I believe that ALL who ever lived will be in God’s Kingdom

I would like to return to this topic and take a look at the history of universal reconciliation as well as the Parable of the Prodigal Son.

Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which G-d hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. Acts 3:21

Contrary to what is commonly believed today, universal reconciliation was not an exotic fringe view in the early centuries of Christianity, but rather the prevailing theology in large parts of the Church, especially in the Greek-speaking East. The term is derived from the verse in the Acts of the Apostles that speaks of the restoration of all things, greek apokatastaseos panton.

Clement of Alexandria was one of the first to systematically teach that G-d’s punishments are never motivated by mere anger. For Clement, G-d is the good teacher and healer. When G-d punishes, it is only to heal and to bring the sinner to repentance.

Origen is regarded as the greatest genius of the early Church. He developed the doctrine of universal reconciliation into a vast system: everything spiritual originated purely from G-d, fell away through free will (the Fall), and will ultimately return to G-d through a long, painful, yet healing process of purification spanning many ages (aeons).

Even HaSatan?

Origen went so far in his logic as to say: If G-d is to be all in all in the end (1 Cor 15:28), then in the very end even the principle of evil must disappear, and HaSatan himself must be reconciled with G-d, though it's not the monster HaSatan who is saved, but the original angel of light, Lucifer, created by G-d, after his evil will has melted away.

Men like Gregory of Nyssa advocated universal reconciliation quite openly and in an orthodox manner. For Gregory, it was clear that evil has no lasting substance; it is merely a lack of good and will eventually disappear entirely into the ocean of G-d’s love.

The comparison with darkness as the absence of light likely parallels the comparison of evil as the absence of good. From a physical standpoint, darkness does not exist as an independent force or substance. Darkness cannot be measured; one can only measure the absence of photons. When light is introduced into a room, darkness automatically recedes because it has no substance of its own with which to resist.

Since G-d created everything, everything that has substance is inherently good (Gen 1:31). Evil is not an independent entity, nor is it a substance created by Him. It is merely the absence, the corruption, or the distortion of the good, like a hole in a garment or rust on iron.

When, at the end of time, G-d reconciles all things to Himself and becomes all in all (1 Cor 15:28), His light will shine into every corner of creation. Since evil has no substance of its own, it cannot exist in the absolute presence of divine light. It dissolves like darkness at sunrise.

Why was it rejected?

The turning point came in the 5th and 6th centuries.

In the Latin West, Augustine prevailed. He knew little Greek, read the Bible in an inaccurate Latin translation (where aionios was strictly translated as aeternum, which literally means endless, and shaped the Western doctrine of original sin and eternal damnation.

In 543 CE, Emperor Justinian had the teachings of Origen (and thus apokatastaseos) condemned at a synod in Constantinople. A state is psychologically much easier to govern with the threat of eternal hell for the disobedient than with the message that everyone will be saved in the end anyway. Since then, universal reconciliation has been officially regarded as heresy in the Roman Catholic Church and, later, in the Lutheran confessional writings as well, although theologians have continued to believe in it in secret throughout the centuries.

The parable in Luke is arguably the most frequently cited Bible passage used to argue against universal reconciliation. In it, Jesus describes the chasm between the realm of the dead and Abraham’s bosom.

I think the parable also has to do with the two houses (Israel and Judah) and the focus on their restoration.

If one reads the text not as a description of the afterlife, but as a prophetic parable about the two houses of Israel, the problem of hell is resolved.

The rich man represents Judah (the Southern Kingdom). Clothed in purple (the royal line) and fine linen (the priesthood), he is rich in the Scriptures and temple service.

Lazarus represents Ephraim-Israel (the Northern Kingdom/the ten lost tribes). Spiritually dead after the Assyrian captivity, without a national identity, separated from G-d (without help), and scattered among the Gentiles (the dogs).

Seen in this light, the parable describes the historical tragedy of the Jewish people following their rejection of the Messiah.

The death of the rich man and his torments symbolize the national downfall of Judea with the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70) and the subsequent centuries of dispersion and persecution.

The great chasm is not an eternal judgment in the afterlife, but rather the historical, spiritual separation. While the scattered tribes (Ephraim) willingly accepted the New Covenant and were spiritually raised into Abraham’s bosom (the promise), Judah remained trapped in a state of judgment and hardening of the heart.

If the parable describes the rejection of Judah and the exaltation of Ephraim, it refers to a historically limited judgment of G-d within the history of salvation and not to eternal damnation in the afterlife.

Paul explains precisely this mystery of the two houses in the Epistle to the Romans! He writes that a partial hardening has come upon Judah until the fullness of the Gentiles (in whom the lost tribes of Ephraim were absorbed) has come in.

And how does Paul conclude this chapter?

Not with an eternal divide, but with the triumphant conclusion:

And so all Israel shall be saved:... For G-d hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. Rom 11:26a .32

The judgment of the rich man is real and painful, but it is historical, educational, and has a clear end date: the ultimate reunification and salvation of all G-d’s people and, in the end, of the entire universe, when G-d is all in all.

Benaiah468 said:

I would like to return to this topic and take a look at the history of universal reconciliation as well as the Parable of the Prodigal Son.

Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which G-d hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. Acts 3:21

Contrary to what is commonly believed today, universal reconciliation was not an exotic fringe view in the early centuries of Christianity, but rather the prevailing theology in large parts of the Church, especially in the Greek-speaking East. The term is derived from the verse in the Acts of the Apostles that speaks of the restoration of all things, greek apokatastaseos panton.

Clement of Alexandria was one of the first to systematically teach that G-d’s punishments are never motivated by mere anger. For Clement, G-d is the good teacher and healer. When G-d punishes, it is only to heal and to bring the sinner to repentance.

Origen is regarded as the greatest genius of the early Church. He developed the doctrine of universal reconciliation into a vast system: everything spiritual originated purely from G-d, fell away through free will (the Fall), and will ultimately return to G-d through a long, painful, yet healing process of purification spanning many ages (aeons).

Even HaSatan?

