I reckon this is part of the subtext because of the twofold quotation from the Polish philosopher. Och Hegelians have also been neo-cons for heaven’s sake (Francis Fukeyama for example)- and some romantics were deeply socially conservative while others were revolutionaries and both romanticism and it counterpoint enlightenment rationalism can be seen well and truly present as cultural influences in different movements within (no universalist) evangelicalism.
Here’s’ an interesting article I found on Bonhoeffer and universalism (since Bonhoeffer provides one of the key phrases in this lecture ‘cheap and costly grace’) -
If anyone has any views on the sources for Niebuhr and Bonheoffer regarding universalism please do tell
(and on Kierkegaard - Kierkegaard, Soren (1813-1855), Danish Christian Philosopher and father of existentialism:
[note: Jack Mulder argues in ‘Must All be Saved? A Kierkegaardian Response to Theological Universalism’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Volume 59, Number 1, February 2006 , pp. 1-24, that despite appearances Soren was a hopeful rather than a certain universalist]:
‘If others go to hell, then I will go too. But I do not believe that; on the contrary I believe that all will be saved, myself with them - something which arouses my deepest amazement’ (Journals and Papers, Vol. 6).
I was just thinking that De McClymond is obviously a moderate Calvinist with an ecumenical outlook (his head of department is a Franciscan). He does not take the hard line neo Calvinist approach of condemning people like Bonheoffer, Kierkegaard etc without a second thought> However this leads him into inconsistency - something he attacks universalists for.
He cites Kierkegaard, Niebuhr and Bonheoffer for rhetorical effect in his lecture and seminars – but all of these were at least hopeful Universalists.
(Based on current information - which includes quotations with footnotes and bibliographies- and using Pog’s typology I think I’d say that Niebuhr was convinced, Kierkegaard was either convinced or strongly hopeful, and Bonheoffer was Hopeful but perhaps more weakly hopeful (but not just a wide hope inclusivist)
He cites Cyril O’Reagan in his attack on Boehme – but whatever one may think of O’Reagan’s ambitious project on Western culture and Gnosticism, O’Regan is a great fan of von Balthazar the hopeful Universalist who Dr McClymond attacks.
He cites a Polish philosopher who was an agnostic and also wrote a critique of Jansenism that could also apply to Calvinism. This philosopher was obviously critiquing the Hegelian basis of Marxist totalitarianism – but Marx only gave one interpretation of Hegel (altering him radivcally0 and other Hegelians have been supporters of individualism and the free market using a different interpretation of Hegel. And none of this has much to do with Christian universalism anyway because Hegel was actually a pantheist.
And have universalists been supporters of totalitarianism and oppression? Not really –
Gregory of Nyssa was the first Christian to systematically oppose the institution of slavery - and he did so based on arguments about the eschatological dignity of all creatures.
The American Universalist Church was in the forefront of abolitionism.
Bonohoeffer was executed opposing the Nazis
Bulgakov – as Dr McClymond notes – fought courageously against Stalinism
Mother Maria of Skobotsova – to whom Bulgakov was a spiritual director – died heroically in a concentration camp ministering to the Jews and giving up her life for a frightened young Jewish girl.
Even Solviev - for all his dodgy Cabbalistic pedigree – put his deep learning in Jewish culture to good use. He was a lone voice speaking up for the Jews at a time of Tsarist Jew hunting frenzy
Desmond Tutu opposed Apartheid on universalist grounds
And I could go on…
Amazingly inconsistent, this guy…
it really is shocking
Nice to hear about these Universalists and Hopeful Universalists that fought against some of the worst things our species has concocted. And they fought with self-sacrificing love, as Christ did, and ultimately their triumph is eternal and shows that evil can be defeated…and without resorting to violence and revenge.
As a trinitarian theologian and apologist I can understand why Dr. McCly (presumably also an ortho-trin theologian) would be torqued about this (if accurate to Hegel’s thought – and at this point he has shown himself so inept or intentionally misleading it’s hard for me to trust he’s accurate about this, not being familiar with Hegel myself), but he needs to be aiming that complaint at other Christian groups: it’s pretty common among Calvs and Arms (especially the Protestant versions thereof) to believe that God was reconciled to man by God the Father first reconciling to God the Son (or possibly God the Son reconciling God the Father to Himself!) But I don’t run across that idea among Kaths (Catholic or otherwise) nearly so much as I used to, and still do, among non-universalists. And if Dr. McCly is a penal substitution advocate of the usual type (which I seem to recall reading upthread he is), then this is very much another example of the pot not only calling the kettle black, but even calling the kettle marijuana.
Not a big fan of Tillich, so I don’t know the context and don’t really care what Tillich thinks anyway.
That sounds super-implausible to me on the face of it, and Sobor has said enough already to make me even more suspicious about it. If Dr. McCly had said it was due to the influence of hermetic Orthodox esotericism from late antiquity, I’d be much readier to believe it, since that not only actually happened (and had historical connections to early Christian universalism) but definitely has influenced EOx theological modes since the schism particularly as an intentional contrast to Roman Catholic theological modes. I would also be willing to call it not much of a good thing.
It just seems insane to me to point to one obscure guy as the source of a mode of thought instead of to MORE THAN A THOUSAND YEARS OF RESPECT AND APPLICATION OF AN ESTABLISHED MODE OF THEOLOGY. Why point at a little mouse as the cause of various trees having been shoved around instead of the woolly mammoth over there pushing through the trees in a clear path stretching back for miles beyond sight? Why (if I may push the Fernseed and Elephants reference a little closer to its source) would anyone pay attention to anything ever again said by someone who would do that?!
