Hey wait a gol-durn minute here - I don’t have anything to add. 
You’re a tough act to follow, Dick
In other words this is just so obscure that I’m not getting any offers of discussion 
. Och well - I would think that was the case with Dr McClymond’s audience too - they were lapping it up because he was he expert talking ‘de haute en bas’.
Mind you I’d still like someone to run the thought about ‘all souls’ in Carpocrates meaning ‘all psychics’ past Dr Ramelli sometime. She is, after all writing about non-Christian views of apocatastasis in the classical world at the moment so she will almost certainly have a highly informed answer. She does have correspondents from EU and I don’t want bother her with another unfamiliar one - so offers are appreciated by PM.
I just don’t think i have the knowledge to take this farther…i have been learning with each post.
Same here - this is an area of new learning for me - very interesting, I for one really like ‘obscure’ subjects being brought into the light where their obscurity goes away.
space saving
That seems fair. Those have a huge number of problems, so it’d be good to ensure we include any premises that aren’t as problematic, but honestly i don’t remember any others. To me the whole thing sounded as if it was based on very dodgy premises that have nothing to do with the universalism i have seen promoted on this site, as a large example. It doesn’t bear any resemblance to Tentmaker either from memory.
Hi James - I’ve polished these one up and added one last point about first century Judaism that is made. I think the points about universalism and the early church are the very worst part of his argument. Most of them are just plain wrong through and through. Only a couple have a grain of truth, but this is covered with other half truths and untruths. On a good day when I feel cheery about all of this I would say ‘untruths’ rather than ‘falsehoods’; they are different things.
I’m not saying his argument against early modern and modern universalism are nay better - but at least here the arguments become less clear cut in some instances (although the trajectory of his argument is IMHO plain wrong again). But I’m jumping the gun
Dick; Regarding # 4: I often hold to a “lager” hope, although I generally prefer a good dark beer…
I think we need to start a thread for Dick’s best typos… I’m kicking myself that I didn’t copy and save some of the more Freudian ones from the past. 
Here is my McClymond charge sheet against universalism to date (still working on it)-
GENERAL
-
Universalism is a heresy at the root of many of the problems in the Church and the world today
-
Universalism is largely identical to the ancient heresy of Gnosticism
-
We can select various charges laid against a Gnostic and injurious current in western culture set out in various books and lay these at the door of Christian universalists, ancient and modern.
-
Christians who hold to a larger hope/inclusive idea of salvation and (conservative) Catholics who believe in Purgatory (through the offices of Evangelicals and Catholics Together?) should and will be persuaded to unite with Reformed ‘orthodoxy’ to combat and defeat the subversive heresy of Christian Universalism (on the basis of a shared belief in hell). Once this is done then the Reformed orthodoxy will be able to sort out it’s difference with its former co-belligerents against universalism.
THE EARLY CHURCH
-
The heretical sects described as Gnostics by the early Church Fathers were Universalists in that their belief system followed the following trajectory – Primordial Unity - Division – Return to Unity
-
The implicit corollary here is that the Gnostics also believed in universal salvation.
-
Another implicit corollary is that those Church Fathers who wrote against the Gnostics were attacking their universalism
-
This Gnostic trajectory contrasts with Christian orthodoxy which has the following very different trajectory – Creation, Fall, Redemption and (implicit but not stated) Judgement of dual outcomes
-
In Gnostic thought the human being is an alienated aspect of God that will be reconciled with God because it is a part of God. By way of contrast in orthodox theology the human being is a creature alienated from God by sin and will not inevitably be reconciled to God.
-
Universalism originates with Origen and is not found in any earlier Christian writings or in the Bible.
-
Neither is universalism found in the Rabbinical writings from the time of Jesus (although there is perhaps some evidence of a belief in purgatory). Universalism only surfaces in Judaism in the medieval Jewish Gnostic writings which go under the generic name of Kabbalah
-
Origen derived universalism from Gnostic writings especially his belief in the pre-existence of souls (and in reincarnation)
-
A theology of universal salvation is only coherent if it posits the non-Biblical belief in the pre-existence of souls in unity with God before the fall into division/alienation.
-
Universalism was not significant in the early Church in any way it was the belief of a few isolated and marginal individuals -Origen Gregory Nyssa, and Isaac of Syria with a few camp followers
-
The article by John Wesley Hanson in the Schaff Herzog encyclopaedia about the Six Cathecetical schools and universalism is pure fabrication (that is, it is not even an historical ‘myth’ - historical 'myths always have some basis in fact)
12 Universalism was roundly condemned by the early Church in Edessa - this proposition is established on the basis of a single example - therefore even in the Church of the East at it’s most easterly universalism was condemned
-
Universalism caused divisions in the early Church and set brother against brother
-
The idea that 'big bad Augustine was in any way important in the marginalisation of universalism is a fabrication (and not even an historical myth)
-
Universalism was condemned by Ecumenical Council
13 Although universalism can be equated with Gnosticism there is nothing in the Reformed theological tradition that can be compared with Gnosticism or seen as deriving from Gnosticism (this is an inevitable strong corollary of the whole argument)
THE MIDDLE AGES
-
Between Gregory of Nyssa in the fourth century and Jackob Boehme in the seventeenth, universalism became so marginal as to be almost off radar (implied).