Origen went so far in his logic as to say: If G-d is to be all in all in the end (1 Cor 15:28), then in the very end even the principle of evil must disappear, and HaSatan himself must be reconciled with G-d, though it's not the monster HaSatan who is saved, but the original angel of light, Lucifer, created by G-d, after his evil will has melted away.

Men like Gregory of Nyssa advocated universal reconciliation quite openly and in an orthodox manner. For Gregory, it was clear that evil has no lasting substance; it is merely a lack of good and will eventually disappear entirely into the ocean of G-d’s love.

The comparison with darkness as the absence of light likely parallels the comparison of evil as the absence of good. From a physical standpoint, darkness does not exist as an independent force or substance. Darkness cannot be measured; one can only measure the absence of photons. When light is introduced into a room, darkness automatically recedes because it has no substance of its own with which to resist.

Since G-d created everything, everything that has substance is inherently good (Gen 1:31). Evil is not an independent entity, nor is it a substance created by Him. It is merely the absence, the corruption, or the distortion of the good, like a hole in a garment or rust on iron.

When, at the end of time, G-d reconciles all things to Himself and becomes all in all (1 Cor 15:28), His light will shine into every corner of creation. Since evil has no substance of its own, it cannot exist in the absolute presence of divine light. It dissolves like darkness at sunrise.

Why was it rejected?

The turning point came in the 5th and 6th centuries.

In the Latin West, Augustine prevailed. He knew little Greek, read the Bible in an inaccurate Latin translation (where aionios was strictly translated as aeternum, which literally means endless, and shaped the Western doctrine of original sin and eternal damnation.

In 543 CE, Emperor Justinian had the teachings of Origen (and thus apokatastaseos) condemned at a synod in Constantinople. A state is psychologically much easier to govern with the threat of eternal hell for the disobedient than with the message that everyone will be saved in the end anyway. Since then, universal reconciliation has been officially regarded as heresy in the Roman Catholic Church and, later, in the Lutheran confessional writings as well, although theologians have continued to believe in it in secret throughout the centuries.

The parable in Luke is arguably the most frequently cited Bible passage used to argue against universal reconciliation. In it, Jesus describes the chasm between the realm of the dead and Abraham’s bosom.

I think the parable also has to do with the two houses (Israel and Judah) and the focus on their restoration.

If one reads the text not as a description of the afterlife, but as a prophetic parable about the two houses of Israel, the problem of hell is resolved.

The rich man represents Judah (the Southern Kingdom). Clothed in purple (the royal line) and fine linen (the priesthood), he is rich in the Scriptures and temple service.

Lazarus represents Ephraim-Israel (the Northern Kingdom/the ten lost tribes). Spiritually dead after the Assyrian captivity, without a national identity, separated from G-d (without help), and scattered among the Gentiles (the dogs).

Seen in this light, the parable describes the historical tragedy of the Jewish people following their rejection of the Messiah.

The death of the rich man and his torments symbolize the national downfall of Judea with the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70) and the subsequent centuries of dispersion and persecution.

The great chasm is not an eternal judgment in the afterlife, but rather the historical, spiritual separation. While the scattered tribes (Ephraim) willingly accepted the New Covenant and were spiritually raised into Abraham’s bosom (the promise), Judah remained trapped in a state of judgment and hardening of the heart.

If the parable describes the rejection of Judah and the exaltation of Ephraim, it refers to a historically limited judgment of G-d within the history of salvation and not to eternal damnation in the afterlife.

Paul explains precisely this mystery of the two houses in the Epistle to the Romans! He writes that a partial hardening has come upon Judah until the fullness of the Gentiles (in whom the lost tribes of Ephraim were absorbed) has come in.

And how does Paul conclude this chapter?

Not with an eternal divide, but with the triumphant conclusion:

And so all Israel shall be saved:... For G-d hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. Rom 11:26a .32

The judgment of the rich man is real and painful, but it is historical, educational, and has a clear end date: the ultimate reunification and salvation of all G-d’s people and, in the end, of the entire universe, when G-d is all in all.

Click to expand...

Obviously what you present above did not stick in either eastern orthodox or roman Catholicism. In the latter adherents of the sect are allowed the heterodox position that every person stands a shot at purgatory, but that's not commonly held.

And none of the early churches promoted Satanic salvation, which is what you're presenting. That's a more recently fabricated heresy.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

Obviously what you present above did not stick in either eastern orthodox or roman Catholicism. In the latter adherents of the sect are allowed the heterodox position that every person stands a shot at purgatory, but that's not commonly held.

And none of the early churches promoted Satanic salvation, which is what you're presenting. That's a more recently fabricated heresy.

Click to expand...

This is from Grok AI- I do believe that you have not done your homework.
The primary early Church Fathers associated with the belief in apokatastasis (the restoration of all things, including the devil) are Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–254) and Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–395). This view, drawn from passages like Acts 3:21 ("the restoration [apokatastasis] of all things"), 1 Corinthians 15:28 ("God will be all in all"), and Philippians 2:10–11, posits that God's goodness and the finite/non-substantial nature of evil will ultimately lead to the voluntary reconciliation of all rational creatures, including fallen angels.
This teaching was controversial and later condemned in some forms (especially the salvation of the devil) at the 5th-century Council of Constantinople (553), but it had supporters in the early centuries.

Origen of Alexandria​

Origen is the most prominent early proponent. In On First Principles (De Principiis), he speculates on the ultimate restoration:

"We believe, however, that the goodness of God through Christ will restore His entire creation to one end, even His enemies being conquered and subdued. ... The end of the world and the consummation will come when every soul shall be visited with the penalties due for its sins. ... [This happens] not suddenly, but slowly and gradually, seeing that the process of amendment and correction will take place imperceptibly in the individual instances."

Click to expand...

On the "last enemy" (often identified with the devil/death):

"For the destruction of the last enemy must be understood in this way, not that its substance which was made by God shall perish, but that the hostile purpose and will which proceeded, not from God but from itself, will come to an end. It will be destroyed, therefore, not in the sense of ceasing to exist, but of being no longer an enemy and no longer death. ... For to the Almighty nothing is impossible, nor is anything beyond the reach of cure by its Maker."