I don’t recall reading that in The Bride of Christ, which out of his main trilogy of systematic theology (and tracing, on his account, the history of Christian patrological, pneumatological and Christological doctrine) is the only place he makes any universalism arguments – and then only toward the end of the book – and then he’s very tenuous about it (because he knows he shouldn’t be teaching this as dogma) until the very tail end of the end when he can’t hold it back any more and lands smack on it with both feet.
Granted, I haven’t read everything by Bulgakov, but considering that this is literally THE MAIN CONTENTION that early non-universalists had the most trouble with even when by all appearances they didn’t have trouble with the salvation of all sinners including Satan otherwise (I know I would have pinged pretty hard on it myself for several reasons if I had read him going this route), I’m super-suspicious that Bulgakov would have claimed or argued this; and considering Dr. McCly’s track record so far I’m also super-suspicious about him suggesting it by innuendo.
While I’m at it, though, I do have to admit that in the same work Bulgakov tries really really hard to set up a Sophiology amounting to an impersonal fourth person of the Trinity (which sounds ludicrous when put this way, and he’s well aware his proposal amounts to this, which again he tries hard to get around.) This has nothing particularly to do with his universalism in the final relevant chapter, but I remember Sobor reporting something about it from Dr. McCly upthread, and I hadn’t commented on it yet. It doesn’t seem likely to me he got it from Boheme, but rather from where he says he’s trying to get it – adding up various scriptural statements about Wisdom, and trying to harmonize why sometimes they seem to be referring to the Holy Spirit and sometimes to the Son and sometimes to neither Person yet still to Deity somehow. (I sympathize with the difficulties Bulgakov is working with there, and I admit his attempted solution is kind of ingenious, but I wasn’t persuaded that it holds up well under scrutiny.)
I actually kind of agree with this concept (I use it myself in my fantasy work as a speculative detail about how the demons relate to God), but Bulgakov definitely goes the other traditional schema with sinners tormented by being unable to accept (yet) the pressing omnipresence of God’s love. I don’t recall him offhand suggesting Satan is tormented by his own love for God, too, but I could pretty easily see him doing so; and if Bulgakov goes this route it would only be within the context of the traditional schema.
To be fair, I can also see why a Calvinist particularly would reject this concept, because on Calv notions of non-election such a response from a sinner, even if currently perverted, would be due (as it certainly is due in theologies which go this route, even when those theologies are non-universalistic!) to the Holy Spirit operating in the sinner and empowering the sinner to have some kind of goodness (even if perverted by the sinner as a sinner) which the Calv non-elect shouldn’t have: because (per Calv soteriology broadly) that would indicate an intention by God to save the sinner from sin, which (per Calv soteriology broadly) would itself signal that God will surely succeed at accomplishing that goal eventually.
Putting it shortly, a Calv couldn’t accept that any sinner is tormented by love for God without also accepting (as Calvs in fact typically do when talking about how God leads the elect to salvation) that God is going to save that sinner from sin sooner or later. And if all sinners were tormented that way (which attributing such torment to Satan would tend to indicate) then Christian universalism would have to be true instead of some kind of Calvinism.
So I don’t mind if Dr. McCly complains about this idea (especially since I don’t recall any scriptural ground for it myself); he’d pretty much have to reject it or else be a universalist after all. An Arminian (broadly speaking, Protestant and Catholic either way) could accept it and not be universalist after all, insofar as they don’t accept that this sort of thing necessarily signals a definite intention to persist to salvific victory.
True, except it’s a theological conclusion not an assumption. And I don’t know why Dr. McCly would complain about someone drawing an idea from THE FATHER OF ORTHODOXY. Does Dr. McCly accept the Chalcedonian polish of Nicean orthodoxy? He can largely thank Gregory Nyssus for that.
True. He knew what his theology added up to, but didn’t want to be mistaken for a religious pluralist or some other non-Christian universalist; and also probably didn’t want to be mistaken for a determinist. Plus he didn’t want his work to be ignored by all the Christian non-universalists in the world, so there was some pragmatism in taking this route.
Election to be saved from sin, yes. Election to be leaders in evangelism (in various ways), no. Election to special authority in the eons to come, no.
Barth may have taught this, but it’s a pretty standard Calv idea, too, except for the scope of victory. Again, speaking specifically as a trinitarian theologian and apologist I don’t actually mind if Dr. McCly rejects this idea (because it schisms not only the Persons but the substance of deity, or at best badly schisms the two natures of Christ), but then he ought to reject typical modes of penal substitution atonement, too; and as a practical matter he ought to be aiming that rejection more at his own side of the aisle rather than at Christian universalists who in my experience don’t so commonly accept typical modes of PSA.
True, if Christian universalism is true; but this is also the practical stance taken even by Calvinists in evangelism. To be fair I grant that their practical stance on this doesn’t contradict their principle stance about the non-elect never having any possibility of being saved from sin.
Empirical data isn’t restricted to the life in this world of a human; and besides Richard Dawkins isn’t dead yet. Why would a Calvinist appeal to empirical data about the non-election of someone before they die??! They would have been totally wrong about Sts. Peter and St. Paul, as well as every other late convert in life before they converted! A Calv theologian ought to know better than this. (But maybe he thinks Mr. D is dead already…?)
