So are we going to run with the slightly less naughty version of the summarise von Balthazar competition?
I certainly hope so!
Balth in his first vol. wrote about, wrote about
Fun fact about summarizing von Balthasar is that Aidan Nichols has done it, and it took him five volumes(!): one volume for each “section” of the triptych, one on the various historical and devotional works, and one on his early trilogy Apocalypse of the German Soul (which, relevant to this thread’s discussion is supposedly a pretty harsh critique of the German strain of eschatology, including Hegel, Nietzsche, and Heidegger).
Some of this, I imagine, is due to von Balthasar’s incredible erudition (Henri de Lubac and Benedict XVI both referred to vB as “perhaps the most cultured man in Europe”), but also the fact that his writing style is at times more disposed to poetics than clear, analytical argumentation. Plus, you have to keep jumping around all these volumes to make sure you understand what he’s saying in context. It’s a task, all right. 
Sounds incredibly difficult 
It certainly wasn’t because Kierkegaard was in effect a Christian universalist himself… 
I’ve been compared to Balt theologically on that point, too.
Mad respect for having plowed through 5 volumes already, btw – I haven’t even started yet!
Update: I did however just buy the 5 volume summary/commentary you mentioned. (And a further book from that author on the prospect of Rome/EOx ecumenical union.)
In all honesty, 4 out of 5 of the ones I’ve read were required for a course, so I had a bit of an incentive. When you get to them, let me know what you think of the Nichols commentaries. I’ve been thinking about picking up the one on the Apocalypse of the German Soul, since that work hasn’t yet been translated into English, and I don’t yet have any German. Seems like the next best thing.
Why is it that my instinct tells me that we should be more concerned about this than we are and should make efforts to get a crisp tentative response together? 
I think that there’s really only so much that we can do until the book actually comes out. Otherwise, we might - justifiably - be responding to weaker forms of his arguments than he actually presents in the full-length work.
That being said, I think we’ve called into question the legitimacy of his historical argument against he truth of universalism, at least as he presents it in the lecture. Frankly, I’m not sure how the argument could possibly succeed without simply asserting a priori that universalism is gnostic in the relevant heretical sense.
That being said, Sobornost, I think you’re right to be concerned, since McClymond isn’t the typical type to respond negatively to universalism. For instance, he’s not located at some extremely sectarian, conservative evangelical seminary, but rather holds a post at a Catholic University in a historical theology department. And I think it’s entirely likely that he will be able to show that there are some potentially problematic moves or themes that a number of universalists have used. But what theology is perfect? The likelihood of his prescriptive historical argument (that universalism is false because any and all forms of universalism are necessarily gnostic in the sense deemed heretical by the early Church) succeeding is, I think, extremely low.
More promising is if - as he seems to suggest at the beginning of the lecture - he engages with the recent literature by, say, Parry, Talbott, et. al. and attempts to deconstruct their biblical/theological/philosophical arguments. Certainly, the universalist has more to worry about there, since these are actual arguments against the truth of universalism. But, again, the quick dismissals he uses in the lecture of “oh, they’re totally reading that wrong” and quick jabs that universalists support a “cheap grace” just aren’t gonna cut it.
So, I think there’s probably just not much we can do until the book comes out, which is supposedly going to happen this year. Can’t wait.
Well Arnelite my friend 
; I think I know why I am concerned. It strikes me that the book (unlike the videos) will be a more sophisticated attempt to sully Christian universalism with occultism/ esotericism. It seems that it may attempt to do this on grounds that have not yet been properly explored by scholars sympathetic to Christian universalism and in a way that older histories/lineages of universalism by Whittemore etc, which have been uncritically accepted as part of Tentmakers lists (and in a lesser sense of our own lists of lineages) make us vulnerable to over simplifications and distortions. So I’m still pondering .
1 Like
Dick, maybe a book with the Church of England stuff and the list you’ve contributed to containing Universalists would be a useful rebuttal? clearly most of the Universalists we look up to were not Gnostics.
True, true. McClymond’s narrative may very well provide a lot of polemical ammunition against us poor universalists. The good news is, I think, that at least on a theological and philosophical level, he’s not (apparently) raising any particularly interesting or novel - certainly not damning - arguments.
Of course, as you and Jason have pointed out, for those not necessarily in the theological trenches, inflammatory rhetoric can be far more influential and powerful than logically persuasive discourse. One might even say that this is an unfortunately common theme in the history of the church…
So, I suppose I agree that we ought to have a relatively crisp and clear answer to the charge of esotericism/occultism/gnosticism/whatever. What form do you think this might/ought to take?
I think, for example, it might be useful to look at the doctrine of ‘double creation’ that the universalist fathers and other church fathers seem to have propagated - is this the same as emanationism? Did Erigena believe in emanation rather than creation?
It is curious that the salvation of the Devil should be the big issue in the title. This was the charge laid at the door of the universalist Anabaptist - that they wanted to et evil and chaos into heaven (as the non universalist Anabaptists had done in Munster).