Click to expand...

Origen emphasizes free will: restoration comes through education, purification, and voluntary turning back to God over potentially many ages, not coercion. He sometimes distanced himself from crude claims that "the devil will be saved" by noting that when restored, the being would no longer be "Satan" (adversary).

Gregory of Nyssa​

Gregory of Nyssa, a Cappadocian Father and saint in the Eastern Church, developed similar ideas, often seen as more refined. In The Great Catechism (also called Catechetical Oration), chapter 26:

"For it is now as with those who for their cure are subjected to the knife and the cautery; they are angry with the doctors, and wince with the pain of the incision; but if recovery of health be the result of this treatment, and the pain of the cautery passes away, they will feel grateful to those who have wrought this cure upon them. In like manner, when, after long periods of time, the evil of our nature, which now is mixed up with it and has grown with its growth, has been expelled, and when there has been a restoration of those who are now lying in sin to their primal state, a harmony of thanksgiving will arise from all creation, as well from those who in the process of the purgation have suffered chastisement, as from those who needed not any purgation at all. ... freeing both man from evil, and healing even the introducer of evil himself."

Click to expand...

He also argues that evil is a privation (non-being) that cannot endure eternally, so all creation—including the one who introduced evil—will ultimately be purified and restored.
Another relevant passage from Gregory:

"When, over a long period of time, [evil] has been removed and those now lying in sin have been restored to their original state, all creation will join in united thanksgiving, both those whose purification involved punishment and those who never needed purification at all."

Click to expand...

Other Notes​

• Jerome (in some writings) and others noted that "many" or "most" in their time held similar hopes, including for the devil.
• These views were speculative and tied to philosophical reasoning (e.g., evil as finite, God's infinite goodness). They were not the majority view long-term, and explicit inclusion of the devil was particularly contested.
• Modern scholarship (e.g., Ilaria Ramelli) affirms that apokatastasis was central to Origen and influenced Gregory.

These quotes reflect hope in God's ultimate victory over all evil through restorative justice rather than endless retribution. For full context, reading the primary sources (On First Principles and The Great Catechism) is recommended.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

Obviously what you present above did not stick in either eastern orthodox or roman Catholicism. In the latter adherents of the sect are allowed the heterodox position that every person stands a shot at purgatory, but that's not commonly held.

And none of the early churches promoted Satanic salvation, which is what you're presenting. That's a more recently fabricated heresy.

Click to expand...

The Bible makes the reality of Heaven and hell clear. We are all going to one or another. Purgatory is simply the purification spoken of in the Bible, nothing unclean can enter Heaven. We all should be striving for Heaven, not purgatory.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

Obviously what you present above did not stick in either eastern orthodox or roman Catholicism. In the latter adherents of the sect are allowed the heterodox position that every person stands a shot at purgatory, but that's not commonly held.

And none of the early churches promoted Satanic salvation, which is what you're presenting. That's a more recently fabricated heresy.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your feedback. Your response contains several demonstrable misunderstandings. The claim that this is a heresy invented only recently is simply historically incorrect.

The renowned church historian Adolf von Harnack noted that in the 3rd and 4th centuries, in the Greek-speaking East of the Church, the doctrine of universal reconciliation was the prevailing theology.

Of the six major theological schools of antiquity, four taught universal reconciliation (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa/Nisibis), while only one (North Africa) emphasized eternal damnation. Leading Church Fathers who are still highly regarded today (Clement, Origen, Gregory, Diodorus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia) openly advocated this view.

If this doctrine were a recent invention, Emperor Justinian would not have had to have it explicitly condemned at a synod in 543 CE, that is, more than half a millennium after Christ. One does not ban doctrines that do not exist or that are meaningless.

The term Satanic salvation is a polemical distortion of what Origen actually taught. He never taught that evil or the monster HaSatan would be saved. His theological premise was metaphysical: namely, that evil has no substance of its own, but is merely the absence of good (just as darkness is the absence of light).

If G-d is to be all in all in the end, the principle of evil must disappear completely. What, according to Origen, will be restored is not the devil in his rebellion, but the original spirit created by G-d (the former bringer of light), after the evil will has been completely burned out and destroyed by divine judgment. This is based on the logical consequence that G-d’s love and creative power are ultimately more powerful than the rebellion of a creature.

It is true that universal reconciliation did not establish itself as a dogmatic certainty in the major Western churches as a result of the Reformation and Augustine. But to dismiss it as mere sectarianism is to misunderstand the theological reality. In the Roman Catholic Church, prominent 20th-century theologians such as Hans Urs von Balthasar taught the legitimate hope for universal reconciliation.

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, universal reconciliation remains a vital and legitimate theological position to this day. Leading contemporary Orthodox theologians, such as the renowned Metropolitan Kallistos Ware or the philosopher David Bentley Hart, present highly well-founded arguments in favor of apocatastasis.

Benaiah468 said:

Thank you for your feedback. Your response contains several demonstrable misunderstandings. The claim that this is a heresy invented only recently is simply historically incorrect.

Click to expand...

I have no issues with UR for humanity and including even creatures.

In light of specific scriptural statements to the contrary the devil and his messengers are not in that same class unless we want to say the LoF is an anti heaven for antiChrist spirits.

Benaiah468 said:

The renowned church historian Adolf von Harnack noted that in the 3rd and 4th centuries, in the Greek-speaking East of the Church, the doctrine of universal reconciliation was the prevailing theology.

Click to expand...

I doubt very much he proved Sataic salvation.

Benaiah468 said:

Of the six major theological schools of antiquity, four taught universal reconciliation (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa/Nisibis), while only one (North Africa) emphasized eternal damnation. Leading Church Fathers who are still highly regarded today (Clement, Origen, Gregory, Diodorus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia) openly advocated this view.

Click to expand...

See previous. One of the early church complaints on Origen was that some vociferous adherents of him were promoting Satanic salvation, which Origen didn't teach.

Benaiah468 said:

If this doctrine were a recent invention, Emperor Justinian would not have had to have it explicitly condemned at a synod in 543 CE, that is, more than half a millennium after Christ. One does not ban doctrines that do not exist or that are meaningless.