I have trouble believing that Balthasar shifts attention to the descent to hades instead of the cross, when the cross is a key factor in the descent to hades, and was often regarded in antiquity (even by non-universalists, and definitely by orthodox authorities) as the only reason why there was a descent into hades in the first place!
Granted, I’m not yet read up on Balthasar enough to have a serious opinion on how Balt goes about his business; but (going back to pick up a spare from a previous summary report) I have read Archbishop Hilarion Alfayev’s book tracing patristic teaching about the descent into hades (and not long ago either), and he DEFINITELY DOES NOT hang all that belief on a non-canonical Gospel. So I’m suspicious that Dr. McCly’s understanding of Balthasar here is at all accurate. But Balt scholars will have to take that up.
Balthasar had what he thought were scriptural promises, but as a Roman Catholic didn’t want to go up against papal dogmatic teaching on the topic. A similar factor affects Eastern Orthodox proponents of universalism, insofar as they (mistakenly) think the 5th Ecumenical Council denounced it as heretical, and/or insofar as they want to be careful specifically as teachers not to claim a position as dogmatic that hasn’t been declared dogmatic by an EcuCouncil. This is also exactly why Bishop Kallistos Ware reports enough EOx clergy accept the filioque that if an Ecumenical Council was ever held on it the doctrine would probably become a dogma, but until when-if-ever there is reunion with Roman Catholicism there isn’t going to be such a council, and the topic is of a sort that for a teacher to argue for it at all trends necessarily close to proposing it as dogma: a doctrine that ought to be accepted to be categorically Christian.
If Dr. McCly doesn’t take the time to understand why teachers and clerical authorities in Catholic hierarchies would be wary about staking out important doctrinal stances, he’s going to badly misunderstand what’s going on.
Beyond those institutional issues (somewhat different between RCC and EOx), anyone might think they saw scriptural promises on the topic, but couldn’t personally see yet how to reconcile those with other apparent scriptural testimony, and so be agnostic but hopefully agnostic about universal salvation. Bulgakov wasn’t a hopeful universalist in this sense, but Balthasar seems to have been – but it’s a little hard to tell since he would have been looking for ways to not go against papal declarations on the topic.
(Since his time, RCC authorities seem to be taking a position on papal infallibility with a side effect that no pope who taught against Christian universalism, even Vigilius ratifying Justinian’s anathemas, was teaching ex cathedra. I don’t know how they can possibly go this route in any consistent way, but I’m not a Roman Catholic so I’m only curious about it as an observer. I doubt this is coincidental to the topic of Christian universalism, however.)
Duh? And what does it matter that some of the people reporting on universalists aren’t universalists? I don’t think he understands the purpose of the book, which is basically to write book reports about Christian universalists of various sorts throughout history. What would he think if I said that a volume reporting on various Christian Calvinists throughout history, even Calvs other Calvs would regard as super-flaky or too hanging too much on scientific errors, does not “succeed” because the different Calvs have different and sometimes even conflicting arguments, and some of the writers reporting on the Calvs are not themselves Calvinists??
That person is super-flaky, yep.
How very institutionally Catholic and yet still inaccurate of him to say so!
A typical slur thrown at Calvinists by Arminians, too, by the way, for much the same reason.
No reason at all for this description, in regard to Christian universalism.
They also depict something some preachers teach, the final authoritative sanction of unrighteousness by God. See, I can play the rhetorical squib game, too.
Yes on the first part. I’m willing to grant the second part is probably right when talking about especially liberal or otherwise non-Christian universalism. In regard to conservative Christian universalism, including many moderns, and practically all the ancient patristic universalists: wrong, wrong, wrongity-wrong on the second part. I have to say this is even perniciously wrong. Anyone who had actually studied his opponents would quickly learn better; and I cannot believe a scholar would be this utterly incompetent. He doesn’t want to acknowledge blatant facts, such as how trinitarian Christian universalists appeal to the cross as the ultimate victory of salvation of sinners from sin, or apparently even that there are such things as trinitarian Christian universalists at all. (Though even non-trinitarian Christian universalists tend to praise God for what Jesus did on the cross.)
The scriptures have literally nothing to say about the permanent damnation (or even the damnation at all) of the thief who continued to hurl insults at Christ. Strictly speaking they don’t even say he died continuing to do so. They also, incidentally, have nothing to say about the extent to which the penitent thief “recognized” Jesus, which is why Christians routinely imagine he made an affirmation much stronger than he actually did. It’s bizarre that Dr. McCly is hanging his scriptural rebuttal on this – I can easily think of fifteen or twenty more pertinent scriptural references offhand that would better suggest eternal damnation at least on the face of it.
But anyway, Christian universalists do in fact reflect that Christ suffered and was reckoned with BOTH of those men. Maybe Calvinists should reflect on that for a while.
Which has absolutely less than nothing to do with patristic universalists or modern conservative Christian universalists.
Doesn’t apply to most conservative Christian universalists; but even conservative Christian ultra-universalists (who don’t believe in divine punishment after death at all) would not consider the grace cheap because of what it cost God through the blood of the cross.
This is a problem for any Christian group, though perhaps less so for hardshell Arminians who believe anyone can lose their salvation at any time based on their behavior, but certainly as much so for Calvinists as for Universalists in principle (since both believe in the final security of salvation of everyone whom God intends to save, the only difference being the total number) – and which group did Bonhoeffer happen to be aiming his criticism at?
