u/Flaky-Finance3454

Hi all! I wanted to share this post that discuss how universalism or at least hopeful universalism may be defended if one accepts the view that there are no postmortem chances of conversion/repentance: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/08/the-hope-for-universal-redemption-and.html . I also shared in this post the long quote of St. Edith Stein that appears in chapter 7 of 'A short discourse on Hell' written by the Catholic theologian Hans urs Von Balthasar (the quote itself, however, seems to envision the possibility that there can be post-mortem chances of conversion but I do think that Edith Stein's arguments can be still relevant).

While this post is mostly about how can universalism or hopeful universalism 'fit' with Catholic theology, I do believe that it might be interesting also to non-Catholics. So, I'll share this in both this sub and in the Catholic universalist sub.

Hi all!

While this post isn't strictly speaking about universalism, I made a collection of quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that refer to 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9 and Matthew 18:14 that might be interesting for you: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/08/catholic-catechism-on-1-tim-24-2-pet-39.html . The Catechism seems to interpret these passages as stating explicitly that the salvific will of God is universal.

Hi all, I updated my posts that discuss the possible presence of universalist elements in the writings of the Latin Fathers and the reception of the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers.

The first post is about the Latin Fathers and I discuss the case of St. Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, St. John Cassian, St. Jerome of Stridon, Rufinus of Aquleia (with a brief mention of St. Melania the Elder) and St. Hilary of Poitiers. Interestingly enough, in the case of St. Ambrose, St. John Cassian and Ambrosiaster one can find passages that suggest both universalism and a belief in ECT: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/08/possible-traces-of-universalism-in.html .

The second post is about the reception of the writings of the Cappadocians in ancient, medieval and modern scholars: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/08/the-question-of-universalism-in.html . Interestingly enough, until modernity the only author that caused a lot of interpretative controversy about the topic of universalism was unsurprisingly St. Gregory of Nyssa.

Of course, I have no pretence of having made a comprehensive survey of the topic. But I think that these posts might be of your interest.

*Update (07/08): I have made a post about St. John Chrysostom: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/08/on-problem-of-john-chrysostom-position.html . Of course, in various passages Chrysostom is quite explicit that punishments are unending but some passages are definitely suggestive. *

Hi all! I think that people here might be interested in this site: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php

It collects a lot of English translations of Christian writings of the Patristic age that are open-source and found elsewhere in the web.

Hi all!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi all! I wanted to share a site that is quite interesting for open-source Patristic studies IMO made by apparently a Benedectine monk, Luke Dysinger.

Here for instance his work on Evagrius Ponticus: http://www.ldysinger.com/Evagrius/00a_start.htm

And this instead his webpage on Gregory of Nyssa: http://www.ldysinger.com/CH_583_Patr/09_capp/00f_st_gr-ny.htm (on Gregory he also has a section with quotes about Apokatastasis: http://www.ldysinger.com/CH_583_Patr/09_capp/00f_st_gr-ny.htm )

Hi all! I wanted to share these quotes of the three Cappadocian Fathers (Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa) and the 'baptism of fire'. Basil's quote is IMO interesting because he links the baptism of fire to the 'fire' mentioned in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. Gregory of Nyssa doesn't use the expression 'baptism of fire' in his quote but it seems implied. Regardless of their eschatological views (Gregory of Nyssa is generally accepted as an universalist. On Basil's view, however, there is much more debate...), it seems that they all agree that the 'baptism of fire' happens in the afterlife. Here are the quotes:

