The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Gotquestions.org vs "ultimate reconciliation"

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#27

The members of the Flat Earth Society, would fully agree with that statement. :laughing:

Actually, I side with the “radicals”. In other words, I don’t side with those who argue for ECT and restrictivism/exclusivism. I side more with those who argue for universalism, annihilation, conditional immortality, inclusivism, P-Zombie and postmortem opportunities for salvation, Old Earth/ Big Bang /Evolution - with God leading everything, and expanding the Holy Fools tradition - to all branches of Christianity. They might not agree with each other, but they rock the theological status quo.

And I do read what the status quo has to say. Like the Protestant Got Questions site. Or the Protestant Patheos, with articles like Pastors Endorsing Trump Have Cheapened their Prophetic Voice.

And qaz does have an interesting question. Why Eastern Orthodoxy over Roman Catholicism, or some flavor of Protestantism? And which aspect of Eastern Orthodoxy (i.e. Russian, Greek, etc.)? One Russian orthodox priest once told me, that he thought Russian Orthodoxy is the most mystical.

Actually, if they have a Western rite version of Eastern Orthodoxy, that incorporated the Anglican rite - I might jump on the bandwagon. :smiley:

#28

Her book has not in fact been heavily criticized so far, except by one scholar with a noted habit of conveniently misreading his opponents and then being constitutionally unable to wrap his head around why that’s wrong. Most scholarly reviewers, even where they don’t necessarily agree with all her arguments, have been much more appreciative of the book. (And I’m saying that as someone who kept being peeved throughout her Tome about how her position on {aidios} in relation to punishment waffled wildly between ignoring Jude 6 as though it didn’t exist, and trying to make it fit her paradigm in clumsy ways. But that isn’t a critique of her patristic work; and it looks a lot like a late editing pass to address an oversight without time for polishing to a more coherent argument.)

I’ll answer the other question in the other thread; sorry I hadn’t noticed it.

#29

Let’s work on the assumptions or premises that:

We can find ancient Gnostic teachers that also embraced reincarnation
We can find passages in ancient Gnostic texts, that appear to indicate reincarnation.

Let me throw out the following questions:

What would be the end goal of reincarnation, as the Gnostic understood it?
What would be the end goal of the Gnostic path, as the Gnostic understood it?
Can someone reincarnate until they are “wise” enough, to enter the Gnostic path?
How would we know if an ancient Gnostic had a universal outlook?
Would it make any difference if the Gnostic had a universal outlook, considering what they teach is far different from canonized scripture and recognized historical church fathers?

I probably can think of other questions. But let me just throw out these - for now.

#30

I don’t think it would make any difference – there are theological parallels in many non-identical religions – but the charge by Dr. McCly and his ilk is that Christians are ignorantly or on purpose importing foreign and false theological ideas from such places (even to the extent that he and his ilk would only reluctantly, if at all, regard the importers as Christian.)

If the ideas aren’t even there in the ostensible sources to start with, that would be a sovereign defense against the charge. But even if the ideas are there, the salient question is whether or not the Christians are expressing legitimately Christian ideas using borrowed concepts for evangelical outreach without altering the content and character of the Christian ideas (Christians, and Jews before us, having imported “savior” and “lord” language for example to express concepts somewhat similar but also quite different compared to pagan concepts of those words.) If so, that would also be a defense against the charge although harder and more complex to establish.

I would be looking for consistent (even if uncommon, for the author, normally writing about other things) ideas concerning the eventual reclamation of all persons back into cooperation (or perhaps identification) with God. That could still be crucially different from Christian concepts of salvation from sin and into cooperation with God; as different as Christian salvation (whether universalistic or not) is from pantheistic salvation (which does by its concepts necessarily involve a universal result).

#31

I think we pointed out during one or another of those threads with Dr. McClymond, that the closest example he could find actually regarded the non-saved persons as being non-persons at all, so that their non-salvation was of no theological account (no more than the non-salvation of mosquitos would be); and that this, like the Gnostics’ typical salvific elitism, matched Calvinistic thought more than Universalistic thought! – in this case, a minority of Calvs who regard the non-elect as not being real people at all, only fictional characters created by God to fill antagonist roles.

#32

I recognize the Orthodox Church as the Church of the Apostles. I believe that the Faith proclaimed by the Orthodox Church is identical to that of Peter and the rest of the Apostles. I think an afternoon reading the epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd century) and of St. Clement of Rome (late 1st century) is enough for one to realize that their faith was not that of Roman Catholicism or of Protestantism.

The Church’s terminology has been sharpened and made more precise over the centuries, as the result of having to define the true Faith over against the attacks of heretics.

I recognize the various Christian bodies of the west (whether Roman Catholic, Old Catholic, Protestant, etc.) as, for the most part, Augustinian. The distinctive teachings of Augustine of Hippo have found no place in the Orthodox Church.

