I find it noteworthy that we know the name of Augustine’s Mum – Monica – and of his son – Adeodatus – but we do not know the name of his concubine.

Augustine’s attitude towards women is founded in his protology – and that is my point for Mike who has asked whether or not universalists today accept Origen’s protology. There is much evidence to suggest the high status of women in the Church of Alexandria – Clement speaks with high praise of a Pythagorean woman who when attacked covered up her arms. Her attackers taunted – ‘You arms are beautiful’. But she replied, ‘Yes , but they are not for public display’. When a lynch mob had been stirred in Alexandria to kill Christians, young Origen – incredibly brave – assembled the Christians– both men and women – in the Forum and gave them the martyr’s kiss on their forehead to show that they were worthy of this vocation.

And of course we have the example of lion hearted Perpetua – the brave mother who steeled her Christian confessor and her fellow Christian men for martyrdom. In the arena when she was tied to a stake and attacked by the beasts her hair fell down and she managed to pin it up again (in Roman tradition a widow let her hair fall lose, while a bride pinned her hair up). Augustine saw her martyrology as suspect – she died a mother with a child rather than as a virgin. Her pre martyrdom dreams gave her hope of the post mortem salvation of her pagan bother who had died aged nine of face cancer (she dreamed of him drinking from a baptismal font which cured his facial deformities and this gave her good courage); Augustine liked this even less.

The anti women stuff kicked in quickly. Tertullian argued that Eve was the gateway of Satan (like Augustine he also came form North Africa). The post Origenist Jerome argued with vitriolic bile against Jovinian, an ascetic who had made the modest suggestion that the vocation of a celibate ascetic was not superior to that of a married couple. Jerome replied that he had only loved one woman in his life and he had found her physically disgusting. This is the context for Augustine the former libertine who despaired of the goodness of creation.

Augustine’s Confessions mark a turning point in Western Culture. The book is very beautiful and you can see a passionate and intelligent mind at work. However, we see here the introspective conscience in full flow for the first time in its ‘full glory’. Krister Stendhall in his essay ‘Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West’ make the point – that many scholars see as sound – that in Paul sin is about what we do to other people. The burdens we carry around privately are frailty which our sense of self can feel justified against because of God’s love for us and in that we do not give in to them publicly. But for Augustine sin becomes introspective – it’s all about what goes on in our minds; and in order to have peace of mind it may be the case that we act unjustly towards others. Or the over scrupulous may be driven to despair.

My secondary sources for the discussion above are:

Peter Brown – ‘The Body and Society’ (excellent – and actually gives quite a sympathetic, historically nuanced discussion of Augustine’s views of sex and women)

The seminal essay ‘Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West’ – that has greatly influenced the new studies in Paul by E.P. Sanders. Tom Wright etc – can be found in ‘Paul Amongst Jews and Gentiles’.

And also, despite the fact that she gets bad press here – in some way justifiably so because she overegged the importance of the Gnostics and romanticised them in her first ever book seemingly to make a splash – I’d recommend some stuff by Elaine Pagels –

For good primary source materials on women and the Alexandrian Church see the chapter on God as Father/ God as Mother in ‘ The Gnostic Gospels’.

Also ‘Adam Eve and the Serpent’ gives a fine discussion of both Jerome’s controversy with Jovinian and Augustine’s controversy with Julian of Eclanum – again lavishly illustrated with primary source quotation.

My thoughts on ‘The Confessions as Allegory’ and on Augustine’s view of Perpetua have been informed by two scholarly articles in the Time Literary Supplement – I can fish these out if anyone is interested.

Dr. Pagels’ actual scholarly work isn’t much problem – one of my best friends got to take a course on Gnosticism under her at Harvard, btw. (Which amused me greatly for several reasons.)

Her popular propaganda mush is the problem, and this has continued beyond her first splashy book.

Meanwhile, back on topic, is there anything in Dr. M’s posts so far we haven’t thoroughly covered yet? I need to go back and look…

I’m still offering to explain the role of Erasmus in the promotion of non sectarian universalism (via Origen) and to do a digest about universalism in other monotheistic religions (Mike mentions Islam and Judaism in his lecture and talks - IMHO he’s misinformed or at least only partially informed on both - and if he wants to ask questions about these I am happy to answer (I also know about Zoroastrianism and Mahayana Buddhism which verges on incarnational theism in its Bodhisattva doctrines -regarding universalism)

Go for it, dude, I’d be very interested to read it.

Ditto!

At the risk of being overly simplistic, I thought I’d post something that struck me about this topic today.

It seems to me that it is impossible for Universalism to have come from Gnosticism, let alone possible for this to be proved. The reason is simply this: Gnosticism at its core is about secret knowledge as the way to salvation. If anything, universalism is its opposite, claiming (broadly speaking) that no knowledge; special or otherwise, is necessary to salvation. (Except perhaps knowledge of the Father and Son, but still; this is not secret knowledge by any stretch, and such knowledge does not originate with us). Trees can only produce fruit after their own kind; not opposite fruit!