Basil of Caesarea

“Through the Holy Spirit comes our restoration to paradise, our ascension into the kingdom of heaven, our return to the adoption of sons, our liberty to call God our Father, our being made partakers of the grace of Christ, our being called children of light, our sharing in eternal glory, and, in a word, our being brought into a state of all fullness of blessing, both in this world and in the world to come, of all the good gifts that are in store for us, by promise hereof, through faith, beholding the reflection of their grace as though they were already present, we await the full enjoyment. If such is the earnest, what the perfection? If such the first fruits, what the complete fulfilment? Furthermore, from this too may be apprehended the difference between the grace that comes from the Spirit and the baptism by water: in that John indeed baptized with water, but our Lord Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost. “I indeed”, he says, “baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that comes after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire” (Matthew 3:11). Here He calls the trial at the judgment the baptism of fire, as the apostle says, “The fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is” (1 Corinthians 3:13). And again, “The day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire “(1 Corinthians 3:13). And ere now there have been some who in their championship of true religion have undergone the death for Christ's sake, not in mere similitude, but in actual fact, and so have needed none of the outward signs of water for their salvation, because they were baptized in their own blood. Thus I write not to disparage the baptism by water, but to overthrow the arguments of those who exalt themselves against the Spirit; who confound things that are distinct from one another, and compare those which admit of no comparison.” (Basil of Caesarea, De Sanctu Spiritu/On the Holy Spirit, chapter 35, paragraph 36; source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3203.htm )

Gregory of Nazianzus

“But these sins were not after Baptism, you will say. Where is your proof? Either prove it — or refrain from condemning; and if there be any doubt, let charity prevail. But Novatus, you say, would not receive those who lapsed in the persecution. What do you mean by this? If they were unrepentant he was right; I too would refuse to receive those who either would not stoop at all or not sufficiently, and who would refuse to make their amendment counterbalance their sin; and when I do receive them, I will assign them their proper place; but if he refused those who wore themselves away with weeping, I will not imitate him. And why should Novatus's want of charity be a rule for me? He never punished covetousness, which is a second idolatry; but he condemned fornication as though he himself were not flesh and body. What say you? Are we convincing you by these words? Come and stand here on our side, that is, on the side of humanity. Let us magnify the Lord together. Let none of you, even though he has much confidence in himself, dare to say, Touch me not for I am pure, and who is so pure as I? Give us too a share in your brightness. But perhaps we are not convincing you? Then we will weep for you. Let these men then if they will, follow our way, which is Christ's way; but if they will not, let them go their own. Perhaps in it they will be baptized with Fire, in that last Baptism which is more painful and longer, which devours wood like grass,and consumes the stubble of every evil.” (Gregory of Nazianzus Homily 39,19, source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310239.htm )

Gregory of Nyssa

“Observe, then, that it is necessary for us to rehearse beforehand in the water the grace of the resurrection, to the intent that we may understand that, as far as facility goes, it is the same thing for us to be baptized with water and to rise again from death. But as in matters that concern our life here, there are some which take precedence of others, as being those without which the result could not be achieved, although if the beginning be compared with the end, the beginning so contrasted will seem of no account (for what equality, for instance, is there between the man and that which is laid as a foundation for the constitution of his animal being? And yet if that had never been, neither would this be which we see), in like manner that which happens in the great resurrection, essentially vaster though it be, has its beginnings and its causes here; it is not, in fact, possible that that should take place, unless this had gone before; I mean, that without the laver of regeneration it is impossible for the man to be in the resurrection; but in saying this I do not regard the mere remoulding and refashioning of our composite body; for towards this it is absolutely necessary that human nature should advance, being constrained thereto by its own laws according to the dispensation of Him Who has so ordained, whether it have received the grace of the laver, or whether it remains without that initiation: but I am thinking of the restoration to a blessed and divine condition, separated from all shame and sorrow. For not everything that is granted in the resurrection a return to existence will return to the same kind of life. There is a wide interval between those who have been purified, and those who still need purification. For those in whose life-time here the purification by the laver has preceded, there is a restoration to a kindred state. Now, to the pure, freedom from passion is that kindred state, and that in this freedom from passion blessedness consists, admits of no dispute. But as for those whose weaknesses have become inveterate , and to whom no purgation of their defilement has been applied, no mystic water, no invocation of the Divine power, no amendment by repentance, it is absolutely necessary that they should come to be in something proper to their case — just as the furnace is the proper thing for gold alloyed with dross — in order that, the vice which has been mixed up in them being melted away after long succeeding ages, their nature may be restored pure again to God. Since, then, there is a cleansing virtue in fire and water, they who by the mystic water have washed away the defilement of their sin have no further need of the other form of purification, while they who have not been admitted to that form of purgation must needs be purified by fire.” (Gregory of Nyssa, Great Catechism, chapter 35; source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/29083.htm )

I made a post about 'intercessory universalism' and other views of post-mortem salvation via intercession in the case of some individuals: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/06/hope-and-hell-xii-intercessory-form.html . In this post, I'll discuss the cases of ancient texts like the 'Apocalypse of Peter', the 'Acts of Paul and Thecla' but also the cases of Timotheus II (fl. 14th century), patriarch of the Church of the East, Kristos Samra (an Ethiopian saint of the 15th century) and Silouan the Athonite.