Click to expand...

See above

Benaiah468 said:

The term Satanic salvation is a polemical distortion of what Origen actually taught. He never taught that evil or the monster HaSatan would be saved.

Click to expand...

Correct

Benaiah468 said:

His theological premise was metaphysical: namely, that evil has no substance of its own, but is merely the absence of good (just as darkness is the absence of light).

Click to expand...

And scripture defines evil as a power. God created all powers. The notions that evil is just a lack of good id incorrect. Jesus said evil comes from within. It can not he wished away by thinking and doing only good.

Evil rises up in people to resist the Word. Particularly to keep light off itself.

Benaiah468 said:

If G-d is to be all in all in the end, the principle of evil must disappear completely.

Click to expand...

Agree.

Benaiah468 said:

What, according to Origen, will be restored is not the devil in his rebellion, but the original spirit created by G-d (the former bringer of light), after the evil will has been completely burned out and destroyed by divine judgment.

Click to expand...

Another fallacy. Satan was never stated to be holy. The notion that Satan was ever holy is a fantasy. Jesus said he was a liar and a murderer from the beginning.

Benaiah468 said:

This is based on the logical consequence that G-d’s love and creative power are ultimately more powerful than the rebellion of a creature.

Click to expand...

It's just as likely Satan's switch will simply be turned off.

Benaiah468 said:

It is true that universal reconciliation did not establish itself as a dogmatic certainty in the major Western churches as a result of the Reformation and Augustine.

Click to expand...

True but fortunately still allowed (but never presented) in Roman catholicism.

Benaiah468 said:

But to dismiss it as mere sectarianism is to misunderstand the theological reality. In the Roman Catholic Church, prominent 20th-century theologians such as Hans Urs von Balthasar taught the legitimate hope for universal reconciliation.

Click to expand...

Again not for Satan and his messengers. No matter how you try to soft soap Satanic salvation it doesn't cut scriptural legitimacy and won't. It actually distracts from the legitimate presentations.

Benaiah468 said:

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, universal reconciliation remains a vital and legitimate theological position to this day.

Click to expand...

Uh, no it does not. They present everyone is raised and the majority are tortured by the presence of God and they do not promote Satanic salvation by any stretch of imagination.

Benaiah468 said:

Leading contemporary Orthodox theologians, such as the renowned Metropolitan Kallistos Ware or the philosopher David Bentley Hart, present highly well-founded arguments in favor of apocatastasis.

Click to expand...

There's always one or two, but heterodox, not orthodox

I love the concept of universal salvation.
The application however, that's another problem altogether.

I cant weigh in on the subject, other than to say that God is perfectly just and perfectly merciful. If hell is eternal, it is because a just God willed it to be so. If not, then a merciful God willed that to be so instead.

I defer to my Creator.

In the meantime, what are we doing to prepare an entrance into Heaven for those whom God has chosen to dwell there?

BelieveItOarKnot said:

I have no issues with UR for humanity and including even creatures.

In light of specific scriptural statements to the contrary the devil and his messengers are not in that same class unless we want to say the LoF is an anti heaven for antiChrist spirits.

I doubt very much he proved Sataic salvation.

See previous. One of the early church complaints on Origen was that some vociferous adherents of him were promoting Satanic salvation, which Origen didn't teach.

See above

Correct

And scripture defines evil as a power. God created all powers. The notions that evil is just a lack of good id incorrect. Jesus said evil comes from within. It can not he wished away by thinking and doing only good.

Evil rises up in people to resist the Word. Particularly to keep light off itself.

Agree.

Another fallacy. Satan was never stated to be holy. The notion that Satan was ever holy is a fantasy. Jesus said he was a liar and a murderer from the beginning.

It's just as likely Satan's switch will simply be turned off.

True but fortunately still allowed (but never presented) in Roman catholicism.

Again not for Satan and his messengers. No matter how you try to soft soap Satanic salvation it doesn't cut scriptural legitimacy and won't. It actually distracts from the legitimate presentations.

Uh, no it does not. They present everyone is raised and the majority are tortured by the presence of God and they do not promote Satanic salvation by any stretch of imagination.

There's always one or two, but heterodox, not orthodox

Click to expand...

Thank you very much for your detailed response to my arguments. It seems we have made significant progress, as you now rightly acknowledge that the universal reconciliation of humanity is a historically attested, legitimate position of the Church fathers and not a newly invented heresy.

Your objections regarding the nature of evil, Satan, and Orthodox theology, however, are based on several critical theological and historical misunderstandings that require clarification.

You oppose the notion that evil is the absence of good and claim that Scripture defines evil as a power created by G-d. If evil is an independent substance or a power created by G-d out of nothing, then G-d is the ultimate originator of ontological evil. The classical Christian tradition, from Augustine through Thomas Aquinas to the Greek Church Fathers, has strictly rejected this. This view was rejected to avoid dualism. Evil is a distortion of the fundamentally good will, not a separate creation. Jesus' statement that evil comes from within (Mk 7:21-23) refers to the human heart (will), not to a substance created by G-d.

You cite Jesus, who called Satan a murderer from the beginning (Jhn 8:44), to argue that he was never holy. If Satan was created evil from the very first moment of his existence, then G-d intentionally created a monstrous, evil being. This undermines His absolute goodness. In the theology of the Church Fathers (including Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and even Augustine), from the beginning is understood to mean the beginning of human history (Adam’s fall) or Satan’s rebellion, not the beginning of his creation. G-d creates only what was very good (Gen 1:31). Therefore, Satan’s spiritual nature was originally good before his will succumbed to pride.

You suggest that Satan's switch will simply be turned off. Although this is a widely accepted view, it contradicts your initial insistence on traditional dogma. More importantly, it fails the cosmic test of Corinthians

For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that G-d may be all in all. 1 Cor 15:25-28

If G-d simply annihilates His rebellious creatures because He can neither heal nor subdue their will, then rebellion has achieved a final victory by forcing G-d to destroy His own creation. Annihilation is an admission of defeat, not a triumph in which G-d becomes all in all.

