in the very next words after Daniel 12:2. Thus, in context, the OLAM occurences in v.2 should both be understood as being of finite duration.

Compare v.3:

l·oulm u·od
for·eon and·futurity

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/dan12.pdf

OJB Hashem shall reign l’olam va’ed.
Yahweh shall rule to the eon and beyond (Exo 15:18)
Universal Version Bible The Torah By William Petr

Habbukah 3:6:

JPS Tanakh 1917
He standeth, and shaketh the earth, He beholdeth, and maketh the nations to tremble; And the everlasting[olam] mountains are dashed in pieces, The ancient[olam] hills do bow; His goings are as of old[olam].

Young's Literal Translation
He hath stood, and He measureth earth, He hath seen, and He shaketh off nations, And scatter themselves do mountains of antiquity, Bowed have the hills of old, The ways of old are His.

CLV
He stands and is measuring the earth; he sees and is letting loose the nations. And the mountain ranges of futurity are scattering; the eonian hills bow down; his goings are eonian.

Daniel 12:2:

Young's Literal Translation
'And the multitude of those sleeping in the dust of the ground do awake, some to life
age-during, and some to reproaches -- to abhorrence age-during. (Dan.12:2)

Rotherham
and, many of the sleepers in the dusty ground, shall awake,—these, [shall be] to age-
abiding life, but, those, to reproach, and age-abiding abhorrence; (Dan.12:2)

My whole point was that there are Greek lexicons, Greek ECF writings, and translations from Greek experts that can be used to support either view. This argument is not proven by quoting references. I just wanted to neutralize it.

I noticed that no one wanted to comment on the John Chrysostom quote!

Apex said:

My whole point was that there are Greek lexicons, Greek ECF writings, and translations from Greek experts that can be used to support either view. This argument is not proven by quoting references. I just wanted to neutralize it.

I noticed that no one wanted to comment on the John Chrysostom quote!

Click to expand...

I'll bite. 390 years AD isn't exactly close. And even though the majority may have held to Ultimate Reconciliation beliefs, certainly doesn't mean all did. And I say a majority did believe UR based upon a source I've never had anyone ever refute. I'm sure you've seen it before...would you like to be the first to comment?

( The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge – Vol XII, Baker Book
House, 1950, p. 96.)

SIX THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS
German theologian - Philip Schaff writes :“In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six known theological schools, of which four (Alexandria…Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthageor Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is unknown.”

And we all know what 'church' came out of Rome and killed/martyred anyone who didn't agree with their doctrine. Even tried to get Martin Luther, but missed. Many Christians were judged heretics and burned alive along with all their writings in those long ago centuries....almost all their writings anyway.

Apex said:

My whole point was that there are Greek lexicons, Greek ECF writings, and translations from Greek experts that can be used to support either view. This argument is not proven by quoting references. I just wanted to neutralize it.

I noticed that no one wanted to comment on the John Chrysostom quote!

Click to expand...

The quote, if it actually exists, is accurately translated, and is a comment on the Greek word aionios, rather than based on a Latin translation of the Scriptures, would seem to only show the man's ignorance of NT Greek.

OTOH, it may indicate something else:

"John is aware that the Greek term αἰώνιος does not always mean "eternal" or "everlasting," for example as when he describes the power of the devil as αἰώνιος, meaning "bound to the present aeon" and doomed to come to an end along with the end of this world (Ramelli 2013, 553). Being aware of the ambiguity of the term αἰώνιος, his argument is rather facile when he says: How, then, can that which is αἰώνιος [namely the torments in Gehenna] be temporary? (554). It is plausible that he does this because he makes use of the teaching of eternal torments in hell for the rhetorical and ethical effect it has on his audience."

the crucified god: Ethical universalism and John Chrysostom

Ramelli comments on those in the early church who knew Greek & who didn't:

