Going back to McCly vs. Origen (and other early universalists), let me sum up.
Dr. McCly has a hard row to hoe ahead of him on his book, because his approach so far leaves behind several important unanswered questions which, so far, I even regard as unanswerable.
1.) Why was Origen (and Clement and other early Kaths) so hot to fight against the various prominent Gnostic sects of his day, if he admired them so much he was busy trying to import their unorthodox ideas into his Christianity? A standard reading of Origen’s own work vs. primary Gnostic sources (such as preserved at Nag Hammadi, which Dr. McCly invites comparison with) clearly shows why Origen the proto-trinitarian leader of one orthodox catechetical university, and founder of another one (after being exiled for hierarchical political reasons, not for doctrinal ones), would attack them. Dr. McCly’s reading of Origen does not even hint at such a reason so far.
2.) Why was Origen, and Clement before him, and Pantaneus before him (if not also Pantaneus’ predecessor who founded the university per se), appointed by orthodox bishops to lead the only official school (at the time) for teaching Christian teachers, if they were Gnostics whose deviant doctrines (including universalism) were such that orthodox teachers and authoritative clergy (like Irenaeus) were opposing elsewhere? For that matter, why would a super-heresy-hunter like Athanasius laud Origen and appoint a disciple of Origen, the well-known genius Christian universalist Didymus the Blind, to lead the same school for a long tenure? Why would Diodore of Tarsus, an outspoken trinitarian opponent of Gnostics and a Christian universalist, be allowed to create a third catechetical university in Antioch (and his disciples to create a fourth in Edessa); and why would his famous trinitarian champion disciple Theodore of Mopsuestia, praised as the greatest genius of Imperial history just behind Origen, be allowed to co-create the Antioch school and to lead it after Diodore? At the very least their contributions to orthodoxy over against heretics (especially Gnostic ones) help explain these known facts; but Dr. McCly’s theory of innuendo doesn’t explain them at all.
3.) Why was Origen barely attacked in his lifetime, and for long afterward, on his universalism, and then only on a limited set of points regarding Satan apparently being saved without repentance and/or returning to authoritative second-in-command (leaving aside whether Origen actually taught this, though he demonstrably did not), during centuries when heretics were frequently attacked by orthodox authorities (INCLUDING ORIGEN ETC.!)? At the very least, most of Origen’s universalism must have been unobjectionable during that time even if not everyone was a universalist; but then again none of the other famous universalists were attacked for their universalism at all (as Rufinus Tyrannus, himself still a universalist, sarcastically observed in his dispute with his friend and fellow-student Jerome during the early years of serious opposition to Origen spearheaded by Epiphanius – who himself didn’t aim at Origen’s universalism per se until very late in his life). Dr. McCly’s theories do not account for this peculiar silence.
4.) If Origen was supposed to be so drawn to an effectively pantheistic modalism of the Gnostics, as Dr. McCly insinuates, why during his life did he also struggle simultaneously not only against the Gnostics but also against the Christian modalists? – and struggle so hard that in later generations, when more precision was being required about the relationship of the Father to the Son, Origen was suspected of Arianism? – and indeed was convicted (erroneously) for a form of unitarian subordinationism at the 5th Ecumenical Council (using texts for evidence wherein he made standard Christian universalist soteriology arguments, but about which no comment was officially made in the very Council where he was anathematized as a Christological heretic)? How is it that the actual facts run absolutely against Dr. McCly’s arguments from innuendo? – if he had tried to argue that Origen was a proto-Arian he might have had a prima facie case at least, and incidentally might have even been able to synch that up better with Gnostic positions since Origen himself attacked them partly on the ground that they presented Christ as a lesser lord or god. But then if Origen was proto-Arian that wouldn’t explain why he attacked other proto-Arians for being what we would now call proto-Arian – a point his early defenders brought out as far back as the Arian controversy itself when the Arians were trying to claim him as an authority. It really seems like Origen’s actual habits of controversy should count as evidence against him being either modalist on one hand or a unitarian on the other hand; but so far as I know he was never charged with modalism, whereas he was at least charged and eventually convicted (though wrongly) on a type of unitarianism. So why would Dr. McCly at least not follow suit and attack him along that line??