Well put, Mel! Clement, Origen, and the other early opponents of Gnosticism tagged them on much the same points.

I think people get confused because the early orthdox (and proto-orthodox) Christian universalists also stressed coming punishment, and this was again over-against the Gnostics ;who thought most of humanity were doomed trash, but (despite some poetic code language for learning secret password phrases) didn’t really think that the overgod cared about ‘punishing’ them per se – the overgod, to them, had no concern about morality at all, nor about dealing with creation and creatures at all, thus much less about enforcing moral judgments at all.

What ABOUT the Pharaoh of the Exodus? It is true that Pharoah wasn’t initially inclined to free the Israelites. But it clearly states that it was GOD who hardened Pharaoh’s heart from the beginning. And I’m not sure if the hardening of hearts is God’s modus operandi on a nomal basis, but it sure was in this instance, geared toward His ultimate purpose of delivering Israel. Nor do I know the mechanics about how God is able to harden someone’s heart, but then the implication is that if God can harden a heart, He can just as well UNHARDEN it.

There are other instances in scripture where by God induces his will (directly or indirectly) upon certain figures. Take Saul, for example. After his rebellion, God delivered an evil spirit to vex him.Then several chapters later, Saul strips off his clothes and prophesies, apparently as a preventive measure to protect David from Saul’s wrath. We also have the strange case of Nebuchanezzer, who’s heart was made like a beasts and was made to eat grass like a cow for a time, until afterward, when he got his right mind back, actually REPENTED before the Lord in a REVERSAL of hardening of the heart.

Excellent assessment. May I have your permission to reproduce this in a paper I am writing?

Would very much appreciate a copy of the Word document of the ‘Michael McClymond on Universalim’ thread. Thanks.

homeeeducators206@gmail.com

I would strongly encourage you to read Robin Parry’s first response to Michael McClymond’s book here.

Hi - thanks for the links - I was able to get them before the system flagged them.
I think there’s a rule that the moderator has to waive any brand-new member before you can post certain things. That will happen very quickly, and I hope you will post and comment a lot in the future!
@JasonPratt

I can get them now by clicking on “View hidden content” in kenanada’s post which now says:

Weird. What actually flagged the links was the system, not “the community” or “users”! – yet that’s how the system explained it to viewers.

The system seems to have considered two posts linking off to pdfs elsewhere, posted at about the same time in different threads, as suspicion of spam. It was the second post that threw the trigger.

The system then threw no less than 32 flags at moderators (including myself) over those two posts (probably half and half split between them).

Anyway, I made sure they were legitimized. And the new member should be back to normal.

Incidentally, the new forum doesn’t hold new users’ posts until ad/mods have approved four or five or six of them or whatever. We might be able to recreate that functionality if we need to, but it’s not in place right now.

To the Evangelical Universalist Community at This Website–

This is a brief note to all of you here who discussed my TEDS lecture from around 2012 or 2013 so patiently and exhaustively. The 470+ contributions that you posted on this website are a substantial discussion of that brief lecture. The two-volume book The Devil’s Redemption runs to about 540,000 words, and so it offers perhaps a hundred times more material to consider than early lecture.

Some of you, I believe, have interpreted my thanks to those who had commented at this website in the acknowledgments of The Devil’s Redemption as snarky and insincere. If this is the case, then I’m not aware of it. It was not intended that way, because the earlier comments that I read online were indeed helpful to me. I was simply trying to give credit where credit is due. And some of you gave me more careful feedback on the work-in-progress than my own PhD students did. And so again I say: Thanks! If scholarship is sound, then it has to show itself as such by passing the test of stringent criticism. What sort of researcher would I be if I did not welcome criticism from evangelical universalists and other fellow-travelers at this website?

Robin Parry and I got to meet and talk at a recent meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. I enjoy speaking with Robin, and I find him an illuminating conversation partner across a wide range of topics. We are on friendly terms. I have not had the opportunity to meet either Thomas Talbott or Ilaria Ramelli, but would welcome the opportunity to do so.

For those strongly interested in the topic of Christian universalism, I hope that you find it possible and worthwhile to read through The Devil’s Redemption in its entirety. A wide range of universalist thinkers exist outside of the better known patristic authors (e.g., Origen) and English-language authors (e.g., George MacDonald). These others include Syriac, French, German, and Russian writers.

I would like to know if there are parts of my argument in The Devil’s Redemption that are factually incorrect.

All the patristic citations in the book (other than those to Syriac–which my colleague Professor Jeff Wickes reads, but I do not) refer to Greek or Latin sources as well as to English translations of those sources. You may let me know if something is factually wrong (michael.mcclymond@slu.edu). Please supply the page number so that I can follow up whatever you email me.

