For the guy on the beach i think he is great for doing that,but he went about it the wrong way imo.And to the Op im hopeful as well and i could be easily wrong and wont be ignorant like a lot of people who say they know for sure.
For the guy on the beach i think he is great for doing that,but he went about it the wrong way imo.And to the Op im hopeful as well and i could be easily wrong and wont be ignorant like a lot of people who say they know for sure.
ignorant ?..well, I’ve studied an enormous amount on UR so I’m not ignorant of anything but aside from that the more I know Jesus and experience His beautiful love the more I know that He does not torture people forever…that’s what I do know for sure…apart from all the overwhelming evidence supporting my belief.
But you haven’t yet convinced the overwhelming majority of Christians. If you have “overwhelming evidence”, why aren’t more buying into it (i.e. RC, EC and Protestant churches, or prominent theologians in academic positions)? I’m closer then most, by saying I’m a hopeful universalist (or Trump might be the best candidate - after I have a few shots of moonshine). But when the majority are on board, then I will agree with you - you have “overwhelming evidence”. And to reinteratre - I don’t buy into ECT, by any way, means or shape.
But neither do I believe in pointing a shotgun at someone and demanding they join me, in this wonderful moonshine. 
I leave it to their free choice. Or God making the aroma, look and feel so overwhelming - everyone wants a sip of the moonshine.
I hope this post illustrates the difference between metaphorical and literal views, of heaven and hell 
Micheal, the Jesuit Nuns taught us hopeful universalism in school when I was a kid. During Rosary recitals, when we got to entre les dizaines(dont know the Anglo for thatgap` in the beads) this was our prayer : * O mon Jésus, pardonnez-nous nos péchés, préservez-nous du feu de lènfer et conduisez au Ciel toutes les âmes, spécialement celles qui ont le plus besoin.*
A priest in Kevin Miller`s documentary “Hellbound?” translates it as “Lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of your mercy”
That’s a prayer for an empty Hell. Or a complete Heaven whichever way you look at it.
Michael, so glad you’re staying! I haven’t been on here as much as I would have liked, as it is such a wonderful community, and I hope to change this from now on, but look forward to hearing more of your thoughts from a Catholic perspective. I strongly believe all denominations have parts that every other denomination could learn from.
Also, I too have been struggling about the issue of universal reconciliation for ages, as we all have, and have decided to give it over to God and trust He will do the best thing. I hope it is the reconciliation of all, and I believe it will only be not if He actually has something even better to offer (if that were possible). I do not believe God will fail and I dearly long for the salvation of all, but would have to call myself a “hopeful universalist” as I am in no way certain, as much as I wish I could be… You are so welcome! 
I think that’s how I may have introduced myself, but I realized that I’m at least more in line with Timothy Keller, who (sort of) drops the ‘C’ out of ECT, or at least reduces it (see the update to my introduction thread).
I probably need to update that again, though, as I’m beginning to shift more toward Peter Hiett’s understanding of destruction and restoration. His sermon “Everybody Must Get Stoned” was very enlightening, especially when he points out that at the end of Isaiah, “all flesh” worships God, and “all flesh” goes out to see the dead bodies of all who rebelled against God being destroyed (which is interesting, because throughout Isaiah, it’s clear that everyone has rebelled against God).
If you were to listen to some of my most recent sermons, you’d hear a bit more “hopeful” theology than previously. I’ve been sprinkling my sermons with what Hiett calls the BVBBBBB’s (Bible Verses Banned By Bible Believing Believers). I don’t often give much expositions regarding these verses, but just let them speak for themselves.
That’s the Orthodox and Anglican position too, and it’s not really anti-universalist.
I’m not sure about Roman Catholicism, but in the Orthodox tradition universalism is considered an acceptible theological oppinion (I use to know the Greek term, but can’t remember it-- Bishop Timothy Ware wrote a neat little synopsis on Greek Orthodoxy you might be interested in, where he discusses this, but I forgot the name of that too.)
In Anglicanism, “the pious hope” referers to the same basic idea that hell may end up being purgatory for all it’s inhabitants–and judging from the words he put in the mouth of the spirit of George MacDonald toward the end of “The Great Divorce,” C.S. Lewis seems to have entertained the same hope.
But Lewis and Ware would both caution against teaching UR as dogma, and for the same reason George MacDonald did in C.S. Lewis’s book.
(George MacDonald, in C.S. Lewis’s “The Great Divorce.”)
I think Lewis, and perhaps Pope John Paul II, were too.
I suspect there are a lot of hopeful universalists here, and I don’t think your being one of them is any reason for you to leave (unless your priest or bishop advised you to.)
Pax Et Bonum.
I guess since I call myself Anglo-Orthodox, I have sided with the 'right" people. And if I also practice Zen and Mindfulness, I keep the Buddists happy. Are you looking for the term Apocatastasis? 
Sometimes, good things come to those who wait
No.
I was thinking of the term “theologoumenon.”
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theologoumenon
Universal salvation is considered an acceptible theologoumenon in the Orthodox tradition (and the Anglican, even if they don’t use that exact Greek term.)
But the term Apocatastasis (return) has a lot to do with why most Orthodox (and orthodox) theologians (like Lewis and Ware) have scruples about teaching UR as doctrine.