I think Jason that it is great that Professor Ramelli is writing a book on pagan ideas of apokastastasis. I think with the genuine Christian tradition of apokastasis in eclipse – which is relational and imaginative as well as grounded in rational discourse, sound tradition and understanding of scripture – the idea didn’t go away. I am not surprised that it has often resurfaced in intuition and dream visions (and I must confess that I find just one of those visions – Anne Bathurst the Philadelphian’s realisation of God’s caring love for her dead children - profoundly moving). I guess the varied attempts from the Renaissance onwards to reinvent apocatastasis - including the hermetic tradition that is far wider than Boheme – often actually strayed into replicating earlier pagan notions of apocatastasis (and sometimes elitist and non universalist ones) because they were not grounded in sound Christocentric tradition. With a proper understating of pagan notions we will be able to see this clearly I think.
Can I just draw attention again to the following link that gives a pre-Ramelli summary of pagan, Gnostic and hermetic notions of apocatastasis (it’s not state of the art scholarship regarding Origen unfortunately) -
And I thank James for pointing out to me by PM how and why this coming study is important. Excellent stuff James
I certainly think that Hegel and Schelling were also influenced by Stoic and Eleatic notions of apocatastasis as well as hermetic ones with a bit of Lutheranism thrown into the mix while Boehmenists were hermetic to a greater or lesser extent.
Y’all are more than welcome. Hopefully this will help tide people over until I can finish the super-summary of Ramelli, Allin, Beecher, etc.
I guess what bothers me most about Dr. McClymond’s approaches so far, is how often I’ve seen (and fought against) the same methodologies used by radical anti-Christian apologists. Maybe his book will be better…
Thank you, Sobornost, Jason, and everyone else for continuing the conversation and revealing the (many) weak spots (and that seems charitable) in the McCly account.
This ranks up there as one of the most frustrating aspects of the lecture to me. Every. single. individual. that he mentions, he attempts to present in the absolute craziest light so that she or he appears esoteric, gnostic, or just plain crazy. But, of course, that’s pretty much the basis for his whole narrative.
He so obviously uses “coded” language that he knows will draw negative connotations from his audience (“coming out of the closet” with regards to Parry, when he clearly has a better understanding of the situation than he lets on).
Really just an embarrassing polemic in the guise of an academic presentation.
Kudos on you guys laying the groundwork for a thorough rebuttal. May I suggest someone compile these notes into a usable form and hold on to them until McClymond’s book is published. That would allow more analysis to be added based on information in the book that wasn’t covered by the lectures.
A rebuttal of this kind is too important to be splashed on the comment pages of some blog or forum willy nilly, though exposure is important, too. Is there any procedures in the world of acadamia that would allow a fair response in a formal setting, yet be still accessable? Or better yet, perhaps a formal debate setting in which Dr. McClymond might consider participating? I would love to see his responses when confronted with the information we have on hand here.
If nothing less, perhaps a rebuttal could be jointly published (as a counter to McClymond’s forthcoming book) by the main contributors (Sobornost, arlenite, Jason, et al), if material is sufficient and suitable for such.
Totally agree. This needs to happen.
McClymond could end up doing us a massive backhanded favour if these learned gentlemen can get a thorough rebuttal put together and out in the public view soon after his book comes out. I’m sure his book will flesh things out more, and possibly have more data, but it’s not looking good for him. still, he’ll sell a bucketload
I’ll leave it to others regarding where we go with this – but I might as well pot the motes I made on McClymond’s thoughts about modern theology and universalism for more detailed comments-
In Hegel the reconciliation takes place between God and God not between God and man. On the Cross the Father and the Son experience complete separation (what Hegel calls the ‘negation of negations’) and then are reconciled through the outpouring of the spirit in which everyone is taken up. McClymond suggests this is derived from Boehme and may have influenced Barth.
He gives a quotation from Paul Tillich about Everything in the end returning to the source of Being.