Because of my time limitations (and the new research and writing projects that beckon for my attention right now) I will not be able to come back to this website often, but I will regularly be checking the email address given above. If, for whatever reason, you need to send me something with a hefty attachment (i.e., more than 20 megs), then you can send that to michaelmcclymond@gmail.com

If your immediate reaction to the lecture or to what you have heard about the book is that I am wildly off base on an interpretive level, then please read first the whole of the work, and then, after reading it through, let me know where the interpretation is mistaken. I am offering a narrative of the development of Christian doctrine that conflicts with what many or most of you presently believe. Any factual corrections I would welcome. You don’t need to read everything I wrote to note a factual mistake.

Christ is risen!

Easter blessings to all,
MM

Michael,

Thank you for your gracious request. FWIW, I only read the sections where you critiqued authors whom I have read. And my chagrin at what I thought was a failure to engage their actual views was exemplified by Thomas Talbott’s detailed response concerning where he believed his views were misrepresented. His reading of what his actual views are all paralleled my own understanding from reading all of his work, and they matched my initial reactions as to where your interpretations were incorrect.

I don’t know how to avoid concluding that you covered so much ground that you were not able to do justice to the many writers whose views you summarize, and thus to be skeptical that I would be getting an accurate reading of other authors whose views I have not already scrutinized.

He is risen indeed! May all creation honor and glorify Him!

I shall just ditto Bob’s post in its details and move along, since I have other things to do; but I appreciate the Easter outreach blessings.

Hi Michael – He is Risen Indeed!

I’m don’t often post here anymore, and I don’t know Robin Parry (although I really liked his book ‘The Biblical Cosmos). But simply from my own point of view – and it is merely a private opinion - I think there are many factual errors and misunderstandings of both primary and secondary sources in your two volume work. I don’t think this is simply a result of the latitude of interpretation. I think you have misread texts for perfectly noble reasons - but you have still misread them. I can’t go into every instance - because I’d have to write a couple of volumes of refutation. But for starters I’m not at all convinced that the texts you imply are evidence for Gnostic universalism in the second century actually demonstrate universalist teachings at all.

IS THE ‘PISTIS SOPHIA’ A UNIVERSALIST TEXT?

I’ll give you one example – in volume 1 Section 2.3 you clearly imply that the Pistis Sophia is somehow Universalist. Note the following extracts:

‘’Say to those who will abandon the teachings of the First Mystery: woe to you for your punishment is severe beyond all men. For you will remain in great frost, ice and hail in the midst of the dragon and the outer darkness, and you will not be cast into the world from this time henceforth forever, but you will perish in that place. And at the dissolution of the All universe you will be consumed and become non-existent forever’’ (P.S., Book III, c. 102, p. 260)

This woe oracle against apostates is immediately preceded by the Saviour’s statement that those who ‘’teach erroneous teachings and all those who learn from them’’ will be punished severely and then annihilated. Later in Book III the Saviour also says that those who receive the Mysteries and then fall again into sin and are unfortunate enough to die in their sins without repentance will also be consumed and come to nothing (see P.S., Book 111, c.121 p.308).

In both Book III and Book IV the ‘Saviour’ teaches that there is always hope for the person who has committed every possible sin but then discovers the mysteries of light, can become one of the elect and ascend to the heavens free of sin. However, the elect are limited in number:
‘’… when the number of perfect souls exist I will shut the gates of light. And no one will go within from this hour… [after this even those souls who find the mysteries of light] will come to the gates of light and they will find that the number of perfect souls is completed… Now those souls will knock, at the gates of light, saying: ‘O Lord, open to us.’ I will answer and say to them: ‘I do not know you, whence you are.’ And they will say to me ‘We have received from thy mysteries, and we have completed the whole teaching, and thou hast taught us upon thy streets.’ And I will answer and say to them: ‘I do not know you, who you are, you who do deeds of iniquity and evil up until now. Because of this go to the outer darkness.’’ (P.S. Book III, c. 125, pp. 315- 16)

In Book IV the ‘Saviour’ teaches that the following categories of sinners face both torment and then annihilation:

The murderer who has never committed another sin will be punished by tormenting demons in the places of frost and snow will be judged and then be lead to the ‘‘outer darkness’’ to await the time when the ‘it will be destroyed and dissolved’’; (P.S., Book IV, c.146, p. 378)

The continual blasphemer will be dragged around by the tongue, punished with fire and then taken to the outer darkness to await being ‘’destroyed and dissolved’’; (c. 14 pp. 379-380)

The pederast is tormented by demons then taken to the outer darkness to be ‘destroyed and dissolved’ (P.S., c.147 pp. 380-381).

Those that make a dish of lentils mixed with sperms and menstrual blood and then eat it declaring: ‘we believe in Esau and Jacob’ – are judged by the Saviour to have committed the sin surpassing all others. These will be taken directly to the outer darkness to be consumed and perish in ‘the place where there is no pity’ (P.S., c. 147 p. 381)

See, Schmidt, Carl, Macdermot, Violet, Pistis Sophia, Leiden, Brill 1978.

That’s one of many examples. I hope this is useful Michael.