I don’t think it fruitful to try to explain how the Orthodox Church fits into various western categories of belief (such as the five solas). The Church is sui generis, and therefore cannot be accurately explained in foreign categories of thought. I will, however, mention a comment of one of my fellow parishioners, who recently converted from Evangelicalism. It went something like this:

“As an Orthodox, I can actually have more belief in the Bible than I could when I was a Protestant. As a Protestant, you have no assured interpretation of the difficult passages and controversies. For example, infant baptism can be cogently affirmed from a sola scriptura standpoint, and it can also be cogently denied from a sola scriptura standpoint. On that and on a number of issues I, when a Protestant, had to be agnostic. But as an Orthodox, I have the authoritative interpretation of the scriptures. I can now strongly affirm that the scriptures teach infant baptism. I no longer have to hesitate, equivocate, and come across as milk toast. Now I can boldly and without hesitation defend the teachings of the Bible.”

I hope this answers your question. I want to emphasize that I am not trying to argue you or anyone else into Orthodoxy. I encourage anyone interested in Orthodoxy to come worship with us in our liturgies. Come experience Orthodoxy in all its fullness. Don’t simply read about it. :slight_smile:

#33

That is my impression as well from my limited readings of the Nag Hammadi documents.

#34

Actually, I have. With both the Greek and Russian flavors of Orthodoxy. Since I don’t know Greek, I have trouble when they speak Greek. But Russian - since I can follow along - makes more sense to me. But I’m more into the Anglican rite. So while I share central theological tenets with the Orthodox, I remain an Anglican - chiefly because I like the Anglican Rite liturgy and don’t always want to follow an Orthodox liturgy- in a foreign tongue. I think the proper term is Western Rite Orthodoxy

#35

Excellent Jason (still following when I have a chance); that’s exactly the case. Yes the Gnostic view of the restoration of all things did not mean universal salvation – because their belief system was elitist and they did not think that all people had souls and/or spirits (as far as accessible sources tell us anyway).

Mike is still talking about ‘Gnostic universalism’ in a footnote to his review of Ramelli – and he’s talking about the ancient Gnostics rather than modern revivals –. He cites the following articles in this connection:

Holger Strutwolf, Gnosis als System: Zur Rezeption der valentinianischen Gnosis bei Origenes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), which argues for continuities between Origen and second-century gnosis.

He actually cited this article in our discussion here as proof that Origen derived his universalism from the Gnostics. But he didn’t elaborate; the article is in German – and I for one can’t read German :-/ It would be good to know more.

He also says that - Hans Jonas adopted a view like Strutwolf’s in “Origen’s Metaphysics of Free Will, Fall, and Salvation: A ‘Divine Comedy’ of the Universe,” Jonas’views on Gnosticism are considered a bit old fashioned these days. That’s no problem – they might still be true; but Mike then goes on to cite ‘Rethinking Gnosticism’ as a state of the art text that Dr Ramelli does not cite. But this has to do with a rethink on Gnostic views of determinism rather than their views on universal salvation.

In her reply to Dr Mike, Dr Ramelli says that she has read all of these articles and commented on them outside of her Tome and that they obviously haven’t swayed her from her central thesis.

#36

Is it known why they didn’t think all people had souls or spirits? Or how can one tell, if someone had a soul or spirit?

#40

Hi :slight_smile: – regarding that the ancient Gnostic belief that not all people have souls;

Gnostic texts like the Valentian Gospel of Truth divide people into three groups. The ‘pneumatics’ or spirituals people that are already saved by Gnosis, The ‘psychics’ who are people who have a mental and emotional life and can attain Gnosis (or refuse it – some texts seem to have wide hope for the ‘psychicos’ others are more narrow). And then there are the class of people variously called somatic/sarkic/hylical. These are people whose existence is purely focussed on bodily existence – toil, begetting and raising children, eating, defecating. Ti was of them that the famous Gnostic teacher Basilides said – ‘Only we (Gnostics) are men; the rest are pigs and dogs’. Obviously these somatic/sarkic/hylical people included those whose lives were defined by toil – the huge class of slaves in the ancient world for example.

In the ‘big story’ of the ancient Gnostics the belief that justified this was their contention that the physical world had been created by an inferior deity which they named the ‘demiurge’. This demiurge had trapped pure spirit in the prison of the material world in an act of mindless stupidity (and they identified the demiurge with the creator God of the Old Testament in their poetic myths). In their view only those with some sort of nostalgia to escape the material world to the world of pure spirit were possible of redemption. The people absorbed in the life of the world were mere material beings - misbegotten creations of the demiurge – incapable of the nostalgia that leads to ‘Gnosis’ of divine origins.