(Hint: not at the people who believe God will still punish impenitent sinners into the eons of the eons, even if they’re Christian, and even if God saves them from their sins in the end after all.)
Was Bonheoffer aiming his homily at Lutheran’s who also believed in predestination? I know it was aimed at people who took their own salvation for granted as dogma and therefore were neglecting to ‘put on Christ’.
John Cowder does sound super flaky – but it is not too difficult to think of some who actively promote ECT who are also very flaky.
I always understood that the stuff about the two thieves exemplifying our personal choices for heaven or hell is pretty standard in the sermons of PSA based evangelicalism. I know Augustine once said –‘Do not despair, one of the thieves was saved. Do not presume, one of the thieves was damned’ and perhaps this is one source of this interpretation (although Augustine seems to be addressing anxieties about election rather than encouraging people to decide). But yes – there is no reason to see the two thieves in this way at all; this interpretation is read back into scripture.
Almost done – but there is additional stuff in the questions and answers (some repetition here but quite a lot of new stuff too)
First question –
Dr McClymond is asked to clarify his linking of universal salvation with universal metaphysical Gnosticism and asked how far Rob Bell is unconsciously susceptible to Gnosticism . (he actually answers the Rob Bell bit but not the rest - and that’s cool because it is off the cuff)
He responds that although we can debate the ’All’ passages in Paul it is not possible to derive universalism from the Bible without reading prior assumptions into the text.
Rob Bell is eclectic but broadly Barthian in assumptions (‘Does God get what God wants?)
He also toys with idea of purgatory (but seems not to take it on board) He gives a very eccentric exegesis of the Prodigal son as concerning universal Salvation.
Rob Bell asks a lot of questions in his book without supplying positive answers. This has had the effect of merely destabilising evangelical eschatological convictions.
Second question
Is there a commonality of questions amongst theologians who embrace universalism, questions they don’t feel they can answer and therefore answer by positing universalism (like Origen’s questions about the rich and the poor)?
The theological question that drives Gnosticism is ‘How can there be evil in the universe?’
Gnostics answer this question by positing the origin of evil in God -that there is a light and a shadow within God. And for some of the Universalists (the Boehmenists?) there was a movement into darkness followed by a sort of reconciliation. What you don’t have is the notion of the creature as a fully independent reality that has the capacity to say ‘No’ to God.
Kierkegaard understood things clearly when he located the problem of evil in personal responsibility ‘This is the cross on which philosophy hangs – that the creature can say no to the creator. At this point Dr McClymond jokes that he is actually sounding like a raging Arminian freewiller when he is actually a Calvinist.
Universalists however make no distinctions between those who chose to believe and those who choose not to believe. They are like Paul Tillich going around saying ‘everyone is ultimately concerned’ so that’s OK.
Third question
THE Schaff Herzog encyclopaedia in its entry for universalism suggest that universalism actually originated with Clement of Alexandria. That there were six cathetical schools in the early Church, four of which adhered to universalism and that universalism was a much boarder view only curtailed by the power of Rome.
Clement is not as overt as Origen. His premise is that tall punishment is restorative in character – and universalism could follow from this. But he never makes an exorbitant claims like Origen- for the salvation of Satan for instance.
If we look at Jerome - Jerome says some amazing things about Origen (he flip flopped in support and condemnation of Origen). He even claims that Origen believed in reincarnation and that people could come back as animals which sounds like Hindu karmic scheme - and it is doubly amazon therefore that universalists should give Origen credence.
As for the four out of six theological schools – doesn’t have a clear answer but this seem very unlikely. If this were so why is it that as soon as Origen appears there is intense controversy in the Church which divides friend from friend and brother from brother. Also it is untrue to suggest that the further East you got the more Universalist the Church was - there were strong opponents of Universalism in the most Easterly sections of the Church like Eddesa.
The idea that the Church was Universalist and then along came the big bad Augustine is a myth. It is completely contradicted by the evidence from the earlier apostolic fathers. If you look at Tertullian, First and second Epistles of Clemet of Rome, the Epistle of Barnabas (the Didache, The Shepherd Hermas?) etc all are all firmly ECT.
Origen with his scheme of Pre-existence, unity diversity unity, invented universalism a scheme that conflicts with and cannot be proved from scripture and very importantly Jesus words are against it.
Universal salvation is not present in second Temple Judaism -there are some notions perhaps of second chance, some of purgatory, but not of universalism. The place where you find universalism in Judaism is Kabbala – which is medieval in origin. In Kabbala you also have the notion of transmigration of souls (gigul) and the Gnostic idea that God’s shekinah/presence goes into exile with the Jewish people away from God in transcendence and the Jewish people have to restore the shekinah to the transcendent Endless One through their act of tikkun/repair.
Question 4
*
Is there a commonality with Universalists regarding how they worship?*
Uncertain - Dr McClymond mentions the liturgy of Holy Saturday and Hilarion’s universalising of the harrowing of Hell which he claims is all on the basis of the Gospel of Nicodemus (been there done that and I’m not sure this Gospel is even universalist - he uses it as evidence for a tradition about the descent into Hell)
But we do see a differed in terms of evangelism
According to Barth – evangelism is not calling people to decision but announcing God’s decision to them.
