The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Michael McClymond on Universalism

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#13

Great report, Arlenite! Sounds like a classic case of Did Not Do The Research. Someone should take up an offering and send him a copy of Dr. Ramelli’s tome on the patristic universalists. (Although if he read Robin’s much more accessible work and flat ignored large portions of what it was saying, then I wouldn’t waste the money doing so. :wink: )

I have never heard a single word about Marcion being universalistic, and am checking back through Dr. R’s index for refs to see if she mentions it. It’s possible he was and she just happened not to say so because she focuses on what the patristic universalists (including Bardaisan, ClementAlex, Origen and in effect Irenaeus) were challenging Marcion on – and that wasn’t it. Marcion dichotomizes super-strongly between the “OT God” of avenging justice which he painted as false and evil in a fashion mirroring many Gnostics, and the “loving” God of the NT; this was the main point of contention from his (proto-)orthodox opponents, even when they were deploying universalistic Christology arguments against him. It is Marcion, not the patristic universalists, who militantly ignored NT evidence of God’s severity, going so far as to provide a heavily abbreviated and edited version of the received texts (incidentally creating the first known canonical list against the unofficial canon of the orthodox party). Origen, to say the least, could have authoritatively cited more post-mortem punitive texts than McClymond does in his lecture! :laughing:

Still, as I said, it might perhaps be possible that Marcion might have also been a universalist – he denied the real God judges anyone for sin, and his scope of evangelism was certainly much greater than any Gnostic elitism. But even if so, the most that can be said is that he wasn’t much of anything like the orthodox patristic universalists in how he went about it, and they relentlessly hammered on him.

And in fact he tended to teach that those in hades who held to the standards of the OT would remain unredeemed after the offer of Christ’s salvation; so really his only ‘universalism’ was a scope of offered salvation similar to any Arminianism in principle, and offered post-mortem in practice. And only offered post-mortem to non-Jews! Marcion just didn’t believe that the real unknown God of the NT condemned them, but rather that they had been condemned by the evil God of the OT Who set them a law they couldn’t follow thus ensuring their final damnation by the evil God. The good God decides not to even try to save them.

In that sense the universal scope of Marcion’s potential salvation ends up falling to a standard criticism of Arm soteriology by Calvinists: usually Arminians believe in a limited election of sinners to salvation after all, just like Calvinists even though the number of the elect might technically be larger!

#14

The old “cheap grace vs. costly grace” chestnut is one of my personal “favorites” :angry: . They like to accuse Christian Universalism of promoting cheap grace, but what they forget is that grace isn’t cheap (or costly, to us) it’s free! If it wasn’t free, it wouldn’t be grace at all. So this one is doubly bad, in that it’s essentially a false dichotomy within a straw man (or perhaps red herring).

#15

If I recall, the Marcionite charge wasn’t made in the actual lecture, but during one of those dialogue videos. I’m not sure if it was McClymond or one of his interlocutors who brought it up, but it was just the same, old argument that universalism ignores God’s wrath and thus ignores the OT. :unamused:

So, I don’t think McClymond thinks that Marcion was a universalist, or else I’m sure he would’ve included in the lecture. “Look! Another heretic who was a universalist!”

This is what is so puzzling to me. McClymond is an actual academic who holds an actual academic post in historical theology. He supposedly did the research for this book on a fellowship at Yale Divinity, for goodness sakes! (although McClymond is foremost an Edwards scholar, and Yale has an Edwards research center, which might explain it). But, if his lecture and his comments in these videos are any indication, it just sounds like really sloppy work. Again, I recognize it’s difficult to translate the nuance of a book into an hour long lecture, but it seems like it calls into question whether the book really will be carefully argued. The lecture and dialogue videos sound like the usual neo-Calvinist screeds (and McClymond himself admits to be a Calvinist, which also might explain it a bit).

I was actually really excited because I initially thought that his book was just going to be a nice historical work on the history of universalism. I thought I remember reading somewhere that Ramelli is doing a “sequel” to her patristic universalism monster tome on medieval and modern universalism. Anyone know if this is the case? Seems like the only hope left now for a good contemporary historical survey.

#16

Hi Jason and Arlenite -

I’ve looked up Marcion in Hans Jonas’ ‘*The Gnostic Religion’ *and found the following .

(first a paraphrase from me) Marcion was a Gnostic in that he believed that the world was created by a hostile deity. However, unlike the other full blown Gnostics he also believed we are the creation of this inferior and hostile deity it seems,; his alien god of love is the one who reaches out to us in his son’s ransoming death from beyond the cosmos and seeks to adopt us out of pure gratuitous love and save us from our malign creator. However, it is not gnosis of our spiritual origins that saves us – it is purely faith in the power of the alien God. In Marcion’s scheme we are saved by faith rather than by gnosis.