The revival of universalism in the Russian Church was due to the influence of Boehmenist esotericism.
Bulgakov suggests that Satan will share a throne in heaven with John the Baptist
Satan is tormented until then by his own love for God (not by God’s love for him – a curious reversal of the traditional schema?))
Bulgakov draws his assumption that evil cannot endure for eternity but will ultimately have to fail because it runs out of steam from Gregory of Nyssa.
Barth says on universalism
I do teach it, but I also do not teach it .
Universal election takes place in Christ
Christ was the reprobate one in his suffering and the elect one in his victory and al humanity is finally caught up in this
No believer can regard the unbelief of another as something settled.
Barth does understand the connection between election and faith but thinks everyone will be elected to faith (McClymond sees this as going against the empirical data Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens elected to faith?)
Von Balthassar was a friend of Barth’s (both Swiss both connected) The difference between them is that whereas Barth sees Christ work on the cross as the grounding for universalist hope, Balthassar shifts attention form good Friday to Holy Saturday. Adrienne von Speyer claimed to go to hell each year every holy Saturday.
Balthassar was a hopeful universalist. Hopeful universalism is actually wishful universalism - where we don’t; have a scriptural promise our hope is without foundation.
This website gets a mention.
The All shall be well volume does not succeed because the different universalists included have different and conflicting arguments and some of the writers are actually Large Hopers rather than Universalists
Charismatic universalism is a new addition – in the shape of John Cowder (latest development) Apparently a free grace teacher who talks about getting high on God and ‘toking’ the spirit like smoking a joint. His followers are called ravers who get high on God. He dismisses the ‘hell trip’ on Barthian lines and preaches that Christina life requires no effort of believer. HE uses a cross as a prop and acts like it’s a marijuana pipe by inhaling on it.
In the 21st century there is a trend towards universalism amongst all denominations and this trend goes against the teaching of the historic Church and its official teaching.
Is it not noteworthy that universalism should be rediscovered at a time of moral laxity and cheap grace? Like we’re putting out the fire with more gasoline?
Return to quotation from the Polish Philosopher – the quotation is actually about Marxist totalitarianism and Marxism (like universalism?) ends in the ‘folly of human self deification’.
Artists depicting evil have remembered something that some preachers have forgotten - the evilness of evil
The message of the cross is God’s hatred of sin and love of sinners. Universalism sees the cross as an offence.
We need to reflect – those of us who believe that God will save all - that Christ hung between two thieves one who cursed him and was damned, the other who recognised him and was saved
He quotes Richard Niebuhr — ‘A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.’
McClymond seems to add the phrase that cheap grace is – 'the salvation message without judgement or hell’ here (I cannot see this in Bonheoffer’s original words)
I note that Reinhold Niebuhr from whom the quote about ‘A God without wrath etc’ comes, was a universalist it seems. See this thesis written by a Calvinist in the section about the extent of redemption (from p.176 )
Having myself not read the relevant portion of Barth, I say this without certainty, but I highly doubt that Barth was stupid/blind/ignorant enough to make the claim that McClymond is attempting to attach to him. Clearly, Barth would have recognized that many people do not have faith in the Christian God, and even die in such unbelief. Is not a more charitable (and even obvious) reading simply that Barth is just saying that dying in this life in unbelief doesn’t necessarily mean that one is incapable of faith post-mortem or what have you? That is, all are eventually, in Christ, elected to faith, although this might not manifest in this life.
Of course, universalists do believe that we have scriptural, theological, and philosophical warrant for this hope.
This is another oddity of the lecture: it attempts both to provide a genealogical history and a critique. However, since he cannot provide support for the latter (giving him the benefit of the doubt, because he simply does not have the time to do so), he ends up making inadequate arguments with assumed premises (usually premises which are precisely the things in question!), which only call into question the accuracy of his historical account.
What a quagmire!
INTERNET FAMOUS!!!