‘That’s like announcing to people who feel like they are drowning that there are only six inches of water in which they are standing’, according to Emile Brunner – who thought Barth more radical than Origen because there is no purgatory in Barth’s eschatology – all are swept up into heaven. (Brunner flip flopped later and came round more to Barth’s way of seeing things)
Barth’s views were popular at the time of the 1970s moratorium on mission. This was also driven by concerns about colonialism but universalism was another significant factor.
Question 5
*How do you speak to a Catholic audience about/against universalism given that in popular Catholicism today universalism is often assumed in a rather vague way? *
From the High Middle Ages Catholicism has posited three eschatological destinations – Heaven, Purgatory, Hell
The Catechism of the of Catholic Church clearly asserts the reality of hell (although von Balthazar skirts around this by speculating that Hell might finally be empty)
Today ironically Purgatory is being abandoned by Catholic Church just as it is becoming appealing to some Protestants(Gerry Wallis has written a Protestant appreciation of Purgatory). Pope Benedict (Ratzinger)in his book on eschatology redefines purgatory not as a sate/destination but as illuminating presence of God that purifies sin. We are in a fluid situation!
Historically the Catholic Church has insisted that there is a human decision to be made that has eternal consequences
Evangelicals can find common ground with conservative Catholics against universalism here (and set aside disputes about purgatory for the time being).
Question 6
Say something about the Cappadocians -
In terms of universalism -
i) Nyssa was a universalist at a time when Origen’s views were controversial and he recognised the difficulties about positing pre-existence of souls.
ii) His metaphysical theory is driven by the idea that evil will exhaust itself is less compelling than Origen because it doesn’t provide us with the full gnostic rationale but instead tries to fit uneasy with the biblical narrative.
iii) Basil taught ECT – some say his influence helped protect Gregory Nyssa, his brother.
iv) Gregory Nazianus – the other one – toys with universalism but doesn’t reach any settled conclusion.
v) Nyssa was never condemned – true; but how many universalist Doctors have there been since then? He’s an isolated case.
vi) Again if you read nineteenth century Greek Orthodox theology text books universalism is roundly condemned. (Been there done that but see the corollary at ix)
vii) Origen has only become popular again very recently beginning in the twentieth century in France with the work of the Jesuit Jean Daniélou - Origenism is also evident in the works of Teilhard de Chardin
viii)Origen is cool and chic today - but before the twentieth century not so.
ix) (It is argued in the seminar on Hell and Culture that universalism and therefore Origen are chic today because they fit in with postmodern collapse of absolutes, disrespect of authority, belief in personal authenticity rather than personal responsibility etc that sets the zeitgeist. Emerson and the transcendentalists are mentioned as precursors of this set of attitudes in American culture.[/list]
Question 7
The way in which universalist balance good and evil seems like ying and yang; it sounds like universalists are saying that evil is just as OK as good?
Evil and good are connected in universalist theologies. Balthasar speaking of the kenosis (self emptying) of the Son in the Incarnation speculates that prior to this there is a primordial movement of kenosis in which the father begat the son, and in which the father diminishes himself, and creates a distance in which evil could emerge
In the Nicene formula - God from God. Light from Light –Nicene – the Trinity is not about diminishment but about super abundance.
Any view in which the Father is in someway spilt from the son is Gnostic.
In Barth Jesus as the reprobate one is split from the Father. In the orthodox Christian view the Father gives his Son, the Son gives his life, the Sprit is given by being poured out.
That’s it folks - phew (I think it was worth doing this thoroughly in the end - I’m still of the view that Michael McClymond’s challenge is very unfair but needs to be handled with a certain care because it’s a seemingly compelling and scholarly one to an outsider. As I say I don’t doubt his sincerity - but I do think he plays very rough, and that his scholarship - which is evident - has been too driven by the prior aim of writing a polemic to discredit Christian universalism and therefore much of it is very skewed (beyond a reasonable allowance for the sort of subjectivity and partisanship that we all have). The troubling thing is that this stuff could so easily dovetail into popular conspiracy theory literature about the conspiracy of the Illuminati etc, very easily (and this last questioner seems to almost be on this bandwagon after hearing the lecture). Your comments on the last bit of précis/transcription are appreciated
Just to kick off with a quick set of observations on question 5.
Dr McClymond speaks off the cuff here almost as if purgatory is a final destination. Of course it is not; it is meant to be a transitional state for those who die in the faith but are not yet pure enough to get into heaven. Also there was a fourth destination that of Limbo for children who die (to which virtuous pagans also go in some accounts. IN some of the Church teachers like Augustine and Anselm this was seen as a place of positive torment by God of these creatures of his wrath. In the more merciful ones like Aquinas it was seen as a place not of active torment but merely of deprivation of the beatific vision of God. Pope Benedict/Ratzinger declared this doctrine to be without substance ‘ex cathedra’. I reckon he done good.
True enough in one sense (I’ll leave others to comment on this)
Purgatory defined as the ‘illuminating presence of God that purifies’ does not abolish purgatory. The whole purpose of the pains of purgatory is refining remedial and reformative. I think Ratzinger must have been trying to dispel the lurid ideas and descriptions of Purgatory as being a place of God’s vindictive wrath like hell but of shorter duration. I understand this idea crept in during the Counter Reformation. Purgatory is meant to be a place of hope and joyous anticipation as well as of suffering,
This isn’t a very good description of the Catholic idea of salvation that is linked to baptism into the Church, the sacraments of penance, and participation in the Eucharist etc rather than stressing a moment of decision for Christ.