Holger Strutwolf and Hans Jonas have undermined this view of ancient Gnostics according to Mike by showing that the schools of Valentinus and Basilides were actually Universalist. I’m curious to know exactly what these two have to say.

And I think the evidence has to be focused on what Valentinus and Basilides and their followers had to say; because these were the people that Origen interacted with in Alexandria. We know for example that the Manicheans were not Universalists – but Origen did not interact with the Manicheans - and neither were the Marcionites whom Origen opposed universalist (Marcion believed that the Jews were incapable of being rescued by his alien God because they were wedded to the demiurge). So I think that this argument can only be resolved by real proof that the followers of Valentinus and Basilides taught universal salvation - against the other evidence that is normally considered like the Gospel of Truth.

#41

The only thing you need to reconcile is Genesis, with the theories of modern science. It boils down to how you view the term day, as used in Genesis. Many contemporary writers - who embrace both Christian theology and modern science - have done this. See - for example:

The newspaper article Genesis And Science: More Aligned Than You Think?
The Scientific American article The Christian Man’s Evolution: How Darwinism and Faith Can Coexist
Or browse though any articles on God and Science

#42

This raises these questions, Sobornost:

Do the Gnostics believe that the soul is immortal or that the soul’s immortality is conditional?
And if the soul’s immortality is conditional, with is it conditional upon?

I thought of these questions, when I was reflecting upon contemporary occultists or esoteric pioneers Madam Blavatsky, Max Heindel, and George Gurdjieff. Anyway, what I discovered early on - as I explored the esoteric branch of philosophy - is that those that are supposed to be initiates or experts, have completely different systems. Blavatsky pioneered Theosophy, Max Heindel a contemporary version of Rosicrucian philosophy, and Gurdjieff the Fourth Way.

But in the Blavatsky and Heindel systems, the soul is immortal. In the Gurdjieff system, it is conditional.

#43

Yes Randy , I was thinking that the ancient Gnostics have quite a lot of common with the twentieth century Gnostic revival systems of the likes of Gurdjieff – and Julius Evlova and Aleister Crowley that are essentially elitist (and in the terms of the latter two are elitist in a sense that appealed to fascists of the ‘weak to the wall’ variety).

Btw. This is what Jason wrote on the initial thread summarising Dr Ramelli’s view of Gnostic apocatastasis

(She uses the proper Greek terms for the three classes of people – Hulikoi (material), Psuchikoi (animal – meaning having an ‘anima’/soul), and Pneumatikoi (spiritual). I’ve used bastardised Latin terms for the same – because I’m ignorant :smiley:)

So Dr Ramelli admits here that in one text – the Gospel of Mary – all are restored but the hierarchical divisions of human beings are maintained in the restoration (and presumably the hulikoi continue to exist in a state of wretched blindness serving the needs of the others with animal toil, a bit like those people whose metallic element is bronze that Pato speaks of in the Republic in his threefold division of humanity).

Dr Ramelli is the world’s leading expert on these issues, which Mike is not and he is the only person who has given a negative review of her tome to date. On this issue – since Dr Ramelli says that she has read and digested the articles that Mike cites against her (without expanding). My hunch here is to trust Dr Ramelii’s judgement. But I still look forward to seeing the contrary evidence and if this stacks up.

#44

Thanks for the summary view of Gnosticism, Sobornost. I’m less familiar with Julius Evlova, then I am with G.I. Gurdjieff and Aliester Crowley. Crowley was too strange - even by the Holy Fools tradition standards. Especially with his emphasize on “sex magic”. At least, Julius Evlova focused upon sex, in the esoteric Hindu and Buddhist schools. In comparison to Crowley, Gurdjieff appeared to be as normal, as Andy Griffith of Mayberry. Crowley would be Ernest T. Bass and Julius would be Barney Fife. :laughing:

In the first video, we see Ernest and Andy (i.e. sheriff).

In the second video, we have Andy, Barney (i.e. deputy) and Ernest

#45

I’ve found a cheap copy of the essay by Hans Jonas. Will get back to you when I’ve read it - but I will have to receive it first so it may not be for a few days.

#46

I tagged him for you in quoting your post, so maybe he’ll contribute. :slight_smile:

#47

I don’t recall if I mentioned it up-page, but in the Tome Dr. Ramelli mentions that she’s working on a sort of prequel which will go into pre- and alt-Christian notions of apokatastasis in more detail, since she had to largely summarize positions in order to provide points of comparison with patristic soteriologies of universal salvation (or proto-versions of it).

It’s important to emphasize – and I have extreme trouble thinking the new revision articles successfully argued against this (and clearly Dr. R didn’t think so when she read them) – that universal salvation was foreign in conceptual principle to the various Gnostic systems (alt-Christian or otherwise). Even the people restored to goodness and/or reason, however many there were (and the nature of their beliefs show clearly enough why at least most Gnostics expected only a relative few to be saved), were not being saved per se, because they subsequently and eventually ceased to exist as people. The restoration was back into the undifferentiated unity of ultimate reality, itself actually beyond reason and even beyond good and evil. The people weren’t saved from anything; the shards of deity, for want of a better term, were saved from being people!