All these texts seem to agree that (1) the punishments of the damned are fully deserved and (2) that at least in some cases, prayers for the dead can be fulfilled (something that even St. Thomas Aquinas seems to concede while discussing the case of a tale about St. Gregory the Great and Emperor Trajan).

Hi all!

I updated the posts about the Cappadocians (Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa and Macrina the Younger) and the Latin fathers (mainly Ambrose of Milan, Rufinus of Aquileia and John Cassian).

Here the post about the Cappadocians: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/05/the-question-of-universalism-in.html . The post is mostly about the reaction that their writings caused in some later interpreters.

Here, instead, the post about the Latins: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/05/possible-traces-of-universalism-in.html . In their case, the textual evidence seems ambiguous (except perhaps in the case of Rufinus)

Edit 31/05: I added this quote from Jerome's commentary on Micah 7:8-13, which suggests that at the time of its composition he interpreted passages like Matthew 5:26 and Luke 12:59 in an universalist way (note also the reference to the 'outer darkness'):

>Every correction for the present time does not seem to be of joy, but of sorrow, and afterwards it will yield the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. Therefore, feeling that the soul has sinned and has the wounds of sins, and lives in dead flesh, and needs cauterization, it steadfastly says to the physician: Burn my flesh, cut the wounds, constrict all the harmful humors and discharge with a harsh hellebore potion. It was my fault to be wounded; let it be my pain to endure so many torments, so that afterwards I may receive healing. And the true physician shows the cause of the medicine to the one who is already safe and secure,  and teaches that he has done rightly what he did. Finally, after torture and punishments, the soul is brought out from the outer darkness, and with the last coin restored, it says: I will see his justice, and I will speak: Your judgments are justified, O God. (Commentary on Micah 7:8-13, source: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Jerome%2FCommentary%2520on%2520Micah.html ; bolded mine)

Also, I forgot to say that I discuss the case of Augustine, Hilary of Poitiers and, of course, Jerome. While Jerome seems to have been an universalist early in his literary activity but later rejected universalism, I don't think that there is enough evidence that the early Augustine was an universalist as it is sometimes claimed. Nor was Hilary of Poitiers in my view (his exegesis of 1 Cor 15 seems quite explicitly in support of the belief in eternal damnation). I also mentioned in the post the case of St. Meliana the Elder who perhaps had sympathy for universalism (based on her biography and the fact that Jerome apparently criticized her for her 'Origenist' leanings) but given that there is no writing of hers that survives today, it is speculative. I also edited the introduction which was too confident of the presence of universalism in Ambrose and Cassian.

Hi all!

I updated the posts about the presence of universalism in Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Mar Isaac of Nineveh and the Church of the East (the Church in which Isaac belonged):

For Diodore and Theodore:  https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/05/ancient-and-medieval-witnesses-of.html 

For the Church of the East in general: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/05/on-presence-of-universalism1-in-church.html

Hi all! I was wondering about a claim that is made several times about aionios and aidios. I'm thinking about the claim that early universalists never (or very rarely) used the term aidios to describe eschatological punishments and instead they used it with considerable more frequence to describe life and blessedness.

While I don't think that this necessarily means that aidios and aionios weren't seen as synonyms among the early Christians, this perhaps suggests that the early universalists adopted a different usage of the two terms. So, perhaps this difference in frequency does suggest that aidios was used to convey more definitiveness than aionios.

However, in order for this evidence to be significant, we would expect that supporters of the view of unending torments actually used a lot more frequently aidios to describe eschatological punishments. If this is true, then, the argument about the frequency of use of the two adjectives would be more interesting, indeed.