Ratizinger and Pope John Paul II were very conservative according to some definitions (they certainly wanted to reverse Vatican II). It all depends what you mean by ‘conservative – ‘ my kind of conservatives my differ from your kind of conservatives. It seems odd to seek fellowship with people on a shared belief in eternal damnation. Some very unpleasant and marginal movements in Catholicism stress this doctrine and are also anti-Semitic for example/ Other Catholics who stress hell are not like this. Discernment is required Dr McClymond
Origen was actually very popular in the Renaissance amongst scholars and his works were published too, he was very popular indeed; he was respected as a great scholar and exegete in Europe even by those who would not go so far as to embrace apocatastatsis ( and the magisterial reformers were in constant fear of a revival of Origenism amongst the common people too - and it was one of the charges that they used, often falsely but not always, against the Anabaptists whom they killed in large numbers). This is well known and well documented with masses of evidence. The legislation drafted by the Calvinist Long parliament In England to make universalism a crime in the 1640s suggests (with other evidence) that Jane Lead and the Philadelphians were not the prime movers in popular universalism fifty years later.
Teilhard de Chardin was influenced by Nyssa rather than Origen - and that only in terms of his sense of cosmos. He was most certainly not a universalist.
Since I had stopped watching after the first question or so, I never heard this response. It certainly is more interesting - to me, at least - than the rest of his contentions. In fact, I’m curious as to why he didn’t mention it in his lecture.
Balthasar does indeed posit something like this in the Trinity - although I can’t remember if he says that the distance opens up the door for “evil.” The point is rather that the Father is truly loving in a free and risky manner by begetting the Son. As such, it is logically - perhaps metaphysically - possible that the Son refuse to return the being the Son receives from the Father back to the Father. However, in the end, it seems as if there actually is no real risk in this move, because the Father cannot ever “lose” the Father’s being. No doubt Balthasar’s thoughts on the primordial processiosn of the Trinity are speculative, poetic, and, frankly, a bit odd.
But, really, what Balthasar is doing is really just trying to show how the freedom and love within the Godhead grounds the freedom and love God shows in creation. So, in creating the world, God is giving something being out of love (although, the difference is that God is not giving God’s own being to creation), but by doing so, God is also giving creation the freedom to “fall away,” just as the Son had the technical power to refuse to love the Father in return. The difference is that, since the Son shares the Father’s own being, the Son always and without fail continues to love the Father and follow the Father’s will. Creation, on the other hand, uses this freedom to sin. The latter part is certainly nothing new. However, note that in the distance between the Father and the Son, evil does not arise; it does so only in connection with creation. And it is this distance that the Son spans by descending into hell, going as “far” as the Son can go from the Father to swallow up and defeat all evil. Yet, since the Son is God, this distance is never so great to separate the Father from the Son.
That being said, I think McClymond is hinting at legitimate criticisms of Balthasar’s position: ironically, criticisms made by far more “liberal” theologians in himself, who also argue that Balthasar’s position seems to make some form of “suffering” a precondition for love. I do not think I wish to side with Balthasar here. But, I still do not see how this view is “gnostic” in the relevant sense, and I do not see how Balthasar’s universalism is necessarily implicated in this “gnostic” doctrine of God.
With regards to his claim that any theology in which the Son is “split” from the Father is gnostic, what does he mean here by “immanent?” Are we talking about purely the immanent Trinity? Does this include the economy of salvation, and if so, again, what does he mean by “split?” Would even Jesus’ cry of forsakenness qualify? For such a crucial component of his argument, his presentation here seems very muddled.
Again, I have no problem with McClymond making criticisms of these theological moves. But, he does so to illegitimately support claims that he cannot make.
Glad I could be of service with my feat of endurance And great post! To be fair, Dr McClymond is answering the question off the cuff. Btu his lecture has made a young woman conclude that universalists somehow endorse evil - so my sympathy is diminished.
He is clarifying his link - that he considers clear - from the Gnostics to Origen to Boehme to Hegel to Barth and von Balthassar then to all of us here
I can certainly see how she could conclude that! Especially if one of his big contentions is that, for universalists, evil is somehow a necessity. Of course, no universalists that I know of think this is the case within God. Balthasar seems to suggest that something like a refusal to love (sin?) is theoretically possible should the Son refuse to return the Father’s love/being, but this is never a necessity and certainly never occurs! (In fact, I think it’s somewhat ambiguous whether Balthasar can even say that something like this could literally happen, but that’s another conversation for another day).
I thought of perhaps a better way to summarize my long post on Balthasar’s view. Traditional theology has maintained that there are “distinctions” in the Godhead, without there being** “divisions.”** Balthasar’s positing of “distance” in the Trinity is, I think, merely a more dramatic and poetic way of describing the “distinctions” between the divine Persons. Notice how a major point of his Trinitarian theology is that even at the furthest “distance” that the divine persons can go, they are nevertheless held together and united by the Spirit. So, the point is precisely the opposite of what McCly wants to charge Balthasar with: rather than separation, the Father and Son are always - even when Jesus is in hell - united!
Now, of course, saying that evil is necessary in the Godhead is not the same as saying that evil necessarily arises out of the act of creation - or at least the type of creation that God chooses to put into being. The latter seems to be, in fact, a rather common position, despite the fact that traditionalist theologians (in the Augustinian strain) have often tried to get around it by saying that it was theoretically possible that Adam and Eve never sin and thus evil never enter the world. In order to protect divine omnipotence and goodness, though, it seems they have to admit that there simply is no possible world in which free creatures don’t fall and/or that a world with a fall and eventual redemption for some and eternal punishment for others is simply a better world than one in which there is no fall (the “felix culpa”).