-
The attempts by Bishop Alfeyev Hilarion of the Russian Orthodox Church to trace a continuing Universalist tradition in the East on the basis of the theology and liturgy of Christ’s descent into Hell can be ruled out of court. His arguments have no biblical warrant and are based in the non canonical Gospel of Nicodemus (and it is possible to argue for anything on the basis of non-canonical Gospels)
-
Official Ninetieth century Greek Orthodox theologians condemn Origen as a dangerous heretic.
-
Official Ninetieth century Greek Orthodox theologians condemn the teaching of apocatastasis (implied)
-
Interest in Origen was only revived in the twentieth century by French Jesuits. Since then he has risen from obscurity to chic and trendy status.
-
Since the High Middle Ages the Catholic Church has taught that there are three eschatological destinations - Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven
-
Purgatory was seen as a place of retributive punishment. The idea of purgatory as a place of ameliorative suffering is very recent and effectively abolishes Purgatory.
-
In the twenty first century, just at the point when Catholicism is abandoning Purgatory Protestants are, for the first time (strongly implied), showing interest in the doctrine as a symptom of post modern fluidity.
EARLY MODERN PERIOD
Boehme
-
Modern universalism can be traced back to 1600 to the visions of the German cobbler mystic Jackob Boehme.
-
Christian Universalists today are unwittingly influenced by Boehme (implied corollary)
-
Boehme was a Universalist (no nuances are suggested in the lecture)
-
He was a heretic and in no sense a Lutheran
-
Boehme’s theosophy follows the Gnostic schema Unity – Division- Unity
-
Boehme’s theosophy also posits the origin of evil in God like the Gnostic systems
-
His theosophy like the ancient Gnostic systems radically distorts the biblical narrative
-
It was based purely on subjective visionary experiences written down the heretical language of alchemy and astrology.
-
Boehme’s Universalist influence can be traced across five continents in a network of people who either knew each other or were reading each others writings
The English Connection
John Pordage – the English Boehmenist - was a Universalist
John Pordage was defrocked as a priest of the Church of England for consorting with spirits angels and demons (and the hidden premise is that these accusations are to be believed at face value)
Jane Lead a follower of John Pordage was the founder of the Philadelphians – the first sect whose purpose was explicitly to promote universalism
Jane Lead derived her universalism from the teaching of Boehme and from her subjective visions
William Law – best known for his ‘The Serious Call to the Devout Life – which influenced the Wesley bothers and Henry Venn of the Clapham sect among others – became a disciple of Boehme in later life
Law became a Universalist through reading Boehme
John Wesley pointed our clearly to Law that Boehme’s influence on him was pernicious. However Law was intransigent to the advice of the great Evangelist.
George MacDonald became a Universalist through his reading of William Law.
George MacDonald later read and was strongly influenced (implied) by Boehme
George MacDonald showed a blasphemous contempt for the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement which is derived from Boehme via William Law.
(Strongly implied throughout) PSA is an historic doctrine of the Universal Church and has creedal status.
George MacDonald was a formative influence on the Inklings (not in doubt)
The German Connection
Johann Georg Gichtel was a Boehmenist and a Universalist
Johann and Eleanora Petersen – two influential German Universalists - were Boehmenists who derived their universalism from the visions of an unnamed woman prophet.
Fredrich Christophe Oetinger was a Boehmenist and a Universalist
Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling was a disciple of Oetinger and also a Christian Universalist
Schelling was the young rock star of universalism
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was strongly influenced by Boehme
Hegel was a Christian Universalist
Hegel saw the cross as God reconciling with God – after the Gnostic pattern – rather than it being the reconciliation of God and sinful humanity
The book ‘Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition’ by Glenn Magee while it’s conclusions are disputed by some Hegel scholars would tend to confirm the thesis that Hegel’s universalism is rooted in his Gnosticism (as is all Christian universalism)
Hegel’s philosophy is a formative influence on modern Universalists (implied corollary)
Hegel’s philosophy has deeply influenced modern totalitarianism (specifically Marxism)
Totalitarianism and Universalism can be fruitfully linked together (strongly implied)
The French Connection
Martinez de Pasqually was a Universalist (also it is implied that he was a Boehmenist)
He introduced Gnostic magic/theurgic ritual into freemasonry in his lodge of ‘The Elect Cohens’.