Your description of the majority being tormented by G-d’s presence essentially supports my thesis, even though you misunderstand its mechanisms. In the Eastern Church, "hell" is not a geographical place where G-d is absent or where Satan torments people. Hell is the experience of an unhealed soul in the face of the overwhelming, uncreated light of G-d’s love. As Isaac the Syrian once wrote, people in hell are tormented by the scourge of love

I also maintain that those who are punished in Gehenna are scourged by the scourge of love. I mean that those who have become conscious that they have sinned against love suffer greater torment from this than from any fear of punishment. For the sorrow caused in the heart by sin against love is more poignant than any torment. It would be improper for a man to think that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of the love of G-d. Love is the offspring of knowledge of the truth which, as is commonly confessed, is given to all. The power of love works in two ways. It torments sinners, even as happens here when a friend suffers from a friend. But it becomes a source of joy for those who have observed its duties. Thus I say that this is the torment of Gehenna: bitter regret. But love inebriates the souls of the sons of Heaven by its delectability.
S.: Orthodox Church Quotes

Click to expand...

Since hell is G-d’s love as experienced as pain by the proud, it possesses an inherent therapeutic power. This is precisely why David Bentley Hart and Gregory of Nyssa argue that this torrent of fire will ultimately purify all wills and lead to universal restoration.

No one is trying to appease Satan. The ultimate focus of universal reconciliation is not the restoration of the devil, but G-d’s absolute sovereignty and complete victory. If even a single square centimeter of creation or a single created spirit remains eternally rebellious or is ultimately destroyed, then His original purpose in creation has been thwarted.

Universalism is the radical belief that G-d’s love is simply too powerful to lose.

RedLetterJoe said:

I love the concept of universal salvation.
The application however, that's another problem altogether.

I cant weigh in on the subject, other than to say that God is perfectly just and perfectly merciful. If hell is eternal, it is because a just God willed it to be so. If not, then a merciful God willed that to be so instead.

I defer to my Creator.

In the meantime, what are we doing to prepare an entrance into Heaven for those whom God has chosen to dwell there?

Click to expand...

Ultimately, the debate boils down to this:

If hell is eternal, it is because a retributive judge willed it so. If it is temporary and restorative, it is because a merciful Father willed it so.

For the doctrine of universal salvation, G-d’s justice is not the opposite of His love. His justice is the way His love operates when it encounters sin. It does not destroy the creature; it destroys the sin within the creature to set it free.

RedLetterJoe said:

I love the concept of universal salvation.
The application however, that's another problem altogether.

I cant weigh in on the subject, other than to say that God is perfectly just and perfectly merciful. If hell is eternal, it is because a just God willed it to be so. If not, then a merciful God willed that to be so instead.

I defer to my Creator.

In the meantime, what are we doing to prepare an entrance into Heaven for those whom God has chosen to dwell there?

Click to expand...

I like your question. It is one thing to dispassionately discuss the theology and quite another to apply it. I hope we are all showing some measure of gratitude.

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. Mt 25:46
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Hebr 9:27

These are verses that defy my logic. There’s no mention here of an educational or restorative process, but rather of a final separation.

Do they really defy my logic?

No.

Rather, it shows that the biblical pattern of judgment and salvation is far greater and more paradoxical than purely human, linear logic is willing to admit, as we will see.

In the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, the rich man represents Judah (the Southern Kingdom) and Lazarus represents Ephraim-Israel (the Northern Kingdom, or the tribes scattered among the Gentiles).

But why was the Northern Kingdom scattered among the Gentiles?

It was accused of breaking its faith with G-d and turning instead to foreign gods.

Through the prophet Hosea, G-d pronounced a final letter of divorce on Ephraim. He called her Loruhamah (no mercy) and Loammi (not my people).

Legally and spiritually, this divorce was absolute. There was no longer any reconciliation process that could have saved this marriage. Ephraim was dead, scattered among the nations, legally separated from G-d forever. Matthew describes precisely this relentless, final dimension of judgment.

What happens next does not occur despite the final judgment, but rather through its execution.

G-d does not break His own law. He does not simply rescind the judgment of final divorce to turn a blind eye. The judgment is carried out with full force. The bridegroom dies the death of judgment. Jesus enters precisely into this absolute, final separation. On the cross, He suffers eternal punishment, the state of being forsaken by G-d. Only when the judgment is carried out and Ephraim (and with her, all humanity) dies in the death of Jesus, is the way opened for something entirely new. A dead person cannot be revived, but G-d can raise a dead person. This is not a continuation of the old life, but a new creation.

Judgment is the final word of the law, but Christ is the final word of G-d. He does not take the bride back before the judgment, but He takes her out of the judgment by having gone through it Himself. Paul describes this mystery in the Epistle to the Romans, where he speaks of Israel’s temporary hardening and the eventual salvation of all Israel. He uses the fate of Israel as the ultimate blueprint for how G-d’s relentless judgment and His incomprehensible grace work together.

Paul quotes from the Torah

(According as it is written, G-d hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day. Rom 11:8

The unfaithful branches (unrepentant Israel) were radically cut off because of their unbelief. That is the real, harsh judgment

And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Rom 11:17

Paul asks

Have they stumbled that they should fall? G-d forbid: Rom 11:11a

Through Israel’s fall, salvation came to the nations (the co-heirs). The judgment on one group became salvation for the other. G-d does not cast off the broken branches permanently, but He saves the nations to provoke them to jealousy; ;so that they may ultimately repent.

Paul makes it unmistakably clear that G-d never breaks His covenant with the unrepentant bride, even if she rejects Him.