Universalists might hold that evil arises necessarily out of the type of creation that God brings into being, but this alone does not a gnostic make. For, creation remains, for all of the universalist theologians I have read, a totally free and gratuitous act of God. It arises out of no necessity (certainly no evil tendency) within God, which I take to be one of the, if not the most, significant characteristics of gnosticism: a necessary emanationism that results in an “evil” world.
Especially considering that after each of the first five days of Creation, “God seeth it good”, and is especially pleased immediately creating Man in His own image and giving him dominion over everything else by seeing it “very (exceedingly, abundantly) good”
Whether or not the Fall was a necessity is irrelevant, for we are here now. Would we have made the wrong choice anyway? Perhaps. But then we could have made the right choice in eating of the Tree of Life before the Other Tree. (I realize there is some debate on whether Adam and Eve partook of the ToL prior to the Fall, but the statement in Genesis 3:22 which says, “lest he live forever” leans me toward that they didn’t). The question, of course,is what would consistute our “free will”, as it were, in an non-fallen environment? Something that I ask myself even in the future restored Kingdom.
As far as evil being a necessity or not, I suspect that God had contingencies either way.
Indeed; However, this is unfortunately a very typical type of move for the fundamentalist and evangelical “gatekeepers”. Belief in eternal damnation is one of the markers of “belonging to the tribe”.
That may not be as supportive as it initially appears, however. The word translated “good” from the Hebrew Tov actually means something closer to “functional”, rather than “morally good in character”.
He’s a bit obvious about talking strategy in his lecture - he might as well be saying 'we’ll deal with the wide hopers and the catholic believers in purgatory at a later date - but in the meantime they are our co-belligerents against those pesky universalists.
Another historical note -
In Second Temple Judaism the evidence is mixed. In the Targums on Isaiah we get a rewriting of the hope of the messianic banquet to which Jews and Gentiles are invited; the Gentiles are invited and them massacred by the Jews and God’s angels. It was exactly this vindictive certainty that Jesus preached against.
In the Talmud that was complied before the Middle Ages and which has passages that may well reflect the debates in Second Temple Judaism – there are indeed notions of purgatory and some passages strongly suggest that everyone – Jews and Gentiles – will be purified in Gehenna/Purgatory in the world to come and finally enter paradise. The three passages that suggest that not all will be saved – and there are only three out of many others - are open to a variety of interpretation. One speaks of arguments between the Pharisaic school of Shammani and the School of Hillel during the time of Jesus the former emphasising God’s justice, the latter of God’s mercy. Another speaks of Jonathan ben Zakki on the day of his death telling his disciples that this life is occasion only for fearful weeping and repentance and not for hope in the coming judgement (but it may well refer not to Jonathan’s actual death but to the day on which he was taken out of Jerusalem in a coffin during the siege of Jerusalem to parlay with the Romans who were near triumph I think). And there are other passages – that predate the Middle Ages even if they are not from the Second Temple period that speak of universal salvation via purgatory.
Regarding Kabbala – not all of the Kabbalistic literature is Universalist by any means. There are many horrific passages in some Kabbalistic literature about eternal hell. There is a universalistic turn in some types of Kabbla – for example that of Isaac Luria. I find it hard to judge this literature. Yes the Shekinah goes into exile with God’s people and is exiled from the Ain Sof (God’s transcendence) ;but this is all about the Jews terrible experience of exile and persecution under Christians. God is still present with his people even if God also is exiled from His fullness because his people are suffering so terribly (certainly genuine Jewish Kabbala does not speak to personal pride and overweening desire for self deification). And the idea that the Jews repair the rift in God through tikkun is certainly not a code for moral laxity (as Dr McClymond implies is always the case with Christian universalism today); the Jews must follow God’s commandments to bring about restoration – this is the message.
If Dr McClymond had wanted to he could easily have traced Gnostic influences that lead to universalism in Christianity back to the influences of Judaism and Kabbala instead of Boehme (Boehme was influenced by Kabbala as much as by hermeticism). Christian Kabbala was also a big influence on some – but by no means all – early Universalists (and on others who were not universalists). Kabbala initially gained credence with some Christians during the Renaissance and Reformation because an understanding of its methods was seen as salutary as a means to convert the Jews (the Spanish Catholic Ramon Lull was the pioneer), Dr McClymond could also have pointed out that Luther and indeed Calvin had stern warnings about the Jews. However, he would not want to go down that road concerning Kabbalism for obvious reasons although the case could be made in the same way as his case about modern universalism stemming from Boehmenist Gnosticism – and easily so.
I say this to show that trying to trace too clear lines of historical pedigree for any one idea will always run into difficulties and conspiracy theories if we are not careful (and humble about the limits of what we can infer from history). Dr McClymond is not anti-Semitic - that’s not my point. My point is that if you want to build a case against universalism like this an anti-Semite could do the same using similar strategies (Is there a connection between the philo-Semitism of Vladimir Soloviev, Maria of Skobotsova and even Dietrich Bonhoeffer who all inclined towards universalism? - Were they all Kabbalistic Gnostics with Soloviev as the main link…? Is this a result of the wider movement of Christian Kabbalism which was the first time Christians actually took interest in the Jews as a real people with a real culture since antiquity and often did have philo-Semitic consequences? etc…).