"It is not the case that “the support for universalism is paltry compared with opposition to it” (p. 823). Not only were “the 68” in fact fewer than 68, and not only did many “uncertain” in fact support apokatastasis, but the theologians who remain in the list of antiuniversalists tend to be much less important. Look at the theological weight of Origen, the Cappadocians, Athanasius, or Maximus, for instance, on all of whom much of Christian doctrine and dogmas depends. Or think of the cultural significance of Eusebius, the spiritual impact of Evagrius or Isaac of Nineveh, or the philosophico-theological importance of Eriugena, the only author of a comprehensive treatise of systematic theology and theoretical philosophy between Origen’s Peri Archon and Aquinas’s Summa theologiae. Then compare, for instance, Barsanuphius, Victorinus of Pettau, Gaudentius of Brescia, Maximus of Turin, Tyconius, Evodius of Uzala, or Orientius, listed among “the 68” (and mostly ignorant of Greek). McC’s statement, “there are no unambiguous cases of universalist teaching prior to Origen” (p. 823), should also be at least nuanced, in light of Bardaisan, Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter’s Rainer Fragment, parts of the Sibylline Oracles, and arguably of the NT, especially Paul’s letters.

https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2016/...of-apokatastasis-the-reviews-start-coming-in/
http://tsj.sagepub.com/content/76/4/827.extract

Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp.)

Scholars directory, with list of publications:

http://www.isns.us/directory/europe/ramelliilaria.htm

Hillsage said:

I'll bite. 390 years AD isn't exactly close. And even though the majority may have held to Ultimate Reconciliation beliefs, certainly doesn't mean all did. And I say a majority did believe UR based upon a source I've never had anyone ever refute. I'm sure you've seen it before...would you like to be the first to comment?

( The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge – Vol XII, Baker Book
House, 1950, p. 96.)

SIX THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS
German theologian - Philip Schaff writes :“In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six known theological schools, of which four (Alexandria…Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthageor Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is unknown.”

And we all know what 'church' came out of Rome and killed/martyred anyone who didn't agree with their doctrine. Even tried to get Martin Luther, but missed. Many Christians were judged heretics and burned alive along with all their writings in those long ago centuries....almost all their writings anyway.

Click to expand...

I was unable to find support for Schaff's position. In my historical resources, I actually found the exact opposite conclusions. Perhaps you can post Schaff's cited sources for this information?

For example:

"The history of the doctrine of universal salvation (or apokastastasis) is a remarkable one. Until the nineteenth century almost all Christian theologians taught the reality of eternal torment in hell. Here and there, outside the theological mainstream, were some who believed that the wicked would be finally annihilated (in its commonest form this is the doctrine of 'conditional immortality'). Even fewer were the advocates of universal salvation, though these few included some major theologians of the early church. Eternal punishment was firmly asserted in official creeds and confessions of the churches. It must have seemed as indispensable a part of universal Christian belief as the doctrines of the Trinity and the incarnation. Since 1800 this situation has entirely changed, and no traditional Christian doctrine has been so widely abandoned as that of eternal punishment." (1)

"The most famous and influential advocate of universalism in the early church was Origen, whose teaching on this point was partly anticipated by his predecessor Clement of Alexandria. Origen’s universalism belongs to the logic of his whole theological system, which was decisively influenced by his Platonism and depended on his hermeneutical method of discerning the allegorical sense of Scripture behind the literal sense...Origen’s scheme conforms to a Platonic pattern of understanding the world as part of a great cycle of the emanation of all things from God and the return of all things to God." (2)

"The doctrine of the final restoration of all souls seems to have been not uncommon in the East during the fourth and fifth centuries. It was clearly taught by Gregory of Nyssa and is attributed to Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and some Nestorian theologians. Others, such as Gregory of Nazianzus, regarded it as an open question. Augustine took the trouble to refute several current versions of universalism, as well as views on the extent of salvation which stopped short of universalism but were more generous than his own. Origen’s universalism was involved in the group of doctrines known as 'Origenism', about which there were long controversies in the East. A Council at Constantinople in 543 condemned a list of Origenist errors including Apokatastasis, but whether this condemnation was endorsed by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553) seems in doubt. At any rate the condemnation of Origenism discredited universalism in the theological tradition of the East. In the West, not only Origen’s heretical reputation but also Augustine’s enormous influence ensured that the Augustinian version of the doctrine of hell prevailed almost without question for many centuries. During the Middle Ages universalism is found only in the strongly Platonic system of John Scotus Erigena (dc 877) and in a few of the more pantheistic thinkers in the mystical tradition, for whom the divine spark in every man must return to its source in God." (3)

1. Richard J. Bauckham, "Universalism: A Historical Survey," Themelios 4, no. 2 (1978): 48.
2. Ibid, 49.
3. Ibid, 50.