And of course Boehme who - on one interpretation (although others claim he was more profound) did seem to teach a doctrine of emanation, the origin of evil in the Godhead and the return of all to the Godhead. How influential was he on universalism. I’ve had a look thought D.P.E Walker’s decline of Hell’ - he was a great scholar of these matters and he argues that -
Boheme was a complete and utter dualist - because 'hell had it’s origin in the Godhead this meant that hell is eternal for those who chose it. Boheme believed in ECT for those who chose it (although it was not God’s will).
Jeremiah White was not influenced by Boehme - and saw God’s wrath as part of God’s love. However, Sterry did posses Bohme’s writings and was not as sure about how to reconcile the contraries of wrath and love.
Boehme’s writing influenced people who were not universalists - like Isaac Newton the Arian annihilationist who was inspired by Boehme in his alchemical explorations.
John Pordage the eccentric Anglican clergyman - not a universalist - ameliorated Boheme’s dualism and it was through translations of his writings that Boehme influenced the Russian universalist Sophiologists such as Soloviyev Bulgakov, and Berdyaev )in their sophiology but not in their universalism).
Jane lead founder of the Philadelphians- a disciple of Pordage who had visions reassuring her of universal salvation was not influenced in these by Boehme. She was likely to have been influenced by reading Rusts defence of Origen or the writings of Lady Anne Conway. Her universalism especially her belief in the salvation of the devil was met with hostility by other followers of Boehme.
The Petersens were not Boehmenists rather they were inspired by Jane Lead because her visions confirmed their biblical researches,
Later William Law - who was not a Philadelphian - was influenced by Boheme’s writings (but was never a disciple and ignored the more esoteric and alchemical points of Boehme’s speculations - although he did believe in a second and fallen creation on account of the fall of the rebel angels). However, his initial embrace of Boehme only increased his gloom about damnation not only as a future events but as a thing that most human beings carry inside them already. It appears to have been wide reading in other spiritual guides that turned Law into a universalist - he possessed copies of Gregory of Nyssa’s writings and may well have known Julian in the Cressy edition.
F.D. Maurice read Law for his universalism rather than his use of Boehme as an inspiration. and Marie Huber was inspired by he Philadelphians at second hand
Regarding the Church of England James – I think the influence of Boehme on the Anglican universalists was minimal –
John Pordage was an Anglican but he had been defrocked . Many of the Philadelphians remained loyal Anglicans because it was part of their project to envision unifying the Church rather than creating further divisions. Roach was an Anglican priest with time on his hands, and under the tolerant auspices of Archbishop Tennison had guarantees that the Philadelaphian Anglicans would not be persecuted 9(they were never anything but a marginal movement). William Law is a saint of the Anglican Church but his spiritual writings transcend Boehmenist speculations I think.
The wider influence of hermeticism in early more Europe is more problematic. The word comes from ‘Hermes Trismegistus (who is on the Tentmakers list of universalists –although the writings of Hermes are not universalist!). His writings – or the writings of the people that used his name – are now dated second century AD and are quasi Gnostic (but more positive than acosmic Gnosticism in holding that the material of this world can be transmuted into spiritual stuff). IN the renaissance they were promoted sincerely by the Florentine Academy as the writings of an Egyptian priest who was the tutor of Moses. As far as I am aware the ‘Corpus Hermeticum’ taught of the original unity of mankind (and androgyny) and that Adam before the fall contained the entire universe within himself. Part of the redemption will be the re-internalisation the universe so that human begins becoming the united Adam again will have control over the powers nature and of the planets again.
I think it is evident that Hermeticism is the matrix that gave birth to Boehmenism. It’s vitalist worldview was incredibly influential on early modern science and I believe even Luther was influenced by it (and some of the Dutch Calvinists were influenced but eh speculations of a modern hermeticists von Baader).
If anyone seeks to tar all universalism with hermeticism they can find bits and bobs I guess -
Pico – the great Renaissance champion of Origen (although I’m not sure he was a univerlsiast0 was a keen hermeticist.
Erasmus – whom I think influenced the Anglican strand of universalism – rejected it as nonsense.
Some of the Anabaptist spirituals were hermeticists but not Hans Denk I think.
Sir Thomas Browne – the closet Anglican Universalist was a hermeticist.
And I think some of the first wave of American Universalists were influenced by hermeticism.
The early modern history is fascinating. What historical works do you recommend for that era? Is Walker standard?
Although McClymond made it clear that he thinks the notion of the Devil’s redemption is preposterous, I think the title is simply using wordplay to emphasize how he thinks that universalism is…a devilish notion of redemption. I doubt that Satan’s salvation in universalist thought is going to be the primary focus of the book.
Yes Walker is standard and deservedly so
space saving
space saving
Here is an interesting article on the meaning of apocatastasis in Origen and also in non Christian classical eschatologies - including the Hermetic and the Valentian Gnostic (ground that Ramelli is going to cover in detail some day).
quodlibet.net/articles/moore-origen.shtml
I note -
From this I read that the Valentinian Gnostics notion of apoktastasis was not one of universal hope for all human beings.
Also -