G-d does not change His mind; His love remains steadfast. The impossible becomes reality: If the wild branches (the nations) could be grafted into the tree against nature, how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

They were dead and broken off, but G-d grafts them back in. So Paul concludes with the prophecy And so all Israel shall be saved. He sums up the entire mystery of sin, judgment, and universal reconciliation in a single sentence

For G-d hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. Rom 11:32

G-d allows people to fall into sin and spiritual death (as a direct consequence). Not eternal damnation, but the foundation for absolute, unconditional mercy. Judgment prepares the ground so that grace may ultimately be all in all. No wonder that Paul bursts into a hymn of praise after these words

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of G-d! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! Rom 11:33

Using the pattern of Israel, we can apply this line of reasoning to all of humanity, since the nations are included as co-heirs. In his letters to the Ephesians and Colossians, Paul elevates the principle we have seen in the case of Israel to a cosmic level. Here it is no longer just about Israel and the nations, but about the entire universe, everything that exists, so to speak. In them, he describes the grand finale of G-d’s plan of salvation with great clarity

For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. Col 1:19-20

Paul is not referring here to just a few people or only to believers. He uses the Greek word for the universe, the whole, everything that has been created. It spans the earth (humanity) and heaven (the spiritual world).

Here, too, the foundation is not the ignoring of sin, but the blood of His cross.

The legal exchange on the cross (Jesus’ perfect righteousness in the face of human sin and lostness) and the healing have universal scope. Humanity is entirely incapable of saving itself, whether in this life or the next; it relies solely on the sovereign drawing of the Holy Spirit. When, in the end, all things are reconciled, there is, logically speaking, no room for eternal, unreconciled enmity or eternal spiritual death.

In the Epistle to the Ephesians, Paul speaks of a mystery that G-d has planned from eternity. He describes G-d’s ultimate plan for the end times

That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: Eph 1:10

Sin and spiritual death shattered creation into fragments. The Bride ran away, humanity rebelled, and chaos reigned. But G-d’s ultimate goal is to harmoniously restore every single fragment, everything in heaven and on earth, back into Christ.

An eternal place of torment or eternal separation from sinners would mean that this reunification remains incomplete. There would be a part of creation that would remain forever outside of Christ. Yet Paul says:

all things were created by him, and for him: Col 1:16b

Paul goes on to show how this reconciliation works practically on a small scale, between nations, and on a large scale, between humanity and G-d

For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; Eph 2:14-15

If we apply this principle to the final judgment, we see exactly what is said about the unrepentant bride. Through sin and rejection, humanity builds a wall and declares itself an enemy of G-d. But Christ breaks down this barrier, not by forcing humanity, but by enduring the hostility in his own flesh on the cross, dying, and rising again (cf. Eph 2:14-15; Col 1:20). He kills the hostility in order to win back the enemy as a friend (cf. Eph 2:16; Col 1:21-22).

Separation, wrath, and the consequences of sin are carried out. The cross is the place of exchange: Jesus suffers these consequences on behalf of the unrepentant creation. The resurrection is the new creation: In the end, life triumphs. G-d brings everything together again in Christ and reconciles all things to Himself. His love proves itself precisely in this as the final trump card: It allows judgment to take place, but it uses judgment to eradicate sin once and for all, so that in the end only the light of Ein Sof (the Infinite, beyond which nothing can exist) remains, in which G-d is all in all.

It is entirely understandable that the idea of an endless darkness deeply challenges the image of G-d’s absolute sovereignty and the Jewish concept of Ein Sof. If G-d becomes all in all, there can consequently be no outside anymore.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

I have no issues with UR for humanity and including even creatures.

In light of specific scriptural statements to the contrary the devil and his messengers are not in that same class unless we want to say the LoF is an anti heaven for antiChrist spirits.

I doubt very much he proved Sataic salvation.

See previous. One of the early church complaints on Origen was that some vociferous adherents of him were promoting Satanic salvation, which Origen didn't teach.

See above

Correct

And scripture defines evil as a power. God created all powers. The notions that evil is just a lack of good id incorrect. Jesus said evil comes from within. It can not he wished away by thinking and doing only good.

Evil rises up in people to resist the Word. Particularly to keep light off itself.

Agree.

Another fallacy. Satan was never stated to be holy. The notion that Satan was ever holy is a fantasy. Jesus said he was a liar and a murderer from the beginning.

It's just as likely Satan's switch will simply be turned off.

True but fortunately still allowed (but never presented) in Roman catholicism.

Again not for Satan and his messengers. No matter how you try to soft soap Satanic salvation it doesn't cut scriptural legitimacy and won't. It actually distracts from the legitimate presentations.

Uh, no it does not. They present everyone is raised and the majority are tortured by the presence of God and they do not promote Satanic salvation by any stretch of imagination.

There's always one or two, but heterodox, not orthodox

Click to expand...

Origen - On First Principles - " even the devil and fallen angels, after severe but temporary punishment, could be restored to their original rank as the last enemies are destroyed-n not by annihilation of their substance, but by the end of their hostile will."

Jeff Saunders said:

Origen - On First Principles - " even the devil and fallen angels, after severe but temporary punishment, could be restored to their original rank as the last enemies are destroyed-n not by annihilation of their substance, but by the end of their hostile will."

Click to expand...

There has been immense theological speculation regarding the devil and fallen angels in regard to "their original rank". This leads to the eternal debate regarding the origin of evil.

Jeff Saunders said:

Origen - On First Principles - " even the devil and fallen angels, after severe but temporary punishment, could be restored to their original rank as the last enemies are destroyed-n not by annihilation of their substance, but by the end of their hostile will."

Click to expand...

Yes I think we've already defined you present people and devils temporarily being tortured into submission

BelieveItOarKnot said:

Yes I think we've already defined you present people and devils temporarily being tortured into submission

Click to expand...

I was just showing that the statement that Origen did not teach reconciliation of the devil is just plain false, I do not understand why you keep saying things like that, the writings of Origen and Gregory of Nyssa and others others do not agree with your statement.

Valletta said:

The Bible makes the reality of Heaven and hell clear. We are all going to one or another. Purgatory is simply the purification spoken of in the Bible, nothing unclean can enter Heaven. We all should be striving for Heaven, not purgatory.

Click to expand...

I have no issues with permanent hell aka the lake of fire for the devil and his messengers.

However there is not one single named person shown in the Bible to be in hell now or in the future nor is there a single named person even threatened with such a fate.

We can be generous to everyone using John's simple standard: Everyone who loves knows God and is born of God. 1 John 4:7. Barriers are not required. We can actually love ALL our neighbors and NOT condemn them to hell.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

I have no issues with permanent hell aka the lake of fire for the devil and his messengers.

