I can certainly understand your concern; and Nimblewill’s comment is relevant, too: it may or may not apply to you personally, but I do know people to whom it would certainly apply.
While I can certainly understand and sympathize with this problem, I’ve never had this problem myself; because my universalism moved from being a kind of implicit hope into being an explicit belief, thanks to much more closely studying orthodox trinitarianism and its logical corollaries. At the same time, I always thought that salvation was supposed to be primarily from sin, and had always been bothered by a typical insistence that salvation was supposed to be from hell, or from the wrath of God, with salvation from sin being a kind of secondary result that we’d have to put up with (in a way) in order to get salvation from those other things. Eventually it struck me that this attitude was one of Israel’s perennial problems (except that instead of salvation from hell they were more interested in salvation from oppression by the nations–understandably so, given their cultural situation. But still, not the primary thing that they were supposed to be hoping for salvation from.)
At about the same time I was being led to concentrate more on the absolute requirement in the Gospels of loving and forgiving our enemies, with the repeated warnings that those who refuse to do this are going to end up as enemies of God themselves under the penalty they had demanded for those-enemies-over-there. (Sometimes the epistles had similar things to say, too, perhaps most notably St. Paul at the transition from chp1 to chp2 of Romans.) For someone with a kick-the-butts-of-evil mentality such as myself, that was a major criticism of my attitude; and it forced me to re-evaluate my implicit ‘well, but God should be trying to save good non-Christians, too!’ mentality. The scope was wider than I was tacitly restricting it to.
Anyway. There’s nothing wrong with re-assessing your beliefs and rationales on other topics, too, on occasion, and making corrections where you now see light to do so. An atheist could decide his current rationales for being an atheist are for crap, and then later discover better rationales for being an atheist; ditto for a Christian. The important thing is to walk according to what light you can see, looking for more light thereby: the truth of reality should be our goal, adjusting our theories and beliefs correspondingly to the objective truth insofar as we can see it.
If God Himself is the Truth (and the Way and the Life), then that loyalty to truth is faithfulness to God, regardless of whether the subjective person can see God per se at the moment or not. God knows and will judge accordingly. (Like with “Emeth” in C. S. Lewis’ final Narnia novel, The Last Battle. 
Or, as a more scriptural example, like with the penitent rebel murderer on the cross. He gives all of what little he can give to truth and charity at the end; Christ gives all that He can give, in recognition of those two cents of faith. 
)
)
They’re heavy on personal journeys of people, including in relation to God, in what I hope are complexly realistic fashions.)