Jonas explains that -

(The Gnostic Religion – page 140)

I’d expect that Professor Ramelli would agree.

So our critic of Christian universalism (whichever one) is using ‘Marcionite’ – like ‘Gnosticism’ – as a very loose ‘guilt by association’ thing as you say Arlenite – whoever made the quip. Yes it is the same old stuff about ignoring OT wrath and therefore trying to bypass God’s wrathfulness; but that’s only one element of the Marcionite creed.

And to top it all I’m not sure that Hegel believed in universal salvation as such – although I could be wrong; he believed in a positive outcome of the historical process but I’m unclear that individuals who lived before the outcome would be beneficiaries. Hard Calvinists tend to be very anti-Hegel because of Hegel’s belief that thesis and antithesis can be combined in synthesis. Perhaps that’s why Hegel - who was admittedly influenced by Boehme - features on the list of ‘universalists’.

P.S. I’ve had a look at the Pog List to see which Universalists were influenced directly or indirectly by Boehme – and the list I’ve come up with is -

George de Benneville
Elahanan Winchester
Paul Siegvolk
The Petersens
Jane Lead
Anne Bathurst
Some of the early Quakers
The German Town Universalists of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania (including the Dunkers)
Richard Roache
Sterry and White
Sower the Elder and the Younger
William Law
William Blake
Nicolas Berdyaev

That’s not everybody – it is only a small fraction even of the 17th and 18th century key figures. So Boehmenism is a lineage within early modern universalism – it is not the totality. There were other universalists movements that Boehmenism had little or no influence on.
[/quote]

#17

Arlenite, yes Dr. R is certainly working on a sequel about medieval (and maybe also modern) universalists, or anyway she says so in her tome. She has several connected projects on the stove, so to speak. :slight_smile: (I’m not entirely sure I recall her saying she has a third book about modern universalists on the way, but I half recall it. I’m more sure about the medieval book.)

Another one on the way is a book about how apokatastasis was referenced and used outside orthodox patristics in the early Christian centuries, by pagan and alt-Christian authors, mainly before Nicea. She talks about this for a few pages early in her first huge tome, but only enough to establish the difference in how more orthodox authors used the term.

Given her status as patristic professor at the Catholic University in Italy, I wouldn’t be too surprised to learn her work has been encouraged as part of the RCC’s reclamation of orthodox universalistic fathers (and mothers, starting with the Macrinas, the Younger of whom basically invented monastic sisterhoods with the help of Gregory Nyssa) in the past few decades, pointing toward a more Eastern Orthodox attitude on the topic eventually. Which, not incidentally, would remove one of the big remaining blocks to the reunion of the ancient trinitarian groups, three of whom (Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Nestorian/Church of the East) have historically had strong ties to universalistic teachers.

(As an aside, since he’s teaching at St. Louis University, I suppose he must have a doctorate and we should call him Dr. McClymond not just Mr.?)

#18

Regarding Mr McClymond and his supposed arguments against Universalism, as an old friend of mine was fond of saying, “what is this, amateur night?!” :smiley:

#19

I think a good case can be made that the doctrine of the sinful nature is profoundly gnostic.

Since God cursed us with it, all our earthly desires are depraved and our only hope is to escape this wicked word (and eternal hell) by getting to heaven.

Interestingly enough this doctrine cannot be found at all in the text of Genesis.

Conservative Evangelical scholarship is a farce, a ruse and arguably even a delusion.

Given the self-contradictory nature of the Bible, they are always going to distort many verses for salvaging their favorite ones.
By doing this they all too often ignore the fact that many of their logically possible interpretations of the problematic verses are also extremely implausible.

What really infuriates me is their** heinous bigotry** while attacking marginal viewpoints such as condtional immortality or universalism.
They utterly lack love and compassion while passionately preaching that BILLIONS of human beings are going to be tortured forever due to sins they could not have possibly avoided, having been cursed by the Almighty Himself.

They are worshiping an evil demon they call God, thereby blaspheming His holy and precious name. :smiling_imp:

It is no wonder than approximately 85% of American college students leave behind this wicked faith.
It is very sad they give up Christ altogether, throwing out the baby with the proverbial bathwater.

But as I have argued, I think that many of them might be closer to God now they are atheists.

There is a nice quote “With such a god, atheism becomes an act of religiosity”.

Can someone tell me whom it stems from?