Beyond that, listening to arguments about Origen and other Christian universalists importing foreign ideas from other religions, reminds me directly (as I vaguely recall saying in at least one of those threads) of Jesus Mythers and other radical sceptics trying to argue that Jesus and/or Paul created “Christianity”, or that Christians created even Jesus, by importing foreign elements from Greco-Roman philosophy and paganism into Judaism, or combining some specks of Judaism, as a syncretistic mix.

But the people being charged with this, either way, wrote strongly against such syncretistic practice! And we know where the normal and regular practice of syncretism lies in this dispute: it lies with the Gnostics, some of whom picked up Christian details, some of whom didn’t, all of whom liked to mix and match from various flavors of religions passing through from all over the world. Even Dr. McClymond knows and acknowledges this, because that’s part of his argument of (mis)associative condemnation: Origen et al were syncretists like those Gnostics over there, because they were essentially Gnostics like those Gnostics.

But if Group A (including Origen et al) is warning about importing foreign religious elements, and let’s say the Tripartite Tract belongs clearly to Group B who are all about the syncretism yo including borrowing from Christian authorities – wouldn’t we need proportionately strong evidence to argue that Group A borrowed universal salvation from Group B instead of what would normally be vice versa?

Supposing for purposes of argument the Tripartite Tract did contain something identifiable as universal salvation, salvation of persons as persons from sin, and into righteousness, and the whole created reality as such eventually, not resolved back into nothingness or into deity – wouldn’t the first inference be that the author of the Tract thought some Christian universalists were pretty swank and borrowed something like that, as well as something like their Christology, from them?

#48

Another very insightful post, Jason! :slight_smile:

  1. I have noted with chagrin that, according to the world, the Old Testament Jews and the Church were the most inveterate borrowers in all of history. They borrowed from everyone, and no one ever borrowed from them.

  2. My gut instinct is that universalism, defined as God saving all creation, had its origins in the Church of the 1st century, no later than the risen Christ’s appearances to His disciples. Any universalism outside of the Church was later borrowed from the Church by those outside.

#50

Probably the closest earliest competitor to Christianity was Mithraism. And you can find more info, in the Wiki article Mithras in comparison with other belief systems. I first encountered that from a theology major, when I was taking math, psychology, philosophy, theology and literature courses, at Aurora University. That’s also when I discovered the Theosophical Society resource library in Wheaton, Illinois.

I think it’s fair to say, that different esoteric writers, will develop totally different systems. If it’s true today with folks like Helena Blavatsky, Max Heindel and G. I. Gurdjieff - it will be true with ancient Gnostic teachers and writers. I don’t see them being any different, then these contemporary esoteric philosophers.

I’m intrigued by the ancient Gnostic incorporation of reincarnation and what they saw, as that ultimate goal. And they probably got that understanding from either Pythagoras and similar Greek philosophers. Otherwise, from travels to (or visitors from) the East. And if so and they had written works or public teachings on the subject, I would assume they had the same understanding as folks like Pythagoras, related Greek philosophers or Eastern sources (i.e. Do Gnostics believe in reincarnation?). Unless their public discovered writings, contradicted this understanding. Which I would like to see a statistical presentation:

How many known Gnostic teachers were there?
How many Gnostic teachers presented written presentations, that displayed noticeable differences?
How many taught or implied reincarnation?
Of those teaching reincarnation, how many actually presented contrary written material - contradicting that everyone would reach Gnosis?
Do any of the Gnostic experts here or elsewhere, have any statistical data, to answer the above questions?

I like to try to understand the Gnostics, as they saw themselves. Much like how the controversial writer and PhD anthropologist, Carlos Castaneda, saw the Yaqui “Man of Knowledge”.

That’s why you will find I have spent years, in authentic Native American ceremonies (I.e. Holy Men/Medicine Men/Roman Catholic Black Elk and Fools Crow - are duel spiritual citizens).
Or practicing disciplines like Zen (much like Catholic Trappist writer Thomas Merton).
Or to learn how would it be, to step into their existential, phenomenological field of perception. However, the contemporary Gnostic writers/philosophers are probably far removed from their ancient counterparts. We are limited to looking at the ancient written sources and the scholarly commentary.

Same problem occurs when I try to understand the Holy Fools tradition members - as they saw themselves. Since I don’t have any contemporary role models to emulate, I draw inspiration from:

Murdoch of the A-Team
Curly Howard of the Three Stooges.
And I have to be an exemplar to their tradition, if I’m true to my weekly, Joe Osteen TV message. :smiley: