Arlenite I love your reply too 
- and still hope to see some Origen scholars show up too fro Dr Mike - or else I will resign from the site.
Surprisingly, but happily, the more arguments I hear against our great hope, the more that hope just shines greater and greater.
In a good-natured verbal joust with my bro-in-law (a Calvinist pastor) I asked him to please not deny communion to me just because my hope is so much bigger than his. 
He did not laugh as heartily as I hoped, but we’re still fly-fishing buddies.
Hi all,
I’m disappointed that the “big-hitters” haven’t shown up so far to discuss things with Mike who was kind enough to come by. I suspect they’re off the grid or something. Hopefully they’ll show up soon to join in the discussion, but if not, I wonder if [tag]Alex smith[/tag] or [tag]JasonPratt[/tag] could set up a discussion (If Mike is agreeable) with one or two…or more, of the folks we’re talking about. (i.e. Tom Talbott, Robin Parry and professor Ramelli) at a some point in the future. This sort of thing is very “Old School” EU Forum it appears when I look at the archives with all the “debates” and such. 
I was out sick for most of last week with a stomach virus – then catching up on another thread most of Sunday after church which frankly kind of soured me on corresponding for a while (nothing to do with Dr. Mike or anyone here in this thread) – then lots of ‘work’ work this week (somewhat still catching up from being out on stomach flu) which has left me without much energy or time to work on large projects either during or after work. (My time at work is sometimes flexible due to the position, so I can get a lot done there sometimes; just not this week. But all my resources are at the office.)
So I’m sorry I haven’t been in a position to keep up with the thread. Hopefully I can change that as the weekend approaches, and I thank everyone for their patience.
I think a dedicated patrologist like Dr. Ramelli would be the best person to discuss what Origen and the other Fathers were up to – I’m working at quite secondhand, though I have access to some of the same sources. I really at best would only be working through her work, and I’m doubtful that would even be fair to Dr. Mike much less to her. Unfortunately I don’t know of any way to get her involved in the thread. Perhaps Dr. Konstin could help with that.
In regard to post-patristic history, Sobor is much more on that ball than I am.
I’m a trinitarian logician (a theologian and apologist on the logical coherency of trinitarian doctrines) and a scriptural exegete. I find the patristic discussions very interesting but, perhaps thanks to my Protestantism, not primarily decisive.
On the patristic evidence I’m mainly concerned about not falling prey to obvious problems like trying to say that the only universalists in the first centuries were a few little-known crackpots. They were rather, almost without exception, most of the men responsible for handing down to all branches of the eventual church (catholic or protestant) the developments of trinitarian theism; and of the exceptions who were also instrumental in that process, many still greatly admired and tolerated the trinitarian universalists.
One might argue whether Athanasius the Great for example was a universalist himself or not; one cannot even argue that he didn’t strongly support universalists as the chief exemplars of contemporary trinitarian Christianity: he not only appointed Didymus the Blind (disciple of Origen and himself a quite blatant Christian universalist) to head the Alexandrian catchetical school for practically all the fourth century (Didymus holding the post well into the days of the fame of Nyssus), but appealed to Origen and how to rightly understand Origen as chief importance after scriptural testimony in the campaign against Arius. One might argue whether two of the Cappadochians were universalists (Nazianzus probably, Basil maybe not); one cannot even argue that they didn’t revere and honor not only Nyssa and Basil’s sister Macrina the Younger, but also Gregory Thaumaturgus (and their grandmother Macrina the Older whom he converted) the convert and disciple of Origen, Black Sea champion of evangelical orthodoxy in his day, and well-known Christian universalist. One might argue whether Theodore Mospuestia was condemned at the Ecumenical Council for universalism or not (according to the minutes he was not); one cannot even argue that his teacher and founder of the Antioch school Diodore of Tarsus (equally universalistic) was condemned or regarded with anything less than full approval as a trinitarian champion, or that Theodore himself didn’t live and die as a stunning champion of trinitarian orthodoxy in his day to the extent of being only second in fame after Origen as a trinitarian master. Pope Vigilius himself, who ratified Justinian’s anathemas, strongly warned the council not to condemn a man of Theodore’s noble accomplishments and piety after dying in full communion with the church – he acquiesced anyway, but even he knew the man’s reputation was such that it ought not to be dragged through the mud after his death.
These men and others like them before and after were not muttering off in a corner or working in the shadows. They were the lights and anchors of orthodoxy (though some famous in their day have been lost into scholarly obscurity now like Bardaisan the Syrian, famous in the 2nd century in his arguments against heretics, still honored though not much used in the 4th century as an early anchor of orthodoxy, almost unknown today), and their tools were used by non-universalists as well as universalists. Whether St. Augustine of Hippo started off as a trinitarian universalist after converting to Christianity may be debated (Dr. Ramelli argues that based on the evidence we ought to conclude he knew what the implications of his arguments were and only rejected the implications later while still using modified versions of the standard arguments); one cannot even argue that he didn’t immediately and persistently use Origen’s standard trintarian arguments, easily identifiable as such (though possibly without knowing where they came from as Dr. R admits), with all their connotations of universal salvation, against his former Manichean allies and against anyone else he thought they would apply.
Whether they were wrong, to this or that degree, or in this or that method, are whole other questions. I’m not altogether a fan of all their approaches myself. Personally I would prefer to work straight with theology and the scriptures. But their prevalence and positive influence should not be denied. We were told such men did not exist, and they not only existed but passed onto us much of what we have today.
A Calvinist owes as much thanks to Didymus the Blind and Gregory Thaumaturgus and Gregory Nyssus and Eusebius of Caesarea and yes even to Origen and Clement of Alexandria (and Pannaeus and Bardaisan) as I owe to St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas and yes even to Calvin and Luthor for their work. I probably even owe as much to Jonathan Edwards as Dr. Mike owes to that Baptist evangelist Elhannan Winchester.
They all helped pass down trinitarian theism to us, from even before it came to be called trinitarian. As a trinitarian Christian theist I have an obligation to respect that, even when the person who helped pass it along was Tertullian. Cyril of Alexandria (definitely not a universalist)? He helped pass it on. Maximos the Confessor (definitely a universalist)? He helped pass it on. Epiphanius the heretic hunter, enemy of Origen? He helped pass it on. Jerome and Rufinius Tyrannus, Latin universalists until Jerome face-heeled and attacked Origen (while still honoring Didymus as Rufinius sarcastically pointed out)? They helped pass it on. Clement of Rome, the 2nd or 3rd pope after Peter (who was still known in the 4th century as a universalist, as Rufinius reminded Jerome)? He helped pass it on. Ambrose of Milan (who taught the Rich Man in hades would one day be saved from sin and freed from hell)? He helped pass it on. The Isaacs of Syria, who inspired the Christians of Rome and penned the liturgical hymns of Orthodoxy (definitely both universalists)? They helped pass it on. Athanasius the Great (maybe or maybe not, but definitely a fan of Christian universalists)? He helped pass it on. Symeon-New the Theologian (definitely a universalist)? He helped pass it on. Hilary Poitier 4th century hammer of the Arians, “Origen of the West” and translator of Origen (and teacher of the salvation of all mankind)? He helped pass it on.
They and many more, bishops and catechetists and laymen and monks, helped to pass on the trinitarian theism we now have today. In a very real sense they evangelized us.
But as I said, to me this is of only of moderate historical interest. I don’t turn to them to learn the scriptures, I turn to the scriptures. At the risk of sounding horribly conceited I don’t turn to them to learn the coherencies of trinitarian theism either; I sit down and do the logical pushups myself. Even so, the fact I live in a time and place where I even know enough to sit down and do those logical pushups, I owe to those men (and some women along the way), and a number of men both Catholic (east or west) and Protestant between them and me, whether they believed God would eventually save all sinners from sin or not.
What I can say with 100% certainty, because I know my own history, is that I am not a Christian universalist thanks to any of those men – I doubt I could quote even one English phrase from Origen.
But I am a trinitarian Christian theist thanks at least indirectly to such men and women; and I am a Christian universalist because I believe trinitarian Christian theism to be true, and because I continue on examination from various directions finding trinitarian Christian universalism to be true and finding it not to be false, and because I am self-critically very careful about making sure I don’t turn around and deny what I believe to be true in the doctrines of trinitarian theism, and so I interpret soteriology in the scriptures by trinitarian theism. (And also with the standard methods by which I put together scriptural testimony to find it arriving at trinitarian Christian universalism rather than some other theology.)
Consequently, any attempt at painting ostensibly “Christian” universalists as being Gnostic instead, is simply and utterly foreign to my experience and thoughts as a Christian. I oppose Gnosticism just as much as I oppose the misguided 19th (and 18th) century history-of-religions-school syncretistic theories (whether connected to a merely human historical Jesus or to a mythical non-historical Jesus) that try to make out trinitarianism as borrowed from paganism through trivial source comparisons and radically misleading parallel claims.
But then, being very familiar with those methodologies when applied against my trinitarian theism beliefs, I’m trained (for better or for worse) to be proportionately sensitive detecting similar methodologies when applied to my soteriology.
That might mean I am overcritically reacting. But it bothers me that I have to spend time and energy slogging occasionally through conspiracy theories on one element of my belief, just to turn around and find another part of my beliefs (very related to trinitarian theism in my personal belief-history up to today) under a similar conspiracy theory attack by someone who, having to bear with me in shrugging off such attacks from anti-Christians, I really think I ought to be able to expect not to do the same thing toward fellow trinitarians as modern anti-trinitarians like to do against all trinitarians.
Which irks me. 
But if I’m overreacting that’s why I’m overreacting. I, the trinitarian theist, and a hyper-orthodox theologian, am being pilloried as radically unorthodox by innuendo and suspicion and semi-suppression (so far as the popular case goes as you may say, but that’s all the case currently available), the way hostile anti-trinitarians treat all of us. I shouldn’t have to defend my trinitarian orthodoxy against that kind of indirect assault; point critiques on doctrinal accuracy are one thing, but I shouldn’t have to be expected to defend against what amounts to the merest rumor by conjectural association that I am secretly some kind of anti-trinitarian who is utterly unlike what I have monotonously claimed to be and argued for when doing my work (mere internet work though it is) over (now) decades.
Ditto Robin Parry. Ditto Thomas Talbott. Ditto several recent men now dead who cannot defend themselves personally against such arguments from innuendo but who were known in their days as champions of orthodoxy. Ditto a host of men from late antiquity (and early Christianity) now dead who cannot defend themselves personally against such arguments from innuendo but who were known in their days as champions of orthodoxy. Robin and Thomas (and I) may not ever amount to their contributions or even come distantly close, but we do have one advantage over those men: we can still answer.
I.
Am.
Not.
A.
Gnostic.
Period.
The charge is ludicrous and I deny it. Even if you managed (somehow) to prove that Origen and Nyssa (of all people, the arch-anti-Gnostics) were Gnostic, that would not change my situation by the slightest iota. I stand upon the Judeo-Christian canon, and upon the Nicean-Chalcedonian Creed, and sit upon my giant mountain of trinitarian and historical apologetics (internet author though I am), a mountain tall enough to bore even me with the thought of calling it into witness, and defy any charge of Gnosticism to its face. Or Arianism for that matter (high or low). Or modalism for that matter. Or any charge of non-trinitarian Christology, Patrology, or Pneumatology for that matter.
Your universal theory (so to speak) of universalist origin and belief is demonstrably wrong from the outset: I and other people like me, still living today, are the first evidence. We may be like surviving dinosaurs (or even as few as surviving dinosaurs if any still survive), but we are not religious pluralists much less elitist religious syncretists. Aim your book over at the so-called Unitarian Universalists as much as you want, but leave me and people like me out of it. We aren’t them, we never have been them, we aren’t going to be them, no moreso than I ever was or have been or will be an Attis worshiper or a Horus worshiper or a Mithras worshiper or anything else a radical anti-trinitarian might similarly throw up to distract people by comparison in an attempt to ‘explain’ away my (and your) beliefs as only being worthy of rejection thereby.
Okay, I’ll try to talk more on point tomorrow and this weekend. I do actually appreciate you showing up (in what can only be a fairly hostile audience) to discuss your articles and coming book, Dr. McClymond; I know it isn’t quite fair for me to spend some hours composing this instead of doing something more productive.
It’s just… Gnosticism. God’s wounds, now we’ll have to fight against being tarred (and set on fire) with that brush of all things. It would practically be similar to a Calvinist hearing that an Arminian doctorate somewhere was studiously composing a tome with a thousand reference sources arguing that Calvinists really worship Moloch via the Tammuz mystery cults. And then seeing initial presentations from the Arminian which, from the Calv’s position, look to be about the quality of, say, John Loftus’ arguments against all Christians.
A vomiting smiley might be going to far, but I was pretty tempted to put one here at the end. 
Entertaining thread!
Greetings Dr Mike,
I’m jumping in late to this and am quickly responding to your last two posts.
I sympathize that many packages of Christian or otherwise universalism have major problems. I focus on my own version. In regards to the ancient church fathers, I mostly identify with Gregory of Nyssa in regards to postmortem conversions and the eventual repentance of evil spirits.
In general, I believe in Charismatic Christianity while I somewhat identity with Gregory. My first biblical studies book is CONDITIONAL FUTURISM. It includes an outline of possible postmortem conversions and the repentance of demons. For example, the book describes the possibility of universalism through God’s endless loving offer of salvation to the postmortem lost. I essentially removed any deadline from an Arminian view of salvation.
I’m sympathetic of Eric Reitan’s model of probability while I thought of something similar on my own. Also, I recently discussed on a thread with Thomas Talbott about the inequality of the human decisions to (1) accept Christ or (2) reject Christ. For example, God’s grace supports the human acceptance of Christ’s salvation and does not support rejecting Christ. I understand that there are some biblical references to God hardening human hearts, but that is only for a seasonal purpose. Overall, God supports humans accepting Christ.
Belief that God never gives up on the postmortem lost and God’s grace favors acceptance of salvation narrows the debate to a strong possibility of eventual universalism or definite eventual universalism.
HI Jason - I don’t think we are a hostile audience at all now. Not at all. Initially we were hostile because kind of Mike adopts the role of prosecutor general in his lecture . But he’s won me round and others too. He’s a nice guy. Whether or not he radically changes him mind - that’s not up to me - but he’s sown real openness and I actually like Mike (and my intuitions about the kind and caring teacher in him that I always had have not been frustrated).
In Christ our Hen (phrase comes from Erasmus’ debate with Luther on the bondage of the will btw)
Edit: OK - too critical. I’ve had my season of catharses and others deserve theirs to so as as to clear the air. That was actually rather smug and judgemental of me Jason 
; but I stick to my guns on one thing - I like Dr Mike
Actually I’ve PMd Alex about this in some detail – some of it frank if courteous (poor old Alex – he is not the target ).
This is a very long thread – necessarily so because De Mike made such complex points about Universalism in his original lecture citing complex thinkers and complex socio- historical contexts that his argument could only be unpicked in a complex way.
If Mike wants to get back to me on this thread as man most competent about Early Modern universalists –say from 14th century to 19th century – that’s fine and we can discuss any further points on this thread drifts into obsolescence and bookish obscurity…
But why not start a new thread headed with Mike’s two most recent posts – the bits that don’t relate to early modern universalism but to the other stuff. Mikes latest post is the most important here because he is actually asking for our help.
Obviously Jason on in this discussion has been man competent in Patristics and Arlenite has been man most competent in the field of modern universalist thought. Keep going lads as I run out of steam like Thomas the Tank Engine
I think Robin Parry should certainly debate with Mike here at some stage – that only seems good and proper. I’ll never make a demand on Robin Parry again – but this is essential
As for any questions that are too specialists for people here to answer regarding Origen, Nyssa– well someone here has Illaria Ramelli’s ear. She gets publicity for her vast tome via this website. Surely and really technical things could be passed to here – and we have platy of competence here so the questions would be very few - and she being a great scholar could give a simple answer. She seems like a lovely woman – and we’d all like to see the possible, probably or certain answers to the bits we are unclear about.
Your in expectation
Dick
P.S. Perhaps I can now have a week off - at least in imaginative rest - and since I’ve mentioned both holiday’s and running out of steam I leave you with this link
I hope that the beginnings of a new thread are in the offing now. For a more obscure audience of dedicated train spotters – those interested in early modern Universalist thought (a minority taste for saddos, and not very exiting) – I’d just like to bring up one important question that Mike may be itching to ask. Was Erasmus a universalist ? Hmmmmmmm
I haven’t seen any monographs yet specifically about Erasmus and universalism and his name does not feature in the volume about History of Universalism that Mr. Parry edited. But I think his influence has been overlooked – och you may say I am biased as a servant of Dame Folly – but leaving this aside I think that Erasmus’ influence on non sectarian universalism has been massive and I am happy to give reasons one day (I’ve sketched these in previous posts here).
But was he a universalist? – well played his cards close to his chest. He wanted reform, but he didn’t want to upset Church unity hugely and universalism to most Christians at his time was tantamount to insanity. Likewise although his views on religious tolerance were in advance of his age he did not push these too far because again the idea that religious persecution was wrong seemed like madness and absolute folly to the magisterial Christians of his age (and Erasmus worked within rather than outside of the magisterium.) But amidst some conflicting evince I can think of at least half a dozen reasons (and probably more) that suggest that Erasmus inclined towards universalism – and out of these hints and ‘allowance of space for’ by a great scholar and Reformer non sectarian universalism was nourished in the early modern period.
Hello all,
I’m writing from Houston, Texas, where I will be participating in the Rethinking Hell Conference, which is honoring the legacy of Edward Fudge. As most of you probably know, Fudge is one of the leading evangelical exponents of annihilationism. Anyway, I just saw in my mailbox a message from Alex calling my attention to some of Michael McClymond’s remarks about me here in this thread (thanks Alex!); and because McClymond’s representation of my position includes, I believe, some serious misunderstandings, I thought I would try, rather quickly, to clear some of them up in this brief response. Normally, Michael, I would prefer to let something I write sit for 24 hours before posting it, so that I could better judge such things as tone, style, etc. On this occasion, however, I must proceed rather hastily.
Here is the passage that caught my attention:
I must say, Michael, that this strikes me as stunningly inaccurate. First, I have never written in any book a chapter with the title “The Inescapable Love of God.” I have written a book with that title, but at the end of that book I take up Pascal’s Wager and say nothing even relevant to your remarks quoted above. I have also written several book chapters and articles on the inescapable love of God. But which of these do you have in mind here? May I suggest, as gently as possible, that you should never attribute a statement to anyone without proper documentation? For my own part, I always prefer an actual quotation. Even a paraphrase, however, requires adequate documentation so that readers, if they so choose, can judge from the context the accuracy of the paraphrase.
Second, in nothing I have ever written have I so much as hinted that some sinners “are saved without ever being forgiven at all.” How could I coherently make such an absurd claim, given my own view that all the descendants of Adam are already forgiven? If all are already forgiven, as I have claimed, it would be blatantly self-contradictory to assert, at the same time, that some are not forgiven. Yes, I do hold that God sometimes punishes sin, perhaps even in hell, but I also hold that such punishment is always, as Paul explicitly stated in the eleventh chapter of Romans, an expression of God’s mercy towards and forgiveness of the sinner.
Third, neither have I so much as hinted that some sinners “persistently and permanently reject God’s offer of grace" (my emphasis); to the contrary, I have repeatedly argued in many places that the very idea of someone freely and permanently rejecting God’s grace expresses a logical impossibility.
Now you may think I am wrong (or even confused) about all (or at least some) of this. Still, I think it fair to ask of a critic that he or she make a reasonable effort to represent someone’s views as accurately as possible before attacking the proverbial straw man. Although some of your misunderstandings may arise, I suspect, from some tangential remarks, taken out of context, that I have made concerning the so-called unpardonable sin, I prefer not to make guesses at this point. I would prefer, in other words, to let you point to the relevant text that you have in mind. In any case, if you would like to do so, I would be happy to pursue some of these matters further after returning home the first of next week.
With all best wishes,
-Tom
Hi Tom
You don’t know me. I haven’t read yore book but friends speak highly of it. Ditto with Robin’s book (well I’ve perused Robin’s book). I came to this site accidentally with M.A. Screech and Sarah Apertri in hand to help out from another world. I too was recalled from other business to participate in this discussion again. Mike has misunderstood you - that’s all that has happened here. And he does revise his views in the light of evidence and discussion. Tom and Jason we’ve nothing to be ashamed of or offended by.
love
Dick
Dropping in briefly to say I’m working on catching up with the thread from Dr. Mike’s arrival, but not ready to post yet.
I guess I can clip out my remarks about Dr. M’s super-bizarre claims concerning the end of Dr. Talbott’s book, though, and save a little time.
Off to bed; more catchup tomorrow.
Hope you are feeling better Jason
Hi Mike,
You’ve said so much, I almost don’t know what to comment on first, but I see here a direct query that doesn’t seem to have been answered yet:
I think I can safely say that the majority of regular participants here (who are universalists) are basically christocentric, trinitarian, and believe that the sanctification process continues into the coming ages. There are some who are ultra-universalists, some who are not trinitarian, and some who are “hopeful universalists” – who, for one reason or another, don’t feel they can take a strong position on the issue. There may be some other variants here as well.
And, yes, these things have often been discussed here.
If anyone disagrees with me on this evaluation, please correct me.
Sonia
This comment caught my attention:
I’m not sure what exactly is the “problem” you see. Don’t all branches of Christianity do the same? We all like the people who share our beliefs and hold to the same standards of interpretation that we do. I see no reason to give credence to the teachings of every historical teacher or individual who happens to have shared my belief that all will be saved.
Is this different from what any other branch of Christianity does? Do we not all reject those who we think are not adequately representing our position?
I feel free to reject the teachings of anyone who does not seem to me to have a right understanding of scripture. If one is simply cataloguing and tracing the various trains of thought on universalism through the ages, then it would be necessary to look at everyone and examine all the intricacies of their various ideas. From a historical perspective, that is somewhat interesting.
But when you ask, “How do these German and French authors fit into the picture?” I have to answer that I don’t know – and from a practical standpoint, I don’t have much interest.
I am primarily interested in reading my Bible and trying to understand what God means by it, as opposed to reading other people’s views and trying to figure out if I agree with them – unless they’re around to discuss with or if some other good reason arises. I’m convinced that we have One Teacher and One Father – we are all students and children. The children might study their lessons together, share insights, and help each other learn – ‘encouraging one another to love and good deeds’ – but I see no great need to study what all the other children have thought of the Master’s lessons.
My own universalism has no Gnostic roots or heritage – even if it is true that there were Gnostic universalists. 
My beliefs are the natural progression of a Calvinist background corrected to more accurately reflect the teachings of scripture. 
Sonia
I agree Sonia
Hi Sonia
Why be an historian? Well to tell you true I didn’t realise I was one – or at least I had forgotten my childhood passion until I came to this rotten place courtesy of Rev Drew I’ve taught so many different things in my life that I was neither of North or South, East or West. The last work I was doing – which I gradually had to give up to care for my Mum – was teaching computers to older people and running reminisce workshops for people with senile dementia (along with a bit of private supervision to people doing post graduate degrees in oodles of different things, like Human Rights, Special Needs, and Cultural Studies). But I cones here and I’m ‘Dick the Historian’ and some blighters call me ‘Prof’ – although I do not have a post graduate degree – never too interested in gongs and robes
Ach an historian is a dull drudge Wow when I think of you educating that brood of yours it is so admirable of you and time consuming. Love you Sonia – and I think your very articulate practical wisdom about universalism above speaks more than many dusty volumes of posts by the likes of me .
As a carer – OK I am confined and it can be onerous but since the person I care for is senile now my mind sort of has the space to roam free. I got sucked in here by that scoundrel Arlenite
Hi Mike –
Looking back on things I understand that you were just putting things out into the open for feedback with your lecture and three mini seminar type discussions on You tube. But honestly Mike I do like you and i;ve chanced my arm many times like this in more private settings. My major criticism from the beginning is that your lecture does seem to suggest that all Universalists are rooted in Gnosticism, Occultism and perhaps even deception and self regarding destabilisation. I’m keen for dialogue here. The message of the lecture – and how your book may have panned out without feedback – was rather inflammatory. If it had been picked up by many in the Neo Reformed camp it may well have lead to witch hunt hysteria towards non –sectarian American Universalists; and this may have been contagious via the internet. And since I have many friends here who are non sectarian American Universalists I was concerned for them and felt protective towards them.
If this had gone through the roof Universalists and many Armenians of the Wider Hope may have allied in rhetorical wars against Calvinists I would think –
‘‘All Calvinists are Gnostic in terms of their doctrine of election and in seeking for a pure Church, they interpret scripture not for what it says but in the light of certain currents within late medieval scholasticism and jurisprudence which they take as there ‘givens’, they gloss over the bad bits of Calvinist history (support of genocide, slavery, racism etc), they are insensitive to the needs of people who are morally scrupulous and mentally ill etc…’’
So I am glad for dialogue - for this would have made the Body of Christ bleed.
My offers of dull drudge scholarship still on the table are –
Information about Erasmus and Universalism (and Huet’s place in the Erasmian tradition – have touched base with Huet now as an influence on Le Clerc)
Books and page numbers for alternative – and scholarly - interpretations of Hegel.
Details of the five universalist/wide hopers included in Wesley in his Methodist Library and citations for info about his late view of William Law.
Any information you may require about early Universalist traditions in Zoroastrianism Judaism and Islam (which are mentioned in you lecture and discussion in passing)
Blessings to all
Dick –old drudge and historical train spotter
Well Church Fathers is where it’s at now it seems Very good stuff there
Almost ditto except the other way around for me (as Sonia knows but visitors may not): mine is the natural progression of coming from a largely Arminian background in a communion that respects both Arms and Calvs. I started paying more serious attention to Calvs making sense, and still thought Arms also had a good case for their points – I didn’t quite put the two sets together at first, but once I saw the coherent logical implications of trinitarian theism (as a doctrinal set), then I had a shared theological grounding basis for accepting both sides in their important gospel assurances. 
And I only care about whether any Gnostics were or weren’t universalists of some sort for sake of historical accuracy; beyond that I couldn’t give a poot about their beliefs (though to whatever extent they happened to share some of my beliefs I’d be obligated in fairness to grant them that much credit. 
)
But I do care about attempts to argue from innuendo that universalism cannot be trinitarian Christian; and I care somewhat, in relation, about whether early trinitarian leaders who struggled against heresy are being libeled or not by careless hostility. Ditto modern trinitarians.
Anyway, what Sobor meant above is that Alex (our chief admin) ported one of Dr. Mike’s posts to a new thread for discussion here. I haven’t finished doing catchup notes to this thread yet, but I went ahead late last night and worked up a reply to that particular post which I’ve put in that thread for some topical coherency. Less I have to do here then eventually.
Dick,
Just to clarify, I do agree that historical stuff has it’s place, and I’m not trying to disparage it. For instance, Dr. Mike brings up the issue of the universalist movement of the 1800’s eventually devolving and merging into the Unitarian church. I don’t think I’d agree with his hypothesis that this resulted from those folks not putting enough emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit in the Church, but it might be useful to know how that theological degradation did come about.
It may be a fairly common historical pattern that the pioneers of a movement begin something in faith and truth, but their followers corrupt it. I would theorize that the corruption of the universalist movement came about because people were following other people instead of doing the hard work of seeking Truth for themselves.
I see the doctrine of universal reconciliation as a true revelation of the heart and purpose of God – but it is not the full embodiment of Truth. Truth can never be reduced into a mere system of belief, because the Truth is the living Lord Jesus, the exact representation of His Father, who now leads and teaches us through the indwelling Spirit of God. When we elevate facts about God above the Person, then we have begun to fall away and begun to follow law and/or the doctrines of men. Those men may have had their feet firmly planted on the Rock, but others who try to stand on their shoulders may find themselves on shaky ground.
That’s my take, anyway. I’ve rambled a bit off topic here, but maybe someone will find some relevance.
As to the concern about people picking up the gnostic origins premise and using it as a argument against universalism, my response, as it has always been, will be to point to the scriptures that I find convincing. I’m a universalist because I find it in scripture, and while the historical thread of universalist thought may be an interesting topic in its own right, it has no bearing on the foundation of my hope.
And, anyway, St. Paul’s universalism pre-dates any Christian gnostic universalism – so there’s that for people who are concerned about who came first.
Sonia