However there is not one single named person shown in the Bible to be in hell now or in the future nor is there a single named person even threatened with such a fate.

We can be generous to everyone using John's simple standard: Everyone who loves knows God and is born of God. 1 John 4:7. Barriers are not required. We can actually love ALL our neighbors and NOT condemn them to hell.

Click to expand...

What is referred to below as the lake of fire is what we call hell today. The meaning of words change.

Matthew 13: 41-43 The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear. RSVCE

Rev 14:9 And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If any one worships the beast and its image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he also shall drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured unmixed into the cup of his anger, and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.” RSVCE

Jeff Saunders said:

Origen - On First Principles - " even the devil and fallen angels, after severe but temporary punishment, could be restored to their original rank as the last enemies are destroyed-n not by annihilation of their substance, but by the end of their hostile will."

Click to expand...

It is a mistake to assume that just because these evil creatures COULD be restored to the original rank, that they WILL be so restored. Universal salvation is something we hope for, but we may not assume it as a fact. Satan could have refrained from rebelling in the first place, but he didn't. Judas could have had a change of heart and refrained from betraying Jesus, but he didn't. These are all choices made for evil. It is possible, even likely, that the Satan is still too proud to ask for forgiveness and probably always will be too proud for that. These are all examples of instances where something that could have been, was not. The same could be said of universal salvation. So don't take Origen's statement as proof that all will be saved.

LeafByNiggle said:

It is a mistake to assume that just because these evil creatures COULD be restored to the original rank, that they WILL be so restored. Universal salvation is something we hope for, but we may not assume it as a fact. Satan could have refrained from rebelling in the first place, but he didn't. Judas could have had a change of heart and refrained from betraying Jesus, but he didn't. These are all choices made for evil. It is possible, even likely, that the Satan is still too proud to ask for forgiveness and probably always will be too proud for that. These are all examples of instances where something that could have been, was not. The same could be said of universal salvation. So don't take Origen's statement as proof that all will be saved.

Click to expand...

The ways of God are definitely past finding out, at least by me. There is an enormous number of possible scenarios in which an omnipotent God could act, but has not done so. Could God bring Satan to repentance and faith? Is repentance and faith (in who or what?) possible or even required for demonic beings?

Benaiah468 said:

Thank you very much for your detailed response to my arguments. It seems we have made significant progress, as you now rightly acknowledge that the universal reconciliation of humanity is a historically attested, legitimate position of the Church fathers and not a newly invented heresy.

Click to expand...

I've been aware of that for a number of decades now and hold the position myself, with other certain parameters.

Benaiah468 said:

Your objections regarding the nature of evil, Satan, and Orthodox theology, however, are based on several critical theological and historical misunderstandings that require clarification.

Click to expand...

You only have to tweak those details to save Satan.

I'm sure you are aware that there are many specific scriptures that are the opposite of your intents that technically can not be overcome. That entire Satanic salvation scheme is where some URists took a bad turn is all. And it sends them down heresy lane and ruins their witnessing, at least to other believers. Satanic salvation and God being the LoF are a couple of those off positions. But URists in general seems to have been a gathering ground for a lot of various heresy rogue ideas, antinomianism, denial of O.T. scriptures, evil flesh, etc etc. from what I've experienced over the years hanging out with them.

And that's kind of what happens whenever there is a move of God in the people. Saw it in charismania as well. It's a direct result of the reality of Mark 4:15 in the people.

Benaiah468 said:

You oppose the notion that evil is the absence of good and claim that Scripture defines evil as a power created by G-d.

Click to expand...

Scripture does state evil is a power. Hab. 2:9.

Evil also comes from within people, Mark 7:12-23.

Evil does not disappear with the presence of good either, so the position is basically nonsense. Similar to saying Satan only exists because of a lack of people.

Benaiah468 said:

If evil is an independent substance or a power created by G-d out of nothing, then G-d is the ultimate originator of ontological evil.

Click to expand...

And that is exactly the case, with not only evil, but whatever exists in His creation. Things don't create themselves.

Now, keep in mind just because God can creat a turd doesn't make God a turd so please don't associate God with what He creates. God can create and use anything and still be far greater than anything in His creation or even the sum of it all. Too many people can not conceive of God as "greater than" what He creates. It's a simple mistake.

Benaiah468 said:

The classical Christian tradition, from Augustine through Thomas Aquinas to the Greek Church Fathers, has strictly rejected this.

Click to expand...

And they were simply shortsighted. They merely provided excuses and isolation for their conceived God because of the existence of evil, and thinking they can rah rah cheerlead people past the fact of evil's existence if they simply behave and do good, which has been well disproved by history at this point.

Benaiah468 said:

This view was rejected to avoid dualism.

Click to expand...

Dualism is simply a mistake, thinking God is the same as His creation. Dualism is actually a form of pantheism, where God is in everything in creation and they falsely think then that God is evil because He created evil.

They just simply couldn't understand that God can create things like evil and death and MAKE THEM SERVE His Purposes because He Is Greater. Which is the entire point of the exercise.

Benaiah468 said:

Evil is a distortion of the fundamentally good will, not a separate creation.

Click to expand...

Evil is a real thing. It's a power. It abides within people. And GOD Himself bound us to it in our flesh via the "spirit of disobedience" which is Satan and his messengers. They are the antiChrist spirits, the spirit of disobedience.

And every person engages these things within, and from that we have a superabundance of evil reflected into our societies.

Benaiah468 said:

Jesus' statement that evil comes from within (Mk 7:21-23) refers to the human heart (will), not to a substance created by G-d.

Click to expand...

Patent baloney. People are not the same as the evil we are bound with.

All have sin. Romans 3:9. And sin is "of the devil," 1 John 3:8, Mark 4:15 and many many other citings.

How many N.T. citings do you need to recall that Satan and devils work through people. Did you forget to read the obvious?

Benaiah468 said:

You cite Jesus, who called Satan a murderer from the beginning (Jhn 8:44), to argue that he was never holy.

Click to expand...