#20

i certainly sympathise with a lot of what you’ve said! Of course, people are free to have ridiculous beliefs about God and still have a relationship with the real God…cognitive dissonance is an odd thing to live with, but God is patient at least. Thankfully, unlike the elitist form of Gnosticism would have it [if they truly believed as the church claimed], we aren’t saved by what we Know [or rather believe we know] but by trusting in God as best we understand…and many that misconstrue God to be a monster maybe still know Him in their hearts better than they realise, but they’re not mature enough to leave behind the harmful myths they already embraced.
those myths, as you say, do point to a monster…a very fickle and inconsistent one, that withholds loving kindness from MOST, and then, almost as insult to injury, gives smug grace and elitist favour to a tiny group. but in practice, many i know of a conservative evangelical bent, are still acting as if despite all that crap, they know and love the real God.
they get stuff wrong about Him, and i guarantee i do as well, even if i get this one bit right, that He would not burn people forever.

but as to this topic, i expect this guy thought this would be a cakewalk, and really didn’t bother to dive in properly. because, as we all know, Universalism is just obviously wrong :wink:

#21

Whatever the temptation to dismiss Dr McClymond’s arguments - which we only know of as they have been given in an informal setting - I think we probably should take them very seriously. I sense a powerful counter narrative to counter the Christian Universalist narrative taking shape. Of course it is based on over simplifications – but big narratives are. However, I think we should treat this ‘big narrative’ with respect and consider the best ways to argue against it very carefully. It may well become standard as part of a Protestant ‘orthodox’ argument against universalism based in an interpretation of history. I can see it panning out as I write this. It might well repay closer consideration than we have given here.

#22

For example it seems to me that McClymond means something quite subtle when using ‘Gnosticism’ - and since he mentions both Boehme and Hegel I think he must be versed in the writings of the Catholic intellectual Cyril O’Reagan of Notre Dame and Yale to inform his ‘big story’. See

ndpr.nd.edu/news/23198/?id=1146

#23

Agreed, though it’s frustrating to butt our heads against the same pathetic arguments again and again.
But if there isn’t a cohesive response that at least discredits this type of nonsense…you’re right, a persecuting narrative could arise, and be worse than we’ve encountered for some time…though i suspect it would be less bloody then our predecessors have suffered.

#24

Hi James :slight_smile:

I dunno about a persecuting narrative; but I think I am beginning to be aware of a strong narrative that could be used to dismiss universalism and seem very convincing for some (because it’s approach is very academic).

#25

You may be right, Dick - you usually are :smiley: . But I see nothing new or powerful in McClymond’s lazy *a priori *dismissal of Universalism - based on Arlenite’s excellent summary in this thread. I would need to examine his arguments in more detail myself to be sure, of course.

By all means let’s consider this incipient ‘counter narrative’. But let’s not worry ourselves into thinking that it’s going to derail the Universalistic movement. I say this not so much because of anything McClymond - or indeed any anti-Universalist (and there have been many) - says, but because I belive that those who wish to remain close-minded to the truth of Universalism do not need the biased, ill-informed musings of a minor academic to legitimise their reactionary stance.

Mind you, I suppose it’s easy to say that from the ‘heretical’ viewpoint of already being a convinced, dogmatic, hard-core, dyed-in-the-wool, take no prisoners Universalist myself :smiley:. The moment I realised that I didn’t have to be constrained by the shackles of orthodoxy, that it was okay to make my own mind up, using the mind and the heart and the conscience God gave me, about the Last Things, indeed all the things of God, ECT was dead in the water for me. (And for that I have George MacDonald to thank.) So I believe our ‘job’ is simply to push the door of conscience open, even just a little tiny crack, and let the light shine in. No amount of argument, no narrative, no matter how powerful, will change the mindset of the orthodox believer as long as that door remains closed, because those arguments, that narrative, will not be given brain space - they will be dismissed, a priori, as McClymond has shown. But once the door is opened, I reckon, and the believer *gives themself *permission to think, it’s only a matter of time before the truth will overwhelm them, and ultimately set them free.

Cheers

Johnny

#26

No I don’t think it will derail the universalist movement - not at all :laughing: I can just see that it is worth anticipating as an argument that needs careful countering. So I may give some further thoughts if anyone is interested :slight_smile:

#27

I am!!!

#28

I agree. It will definitely be a book that will need to be read and responded to from a universalist position. I suspect that universalists will soon have to put up with the charge that they are now gnostic too in addition to all the other horrible things!

I think that you’re right that he must have a more subtle definition of gnosticism in mind (probably borrowed from O’Regan - since he does cite O’Regan in the lecture). But, as I mentioned earlier, I’m pretty sure O’Regan himself would contend that at least von Balthasar is, in fact, an anti-gnostic!