At the same time, though, there are examples of early Greek christians that seem to use aionios as strictly 'unending'. For instance, in the mid-second century the Christian Justin Martyr wrote: "and we say that the same thing will be done, but at the hand of Christ, and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years." (First Apology, 8, source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm ; although, to be honest, in Plato's dialogues Phaedo, Gorgias and Republic you find references to incurable souls - the worst sinners - that never go out of Tartarus, so for some Plato seems to have envisaged unending torments... this like however argues that Justin was an annihilationist: https://rethinkinghell.com/es/2025/01/28/irenaeus-and-continuance-3-enduring-questions/ ). Later, John Chrysostom in his third homily on 2 Thessalonians: "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? " (source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/23053.htm )

IIRC, both used 'aionios' translated here as 'everlasting' and it seems that they understood it indeed as 'everlasting'. However, I'm wondering if it is true that aidios was also used by supporters of eternal damnation more frequently to describe punishments.

Hi all!

As I said other times here, I'm a theist agnostic about Christianity, with a sympathy for Christian universalism. I'm considering to become a Christian again but eschatology alongside other things in which I seem to have a view that goes against the 'orthodoxy' keep me outside of Christianity.

Regarding eschatology, I do accept that there was a significant prevalence of universalists in the first centuries, although I doubt that they were really the 'majority' as sometimes it is claimed. Also, I do accept that even later in the 'Church of the East' universalism was somewhat popular even in the Middle Ages (indeed, in the past I wrote some posts about this) but it was the classic 'exception that proves the rule', so to speak. So, I'm not saying that Christian universalism is a novel idea that modern people 'conjured up' from writings of some obscure heretical sects that were unfortunately rediscovered recently.

The problem is simply this: all evidence suggests that in most Christian traditions it seems that a 'consensus' of sorts was reached according to which the belief that all human beings shall be saved was simply off-limits. So, the bulk of the Christian traditions simply abandoned the idea and more often than not actively opposed it. The problem with saying that 'traditions' can be wrong for Christians is that, after all, even the Bible itself was the product of 'tradition' (in a broad sense): the very decision of, for instance, including some texts and not others in the Old and New Testaments was after all a decision that was made in the context of the 'tradition' (again, in a broad sense). Hence if, starting from at least from the sixth century universalism was seen as decisively wrong, it seems that 'tradition' in a broad sense was mostly wrong about a very important doctrine: the fate of human beings that are not saved and indeed that some or even many human beings will not be saved. It does not help that apparently most canonized saints (in both West and East) were supporters of ECT.

All of this despite the fact that, to be honest, I believe that the ethical teachings of Christianity actually favour the formation of a desire for the salvation of all human beings. I mean, if Christians are called to love oneself and others (including enemies), it seems that this love would motivate a desire for the salvation of both oneself and others (again, enemies included). Despite this, even a reticence to believe that some will be lost forever was seen with suspicion (and, to be honest, we see all of this even nowadays: many even look with suspicion hopeful universalism!). Rather, it seems that for most of Christian history Christians were taught and forced themselves to accept the idea that for some or even many human beings - including oneself and one's loved ones - the 'final condition' could be one in which for them it would be better to have never been born*.

This certainly wasn't an easy idea to accept and it seems that for most Christians this was an idea that one must accept.

So, all of this to ask: how can one trust, have enough faith in a religion if one also believes that in its history most of its adherents were simply wrong on such an important issue? Becoming part of a religion in some serious ways also implies to accept, for instance, to orient one's entire life in order to make such a religion the most important aspect of one's life (and indeed the first of the Two Great Commandments that are attributed to Jesus seems to say precisely this). It is not an easy thing to do in itself, let alone when you also have to either accept to believe that for some/many people the final state will be one without hope or that the bulk of the Christian tradition (in a broad sense) has been wrong. Given this, I can't help but think that past and present Christian universalists might have been missed and miss something that most Christians do not. Unfortunately, I can't shake this nagging doubt.

*In Mark 14:21 and Matthew 26:24 Jesus is quoted as saying precisely this about Judas Iscariot. I know that universalists have come up with different ways to interpret these verses than a literal "for Judas it was better to have never come into existence" but I believe that the most common interpretation of those words in Christian history was precisely this.

P.S. Thanks in advance for those who will respond. Also, sorry if I will reply late or even not reply. This is also because I want to ponder seriously and calmly about this and I am currently busy with other matters.