Martinez de Pasqually was the originator of Scottish Rite Freemasonry (implied coroallry)
Louis Claude de Saint-Martin, the sometime disciple of Martinez de Pasqually, approved of theurgic rites (implied)
Louis Claude de Saint Martin derived his universalism from Pasqually and/or Boehme
Louis Claude de Saint Martin was the founder of the secret society known as the Martinists (implied)
It is significant that Saint Martin taught universalism on the eve of the French Revolution
The Russian connection
Vladimir Sergeyevich Solovyov was a Bohemenist and this inspired his Universalism
Solovoyov was converted to universalism by a subjective visionary experience of the mysterious figure of Sophia
Sergei Bulgakov followed in Solvoyov’s footsteps in his veneration of Sophia and likewise leant his universalism from Boehme
Sergei Bulgakov said some absurd things about the salvation of the devil
Universalism was resurrected in Russian Orthodoxy via Boehmenism
It is significant that Solovoyov and Bulgakov taught universalism on the eve of the Russian Revolution
The American Connection
- Not dealt with in the lecture but the following features are implied because these allegedly characterise the early modern history of English and European Universalism-
Boehemnist inspiration and Gnostic theology
Magical rites
Alchemy
Astrology
Spiritualism
Subjective visionary states
Social destabilisation and totalitarianism
Deception and membership of secret societies
-
Ralph Waldo Emersons writings on Self Reliance and the Oversoul are in keeping with the Gnostic trajectory of Bohemenism and Christian Universalism.
-
Universalism in America has produced/ is a symptom of the narcissist culture of self worth and self actualisation/human potential.
Really appreciate your efforts here, Dick. This is opening up a whole slice of history.
I’m glad we can finally come out of the closet and just admit that we have secret knowledge of the true nature of God and the universe, and that we can go back to our magic rituals and hatred of all that messy material stuff. Oh yes, and narcissism…can get back to a good old bout of the old narcissism.
I was getting tired of always having to hide it from the ECT crowd.
A nd the secret handshake, which I just learned during the ‘initiation’ - oh dang, I wasn’t supposed to talk about that…
Oh yes – we are all Masons now – I am currently rolling up my trouser leg and perfecting my dodgy handshake.
Thanks for the compliment Dave. I guess in a way it’s Dr McClymond who has opened up our discussion of the history of universalism here – so all credit to him for that (although I don’t think he’d appreciate my compliment).
I’m obviously the obsessive out of the original collegial triumvirate here (Arlenite, Jason and myself were the main posters on Arlenite’s thread). But Dondi’s contribution has been invaluable too, along with the much appreciated support and contributions of both of you, Melchi and Steve and Marc.
At this moment I am simply seeking to further clarify the stuff on this thread –primarily to make it more accessible to others who may not have specialist knowledge at the moment.
When Dr McClymond’s book comes out it will be a long, long time coming to me. It won’t be published in the UK for a long time and it may well never get a publisher here. So I’ll have to leave pre-publication reviews to Arlenite and Jason (although I’m happy to be consulted if they need my help).
I’ve been reading over the thread and I think that as far as the stuff on the early Church goes if someone were to edit together the stuff that has been posted here, mainly by Jason but with some other interesting bits in the mix, under the headings I’m developing a coherent and overwhelmingly compelling riposte could already be made to Dr McClymond’s lecture (and if his book is completely different from his lecture he will be falsifying his lecture).
The early modern history is shaping up but still needs some careful thought because things are more complex here (and McClymond’s lecture descends into the muddiest of its selective mudslinging also). I’m still working on this and learning more about this and, regarding GMac and William Law, Steve is also doing some research.
As to whether we should actually publish more polished responses to McClymond on this thread or share them in a private area for the moment – well I’m tending towards the latter option. What do you think?
youtube.com/watch?v=ddM7kJ9xQfA
Yes, i agree…i’m very grateful for the opportunity to expand my knowledge of Universalist history and Gnosticism. It may be a case of accusing apples of being oranges, but this is still useful information to glean (to see exactly WHY apples are nothing like oranges).
Having a riposte for Mr McClymond will be potentially very useful. I suppose the tidying up and clearing up of details can happen anywhere you think best, Dick. I think it would be good for McClymond to be shown the finished version though, preferably publicly 
He might learn a lesson or two about how to research history, and how not to just pick and choose data that appears to support his initial hypothesis in the most shamefully unscientific of manners. I’d like to see his book destroyed intellectually by real scholarship before it even has a chance to take off.
It might benefit many to see how easily arguments against God’s universal scope of salvation and universal saving power are knocked down.
I remember someone posting here awhile back that even some well-known and respected evangelical scholars have begun to recognize that the biblical support for universalism is far stronger than is generally supposed.
Perhaps that’s one reason for the panic Melchi 
. (and love the freemasons sketch James )
I’ve just stumbled upon an old post of mine from last year with the textual evidence which shows that Origen did not teach reincarnation/transmigration of souls (despite what Dr McClymond says quoting Jerome)