I hope Jason does a sweep up here – especially about the Cappadocians and about Barth and evangelism. I would like to just give some final thoughts as the historian here (while Arnelite and Jason are theologians)
The charge of Gnosticism is slippery. Of course it can also be made against doctrinaire Calvinism (probably unfairly and as a caricature, but it can also be made). The charge sheet would include –
Emphasis on determinism, which the Church Fathers fought against in Gnosticism
Emphasis that evil has its origin in the will of God (although paradoxically God is not tainted by it - which many would see as a contradiction rather than a paradox)
Emphasis on the elect
(Some would say a pantheistic emphasis, in that God’s will is all that happens - there are no free agents apart from God)
Emphasis on individualism (via election) that goes against the ecclesial nature of the Church Community
Emphasis on right belief rather than faith as necessary to salvation (even if this is about logical syllogism instead of intuitive visionary experience)
An anti sacramental suspicion of the goodness of creation etc…
So this one can cut both ways… However, I think Walter Wink is right in arguing that Gnosticism is a whole package and that identifying bits of Gnosticism in the belief systems of others does not make them Gnostics in the sense of the heresies that the Church fathers fought against (and sometimes became infected with – especially when they became too obsessed with fighting it)
There is an industry of popular books that are published about the Gnostic undercurrents in Western culture – some lauding these (like Harold Bloom’s tome on American Religion) some despairing at these (like the writings of Eric Voeglin). Of course they all identify different things as ‘Gnostic’ in their typologies – this is not an exact science.
I don’t feel competent to comment on the so called ‘Gnostic’ influence on American culture. You could talk about the universalist who emigrated to Germantown - the European Philadelphians, the Ephrata cloister community, the Harmonic society etc as hermetic Gnostics in some way. But I think it would be a lot harder to associate Gnosticism with Relly and Murray who were the real inspiration for the American Universalist Church. Also – I note that Dr McClymond speak about Emerson and the Transcendentalists in Gnostic terms. That’s as may be. However, I have also seen a very compelling arguement made that New Thought/Christian Science actually develops out of Calvinism in a reactive way and reinvents many features of Calvinism. So this is all very tricky.
Some of Dr McClymond’s thesis seems dependent on Catherine L. Albanese’s controversial ideas about American culture and ‘non Christian’ Metaphysical religion (I’ve not read her book but I’ve read a pervious book that inspired her so I get the drift from reading a summary)
A Republic of Mind and Spirit:
A Cultural History of American Metaphysical Religion
And see Richard Neuhau’s review about how controversial this thesis is (especially since Catholicism and Pentecostalism fit her definition of Metaphysical Religion too) firstthings.com/article/2009 … -americaha
(My hunch is that Albanese’s book may be a major source)
Finally having watched the seminar in which the charge of Marcionism is levelled against universalists – it is odd that the debate gives priority to the Old testament and scoffs at the well meaning attempts to read the Old testament in the light of the New – because this strategy is pretty much central in Church history (even to Augustine). IN the seminar one man talks about psalms in which God’s love for ‘me’ is predicated on the fact that God destroys ‘my’ enemies and highlights Gods’ requirement for the ritual of animal sacrifice as evidence of God’s holy wrath. The man suggests that a universalist has no way of dealing with these passages. Well the Calvinist emphasis on the literal validity of the Old Testament and-the Mosaic law and the cherem texts has not always been a happy one.
Finally in the seminar about culture and hell the argument is made that the idea of eternal damnation is not a stumbling block in all cultures even today - the example of Islam is given. That’s not a good argument because not all Muslims believe in eternal damnation today or have done in the past (those that hold to a more merciful doctrine tend to be the least fanatical ones today). The ones who believe it in the strongest sense are not a good example to us all. Postmodernity is fluid.
One final historical note- Dr McClymond claims that Kabbalism is universalist. The Zohar, the key text of Kabbalism - is not universalist (although it may well be influenced by Jewish Gnosticism). Gehenna - as in the Talmud - is envisaged as purgatory. However the Zohar speaks of a category of sinners who are so hardened that they remain in Purgatory forever and therefore in perpetual torment in a region of ‘boiling filth’ (I can cite the references on request). I reckon the attempt to link Kabblism with contemporary Christian universalism probably has to do with Jurgen Moltmann’s poetic usage of Isaac Luria’s notion of zim zum in his theology (but that’s another story - and the notion of zim zum does not fit into Dr McClymond’s typology of Gnosticism anyway).
I would finally like to ask whether God is glorified in this lecture. This is Dr McClymond’s earnest prayer at the beginning and is the assumption that several of his interlocutor’s share which gives the lecture a rhetorical authority. But is God glorified by some Christians being so very unfair to other Christians? The lecture is just so unfair.
Even if we grant that Dr McClymond has not had the opportunity to read and evaluate Professor Ramelli’s work, Dr McClymond as a scholar at Yale will have had plenty of opportunity to have his work peer reviewed by other scholars on the body of work that predates Ramelli. Granted that his lecture and seminars have an off the cuff element, they are still shot through with many errors, and some serious errors, about historical fact (and not about interpretation) that we have enumerated in this thread – errors that could have easily have been checked out by an unbiased scholar. And it was Dr McClymond’s decision to upload the lecture onto the web as being somehow authoritative (and not just a matter of bouncing ideas about which is what we have done here).
-
