I think you need to stop generalizing about what "universalists" believe. It's kind of like asking what Christians believe. From what I've seen there's been a wide variety of beliefs associated with Christianity throughout history, and the same is true for those you call "universalists" now. I just call myself a believer, and universal reconciliation just happens to be one of the things I believe because I think it is the truth of scripture.
"through Him to reconcile all to Him (making peace through the blood of His cross), through Him, whether those on the earth or those in the heavens" (Colossians 1:20)
I'm sorry if I offended you in any way, it was not my intent. I just have an inquiring mind and as I have already confessed, I don't know much about what universalism teaches.
I don't know how I missed this post, but I wasn't offended, bro. I don't know why you thought so. And I'm sorry if I caused you some confusion with the absolute vs. relative info in my previous post. I was just thinking about how some folks like to use the verse where Thomas calls Christ "God" as what they think is proof that he is. Scripture says Christ is the image of the invisible God. That is the visible expression of God just as he is also the spoken expression of God called the "word." If somebody that knows you sees a picture of you or hears a recording of you, they would say that is you, but it is actually just a visual or audible expression of you. I believe the same is true for Christ who always pointed toward the Father and prayed to the Father.
What I really believe is what scripture says, and that is that the invisible God was in Christ.
"God was in Christ" (2 Corinthians 5:19)
But, if somebody is dead set on the Trinity, then I'd have to say that I guess all believers must be in the Trinity because of what scripture says again.
"I have given them the glory which Thou has given Me, that they may be one, according as We are One" (John 17:22)
Here's a link I just came across that gives you some history of how the Trinity was conjured up due to political expediency which had nothing to do with the truth of scripture. http://www.ucg.org/booklet/god-trinity/surprising-origins-trinity-doctrine/
I'm not really familiar with any other doctrine of this organization. So I don't recommend them, but they seem to have some good info here similar to what I've read before. They just happened to be at the top of the links when I Googled "Trinity origin." There's plenty more info online similar to this. Every believer, including those who believe in universal reconciliation, has to decide which is more important, either scripture or church doctrine that was established by the Roman Empire. I think scripture is sufficient.
It's not my intention to poke the hornet's nest, but I just saw this post that caused me to think I should tell this brother that he didn't offend me. For future reference to all, I don't take things too seriously anymore even if somebody does try to offend me. I actually get amused when somebody does that because I think that person is most likely just puffed up because he is very impressed with himself, but I just think it's funny. We all have our own ideas about everything, and I'm not here to convert anybody, just to share what I think. I figure you can take it or leave it, but you don't need to get tense about it if you disagree because I figure your idea that I might disagree with is just your idea that you have a right to believe even if I think it's crazy. I think you should think I have the same right to believe what you might think is crazy. I'm always open to persuasion though if something different seems like it makes sense, but I'm kind of decided about church doctrine. So you would probably have to come up with something new I haven't heard before.
Anyway, I guess the bottom line here is not just about the Trinity, but don't generalize about folks who believe in universal reconciliation because we are just as diverse as the general public when it comes to opinions about anything, right?