I cited that there is not a single scripture anywhere stating Satan was holy and cited Jesus to the same extent.

Benaiah468 said:

If Satan was created evil from the very first moment of his existence, then G-d intentionally created a monstrous, evil being.

Click to expand...

Yes indeed He did. AND he cut that monster in pieces and fed it to the masses: Psalm 74:14

Benaiah468 said:

This undermines His absolute goodness.

Click to expand...

Only because you can't conceive of the fact that God is in for no uncertain fact able to make GOOD come about from EVIL. I call it shortsightedness on your part.

There are other matters happening within the creation and allowance of evil in this wicked age as well. But unless a person comes to grips with the fact of it and stops making excuses and isolations for their god/God they can't understand it anyway. Your version of God is weak and ineffective is all. And is in need of excuses and isolation from His Own creation and can't seem to do a single thing about it. He just has to turn his little hoary head the other way and go "oh my, isn't that horrible."

In case you missed it God Himself has no issues whatsoever with mass genocide, killing an entire world except for 8 people. God also directed the murder of children and sent adultery into the house of David as retributive evil.

God still works retributive evil to this very day, rendering evil for evil and then some.

Benaiah468 said:

In the theology of the Church Fathers (including Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and even Augustine), from the beginning is understood to mean the beginning of human history (Adam’s fall) or Satan’s rebellion, not the beginning of his creation. G-d creates only what was very good (Gen 1:31). Therefore, Satan’s spiritual nature was originally good before his will succumbed to pride.

Click to expand...

No thing in creation is good in and of itself. Again this only comes about from people who have a god/God who needs isolation from the things He created. Things in creation are only Good IF God Himself is involved. And He Is.

Was the serpent in the garden good? Was the knowledge of evil in the garden good? Was the law that brought potential death to Adam and Eve good? NONE of these things were in and of themselves good.

Matthew 19:17

And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Benaiah468 said:

You suggest that Satan's switch will simply be turned off. Although this is a widely accepted view, it contradicts your initial insistence on traditional dogma. More importantly, it fails the cosmic test of Corinthians

For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that G-d may be all in all. 1 Cor 15:25-28

Click to expand...

The issue is you want to USE these kinds of scriptures to contradict the very specific exemptions to the above and that simply doesn't work.

I accept that God will be all in all, but there are very specific scriptural exemptions. God is not going to be "in Satan or devils." God is not going to be "in death." God is not going to be in "hell." God is not going to be in "pain, sorrow, tears." God is not going to be in a physical rock that eventually melts or decayed and turned to dust and blew into the wind. I could go on.

You can't take scriptures like that and just toss it over everything in denial of the other scriptures that show exemptions to the rule.

When we read that God will be all in all, that can just as easily mean only God Himself will be left at the end and there will be no other "things."

Benaiah468 said:

If G-d simply annihilates His rebellious creatures because He can neither heal nor subdue their will, then rebellion has achieved a final victory by forcing G-d to destroy His own creation. Annihilation is an admission of defeat, not a triumph in which G-d becomes all in all.

Click to expand...

Evil is nothing more than a temporary tool. IF a smelter uses heat and chemicals to refine metals does that mean the slag has to be redeemed? NO. It simply gets tossed aside.

Benaiah468 said:

Your description of the majority being tormented by G-d’s presence essentially supports my thesis, even though you misunderstand its mechanisms.

Click to expand...

I stated that is the belief of E.O. Not my belief.

Benaiah468 said:

In the Eastern Church, "hell" is not a geographical place where G-d is absent or where Satan torments people. Hell is the experience of an unhealed soul in the face of the overwhelming, uncreated light of G-d’s love. As Isaac the Syrian once wrote, people in hell are tormented by the scourge of love

Click to expand...

I have studied those who claim that God is the LoF or some such. As to the LoF, I'd say God is not that LoF. Jesus said the fire was prepared for the devil and his messengers. I'd think that God is always the same and didn't have to change or be prepared to accomodate the devils, as if it wasn't anticipated from before anything ever happened.

Benaiah468 said:

Since hell is G-d’s love

Click to expand...

Oh please spare me this kind of nonsensical equivocational twisting.

We know that death and hell are tossed into the LoF, never to be seen again so please don't try to tell me that God's love is HELL. Good grief. This is the kind of word twisting nonsense that URists try when trying to minimize the fact of eradication or torture.

I'm pretty sure everyong whom God killed felt some kind of pain/torture. And let's not forget the scores of animals.

Benaiah468 said:

as experienced as pain by the proud, it possesses an inherent therapeutic power. This is precisely why David Bentley Hart and Gregory of Nyssa argue that this torrent of fire will ultimately purify all wills and lead to universal restoration.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm pretty sure death and hell and pain and sorrow and tears are not going to be converted by fire. Nor is the spirit of disobedience going to be changed into the spirit of cooperation. It's just kind of reaching way past what's presented.

If you wanted to fast forward and say there is nothing but God at the end you'd probably be far more accurate., scripturally.

Benaiah468 said:

No one is trying to appease Satan.

Click to expand...

There really is no need whatsoever for what you are trying to do. IF Satan was supposed to be saved, there would be statements to that specific intention in the scriptures and there ISN'T. It's that simply.

Satan, devils, evil, sin, death, hell, pain, sorrow, tears and a lot of innanimate creation is simply going to take a permanent hiatus from creation, as if they never existed.

Benaiah468 said:

The ultimate focus of universal reconciliation is not the restoration of the devil,

Click to expand...

But that exactly where you're quite vainly trying to go.

Benaiah468 said:

but G-d’s absolute sovereignty and complete victory. If even a single square centimeter of creation or a single created spirit remains eternally rebellious or is ultimately destroyed, then His original purpose in creation has been thwarted.

Click to expand...

And you simply fail to see that God can use things for good and toss away the refuse. You for some quite stupid (sorry) reason want to save the refuse.

Benaiah468 said:

Universalism is the radical belief that G-d’s love is simply too powerful to lose.

Click to expand...

Lots of things are not going into eternity. Lots. Wood, hay and stubble will NOT be there. Not even in dust form.