…
This I found to be a hilarious argument, mainly because the entire point of McClymond’s lecture is to show how all universalist theologies share the same gnostic premises in their doctrines of God! But, here he is saying that these universalist accounts differ in significant enough ways such that they are mutually exclusive! Which is it? Are these accounts incommensurate, but not in their gnostic doctrines of God? But, I thought that’s what grounds their universalism!
Of course, because McClymond doesn’t actually specify what “conflicting arguments” he’s referring to, we can’t know what he’s talking about.
Also, Parry explicitly states on like the first or second page of the intro to All Shall be Well that the purpose of the volume is not to prove the truth of universalism, but rather to explicate the various positions of these thinkers and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments. Did McClymond actually read the book?
Additionally, I doubt this needs to actually be said, but just because two universalist accounts disagree with each other - even to the point of being incommensurate - it does not entail that both are false. Is the only rule of logic in McClymond’s universe that UNIVERSALISM MUST BE FALSE?!
now that’s weird…i’m watching Robots [a Pixar film that is brilliant], and a character just used the line “the force is strong with this one” 2 seconds after i typed that.
Anyway, i find it really difficult to believe there are many Universalists that don’t think God gets angry at sin…if God cares about justice at all, of course He gets angry at sin. But His anger doesn’t look like our anger.
I’ve checked again - Bonheoffer doesn’t seem to say anything about ‘judgment without hell’ - his challenge is to discipleship and is not about doctrine.
My two pence here is that I know of a number of examples of 19th century orthodox universalists who were not Sophiologists and who predated Soloviev and who influenced the revival of universalism-
inserting thing about Holy Saturday, the two thieves etc. I believe John Piper’s argument against the descent into hell as harrowing of hell is that Christ did not say to the impenitent thief I am going to hell with you, rather he said to the penitent one -'This day you will be with me in Paradise (and some argue on the ‘this day’ note that the statement ‘he descended into hell’ ought to be struck out of the Apostle’s creed)
I’ve been puzzled by McClymond’s argument here, especially his ridiculous handling of Origen, but came across something that may shed some light on his argument against christian universalism (and perhaps more importantly, his motivation).The article I found here: mises.org/daily/6222/Hegel-and-the-Romantic-Age ….is by Murray N. Rothbard an economist. Here’s a bit from his Wiki entry:
He lays responsibility for Marxism directly at the feet of Boehme, Hegel, the German and English Romantics. (Of course the Romantics were an influence on many of the 19th century Christian Universalists, but by no means the only or primary influence) His description of the philosophy of Hegel and the Romantics is remarkably similar to that of McClymond’s description of the “Gnostic” narrative of “unity-diversity-unity”.
He traces the influence of the Romantics forward to Carlyle and ends with this:
To repeat what I mentioned to Dick…Is McClymond really saying that the philosophy (that he thinks) influenced the 19th century Universalists was the same (cue scary organ music! ) that led to Marxism? Is that his real motivation? His ridiculous handling of Origen makes me suspect he started on the near end and worked backwards and is trying to pound the square peg of Origen into his round hole… As a conservative American Christian (which McClymond seems to be), communism (and its handmaiden atheism) are certainly considered the handiwork of Beelzebub and if a “heresy” like universalism is associated (even distantly) with Marxism…well there have to be cloven hoof-prints and the smell of brimstone all over it!
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.)
Hopefully this will help tide people over until I can finish the super-summary of Ramelli, Allin, Beecher, etc.
(Of course the Romantics were an influence on many of the 19th century Christian Universalists, but by no means the only or primary influence) His description of the philosophy of Hegel and the Romantics is remarkably similar to that of McClymond’s description of the “Gnostic” narrative of “unity-diversity-unity”.
) that led to Marxism? Is that his real motivation? His ridiculous handling of Origen makes me suspect he started on the near end and worked backwards and is trying to pound the square peg of Origen into his round hole… 
As a conservative American Christian (which McClymond seems to be), communism (and its handmaiden atheism) are certainly considered the handiwork of Beelzebub and if a “heresy” like universalism is associated (even distantly) with Marxism…well there have to be cloven hoof-prints and the smell of brimstone all over it!