It’s generally believed that a form of the doctrine of Apocatastasis (associated with Origen) was condemned at the second council of Contantinople–but the exact details of what was taught and condemned is less clear.
A “monstrous” (and possibly cyclical) return (to a spherical primodial state), and heretical Trinitarian and Christological views are mentioned (and seem to be included in the form of Apocatastasis condemned by the council (and associated with Origen, who I believe is mentioned by name.)
It’s the oppinion of Bishop Timothy Ware (and most, if not all, Orthodox theologians) that what was actually condemned was any form of the teaching of Apocatastasis that denies freewill (kinda like what Lewis was saying when he put those words in the mouth of George MacDonald’s departed spirit, in his book.)
BTW: I think the little book I was thinking of, that was written by Bishop Ware, is simply called “The Orthodox Church,” and I think he discusses this in there (and I know he’s written on it.)
Thank you.
Michael, a couple of notes:
-
You are correct that the Eastern Orthodox Church insists upon human free will.
-
It is unfortunate that so many Orthodox believers are something other than universalists. The liturgy of the Church is so repeatedly, explicitly universalist that it depresses me that so many of my fellow believers ignore that obvious universalism. Even “hopeful universalism” doesn’t cut it. The liturgy is universalist in no uncertain terms. The teaching of the Orthodox Church, therefore, is that universalism is certainly true.
Someone might say, “Now Geoffrey. Universalism must not be that obvious in the liturgy, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many Orthodox who are not universalists.” Au contraire! We Orthodox are experts at ignoring the liturgy. (Alas.) In the 1800s in Orthodox Russia a poll was taken on the streets of Moscow. Remember that at that time Russia had been officially Orthodox for 900 years. The question presented was nearly the easiest question one could conceive:
“Who are the three Persons of the Trinity?”
The regular Sunday liturgy invokes “the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” 19 times. Thus an Orthodox believer who went to church on Sunday mornings would hear “the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” about 1,000 times per year. Add the countless trinitarian invocations in the Church’s other liturgies, and the number is astounding. Anyway, most Orthodox believers on the streets of Moscow in the 1800s could not correctly answer the question. In fact, the most common answer was:
“Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and St. Nicholas.” 
Since the majority of Orthodox believers can’t even name the three Persons of the holy Trinity, it’s small wonder that they ignore the clear universalistic teachings of the liturgy and instead root around in eschatological nonsense.
(This sort of thing makes one almost despair of the ability of language to convey information.)
As a Roman Catholic priest once said, “The world is full of stupid people who are going to live and die with their stupid beliefs. What are you going to do?”
Thank you Geoffrey.
I didn’t know you were Orthodox, and I think your “Gregory of Nyssa” (who was named a doctor of the Church, and never condemned by an Eccumenical council for any of his teachings or beliefs) was as explicitely Universalist as you can get in his “Great Chatechism,” but I think he would also emphasize freewill as much as Lewis and Ware.
BTW: One thing I forgot about the second council of Constantinople was that transmigration of souls was also mentioned in reference to Origen, and his teaching of Apocatastasis, and Gregory never taught that (and actually wrote against it, if I remember correctly.)
Maybe that’s one reason he was never condemned by an Eccumenical Council, and Origen was (and what exactly was condemned in Origen’s teaching is a little unclear, if I recall correctly–I think even whether the condemnation itself belongs in the cannons of the council has been called into question, but it’s been a long time since I’ve looked at this.)
But as far as freewill is concerned, even Origen warned that the teaching of Apocatastasis could be dangerous to those who might be prone to abuse it, and use the concept of all being saved in the end to excuse their transgressions, and put off their repentance.
Anne Bronte (a fellow Anglican as explicitely universalist in her writtings and sentiments as Origen, or Gregory of Nyssa) came to the same conclussion when pondering why there were passages of scripture that could be taken to imply eternal torment, and why God hadn’t made the whole subject plainer–her conclusion was that our fallen natures were too prone to justify sin and put off repentance.
I think that’s the real reason for the Orthodox (and orthodox) caution in teaching UR as doctrine (and I’m inclined to believe there’s some wisdom in it.)
I’ve seen endless arguments over freewill and predestination, but whatever the truth of either or both, the 27th chapter of Acts contains what some consider a perfect example of the interplay between them.
Paul had already been promised that there would be no loss of life, told that he must yet appear before Caesar, and that it had been granted that the lives of all aboard should be saved with him–yet they were all saved because of what Paul, the centurian, and the soldiers (and perhaps others) ultimately said and did, not inspite of it.
I believe that’s what Lewis was trying to say when he put those words in the mouth of George MacDonald, and what Anne Bronte, and Origen, and the Orthodox Church are saying.
Pax Et Bonum.
Just getting involved in the forum again…and for the original poster of this thread…I am a Roman Catholic too, and a “hopeful universalist”…I take seriously our call to pray for all souls…have you watched Robert Barron’s video on salvation? He seems to take the “hopeful” view as well…you can find it on youtube…I think our belief, as Roman Catholics, in purgatory is very powerful and beautiful…we know so many (both Christians and others) go to our death un-perfected, and purgatory cleanses us…I do think this is the case for the vast majority of souls…
Have you read Julian of Norwich?
Anyway, always nice for me to find another roman catholic on this board!
blessings! 
Z