And, the funny thing is that the requirements for his historical prescriptive argument against universalism are so high that you need only show a single Christian universalist position that doesn’t share this gnostic doctrine of God in order to invalidate it. It would, I think, be far more interesting if he left out this prescriptive argument and merely attempted to show: “hey, these universalists seem to have read or adopted certain gnostic features.” It would not be a definitive case against universalism, but it would raise interesting questions.

#29

It doesn’t have to be factually accurate, logically valid, topically appropriate, or even particularly new, to be powerful in the sense of achieving the intended goal.

Most people don’t have the time (even if they had the skill) to do the research and analysis for themselves; we all have to trust a lot of people to be competent in areas where we ourselves aren’t specialists. As a theologically, exegetically and conservatively careful Christian universalism (and annihilationism for that matter) gains ground, most non-universalists will quite naturally want and look for easy-to-hear refutations of universalism and positive arguments for non-universalism – but ones which sound like someone else has done competent work.

It only has to seem powerful to be powerful. Consider the wave of responses, directly and indirectly, to Rob Bell’s Love Wins. I’m far from being the biggest fan of that book myself, and on several points I don’t blame opponents for jumping up and down on Rob and nuking his book from orbit; but a lot of claims made about Rob and his book are also demonstrably false, and those claims are often attached to various moral condemnations. Yet those demonstrably false claims are made by people who purportedly read the book and who sound (to people with only a casual acquaintance to the topic) like they know what they’re talking about.

Agreed. He could have been much more careful and cautious, and so consequently on point.

But he wasn’t. Which leads me to think he intends to sell books. :wink:

Edited later to add: I shouldn’t have made even a minor inference from his methods about his intentions (i.e. to sell books with an easy looking colorful refutation of all Christian universalists to people looking for easy reasons to ignore anything a Christian universalist might look like he’s saying.) I’m sorry about that and I’ve added it to my post here for sake of fairness to Dr. McCly. His reasons for being wildly uncautious and uncareful about his accusations aren’t any of my business. His wildly uncautious and uncareful (and often proportionately inaccurate) accusations and arguments are. :wink:

#30

Wow - he cites O’Reagan !!! And agreed O’Reagan does see Balthazar as an anti-Gnostic. Here’s what I wrote before you posted :slight_smile:

Dr McClymond’s arguments – when taken at face value seem to suggest that he is arguing that modern Universalists are direct descendants of the ancient Gnostics and that the ancient Gnostics believed in universal salvation (and I’m sure that this is the message that anti-universalists would have been reassured by). However, I’m sure this is not what he means – he’s far too intelligent for this (although this point is worth clearing up with anyone who listening to those videos makes the leap of identifying Gnostics and Universalists). Rather I think Dr McClymond is drawing upon the scholarly narrative which originates with nineteenth century German theologians and found its most extreme exponent in Eric Voeglin – who see the return of Gnosticism in disguised forms as the rot at the heart of modern civilisation.

One scholar has bemoaned that –

And I’d add that there is a book about Protestant Gnostics that identifies Fundamentalism as Gnostic and we here have sometime identified the Gnostic elements in Calvinism.

In the end the term Gnostic does seem to disintegrate – but the modern critics seem to use it as a term against any system that does not allow for the transcendence of God but tries to manipulate God into fitting into a total explanatory human system of knowledge.

I think Dr McClymond must be influenced by the Catholic Cyril O’Regan (although I’m not sure Dr O’Regan would approve of Dr McClymond’s theology in which specific use of ‘Gnostic’ as an adjective for Christina Universalism.

So I think it is probably in abstract ideas such as metalepsis that Dr McClymond is grounding his charge of Gnosticism against Christina universalism.

The charge is basically that universalist interpretations of the Bible manipulate the text to conform to a pre-existing grid not derived from the text (which is a technique derived indirectly and unknowingly from Valentian Gnosticism)

All the best

Dick

I’ll do another couple of posts on the other aspects I anticipate if you’d like.

#31

You don’t pick the title “The Devil’s Redemption” for subtlety.

Unless, of course, you’re actually arguing that the devil’s gonna be saved, but I think we’ve ruled that out as the book’s thesis. :stuck_out_tongue:

Sign me up as interested too!

#32

That makes sense, Sobor, but it’s still silly to call ideologically convenient eisegesis “Gnosticism” – the Gnostics weren’t the only people to do that, and the basic conceptual and methodological error has nothing especially to do with the various doctrines popular among the Gnostics (least of all the doctrine of salvation by doctrinal knowledge).

I have long suspected that the ferment about Gnosticism and its characteristic-set derives from the fact that most critics of the Gnostics also believe in salvation by doctrinal knowledge (for all practical purposes even when not overtly so – but often also overtly so!) so they need to find something else to oppose rather than self-critically admit to the same principle error.