Q. Universalism was NOT the teaching of the early church fathers. The first universalistic teachings came out of Gnostic teachings, NOT the Apostles' teaching. Michael McClymond wrote 'The Devil's Redemption: A New History and Interpretation of Christian Universalism', a two volume in depth look at Universalism in Christianity and church history. He looks not only at the different times universalism has surfaced, but the different flavours and factors that played a role in it. You can listen to an interview he did (which touches on Universalism's gnostic roots) here.

A. Dr. Michael McClymond is a professor of modern Christianity in the Department of Theological Studies at Saint Louis University, Missouri, and author of the provocative anti-universalist two-volume tome, The Devil's Redemption: A New History and Interpretation of Christian Universalism (June 2018) which purports to critique Universalism "from a biblical, philosophical, and theological standpoint".

Off the bat, it has to be underscored that McClymond is not a patristic scholar - his area of expertise being in Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) and Modern Christianity - and the material he covers is really outside his scholarly competence, as patristic expert Professor Ilaria Ramelli (author of the monograph, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis) has shown [1].

He has been interviewed a number of times and his videos, one of which has been cited by the questioner, may be found on YouTube. Dr.McClymond stands in the Pentecostal tradition and has apparently appointed himself as an ex officio leading adversary of Evangelical Universalism, something which he has not only seriously misunderstood but also unabashedly misrepresened. Worse, his knowledge of the history of Gnosticism is woefully lacking, a label he falsely attaches to Universalism, for which he has been called out by leading scholars on the subject, and persistenly misreads his sources.

I have corresponded with several scholars orders of magnitude more expert and knowledgeable on Gnosticism and Universalism than myself, to whom I am very grateful for their contributions here. Three of these have already volunteered copious amounts of information not possible to reproduce here for their shere volume and I have no doubt others will do the same in due course. So I am sharing some extracts of some preliminary reviews of McClymond's interview , some of whom know his books well (they have only been in print for four months at the time of writing this article) and have in fact publicly debated him. (If anyone with a scholarly bent is interested in these, I can make referals). McClymond is regarded by these luminaries as a 'minor scholar' in this field, for reasons that will become apparent. In response to my question whether anyone was planning a rebuttal of his two books, I received the reply:

"I am not aware of any universalists planning such a rebuttal, or if any consider the (IMO) poor quality of it even worth such a reply. A thoroughly detailed answer could be encyclopedic."

I just finished watching the lecture. I figured I'd give a brief summary. Basically, McClymond is doing a genealogy in which he attempts to show that universalism is rooted in the supposed gnostic narrative of "unity --> diversity --> unity." He blames Origen for picking this up. Then, he skips to the 16th and 17th century mystic Jacob Boehme, blames him for creating an esoteric, gnostic-influenced version of apokatastasis [1] and tries to show how all the universalists in the modern period can be traced back to Boehme.

McClymond anticipates the charge that he is using a sort of "guilt-by-association" tactic, but he denies this on the grounds that it is not only that universalism is associated with gnosticism, but that it "comes directly out of a gnostic conception of God." What this gnostic doctrine of God exactly is is not entirely clear, but it appears to include: (a) emanationism (God does not freely create the world), (b) evil is somehow originally present in God, leading to the emanation of fallen material creation, and (c) that all is brought back into unity with God in such a way to deny a real distinction between God and creation. He asserts that universalism is simply not biblical and thus false, saying: "Even if the New Testament did not clearly deny universalism, we could still reject it because of its gnostic foundations." The only biblical argument he uses to support his claim that scripture teaches a doctrine of everlasting hell is the crucifixion narrative of the two thieves, one who accepts and the other who rejects Christ.

He goes on to assert that universalism has no essential place for sin or grace. This really begins the section of his lecture which, I think, contains some just flat-out embarrassing statements. Some choice ones:

"Is it not noteworthy that the [supposed] "truth" of universalism should be discovered at a period of time in church's history that is recognized as a period of moral laxity and cheap grace?"

"I see universalism at the 21st century as just a new expression of the age old struggle between cheap and costly grace."

"I call us all to recover the central message of the cross…because it's only a Church that has forgotten the message of the cross that could even toy with the idea of universal salvation as biblical truth."

First of all, I should say that my training is not primarily in historical theology, but rather philosophical theology and philosophy of religion. However, I have taken enough courses in historical theology to have a basic feel about what's going on in the field. That being said, the very fact that McClymond would base his entire thesis on the idea that universalism is an essentially gnostic invention is puzzling, since the consensus in the field seems to be that there never was some single phenomenon of "gnosticism." We do not have primary sources of the gnostics that McClymond cites, but rather only the polemical documents of "proto-orthodox" theologians. If I am correct, we have only relatively recently come upon the first primary documents from supposed "gnostics" such as Valentinus, and in many ways they do not match up with the views that polemical proto-orthodox theologians such as Irenaeus ascribed to them. So, that alone seems to be a prima facie methodological problem for McClymond's narrative: how can we genealogically trace universalism to gnosticism when we're not even sure what the supposed "gnostics" believed? This does not, I think, completely nullify his narrative. For example, it seems the general gist of his genealogy could remain intact if the formulation of these "gnostic" universalist views found in the proto-orthodox fathers was enough to spawn this universalist trajectory. Still, as I will argue, I don't think that the most important theologians that McClymond cites do hold these "gnostic views." That is the bigger problem with his account.

Secondly, McClymond seems to be simply picking up on the old and insufficiently critical notion that Origen was just another gnostic who hid it better than others. But, remember, Origen himself vigorously debated against the "gnostics" of his time. McClymond's case depends not only on the weak claim that universalism shares some approximate similarities with "gnosticism" but the stronger one that it "shares a gnostic conception of God." McClymond has to explain how Origen's doctrine of God is really "gnostic" when Origen was explicitly developing his doctrine of God in opposition to these supposed gnostics! I have not read all that much of Origen besides De Principiis and some bits of Contra Celsum, but I have to say that I do not recognize McClymond's conception of gnosticism (unity-division-unity) in Origen's thought. Even if we accept that Origen believed in the pre-existence of souls who sinned against God, were placed in material creation, and are reconciled back to God, this does not entail that Origen held to a form of emanationism that denies God's free act of creation, that the material world is inherently sinful, that there ever was "sin" in God, or that finally any distinction between God and creatues is erased. Despite perhaps some oddities in his doctrine of the Trinity, Origen's doctrine of God and narrative of creation are pretty similar in their basic structure to the more traditional views; it's just that he pushes the Fall up an ontological level, so to speak. Perhaps I'm mis-reading Origen or I'm just so thick-headed as not to see Origen's gnosticism.

Thirdly, and this is a relatively minor point, McClymond frankly just engages in a bunch of cheap shots. Since an essential part of his narrative is that universalism is inextricably linked to "esoterica" and "visionaries," he typically mentions a supposedly bizarre position held by each universalist (e.g. that Lucifer might be saved, God forbid! or Adrienne von Speyr's claim that she mystically "went to hell" every Holy Saturday), many times for no discernable reason other than to make the thinker in question seem silly. The height of this absurdity occurs when he invokes some charismatic preacher named John Crowder [2] who apparently holds rowdy services and performs odd acts like pretending a crucifix is a bong. Perhaps Crowder has a larger following than I am aware of, but I doubt it, and I think that McClymond's inclusion of him in this narrative serves no other purpose than to implicate the actual respectable thinkers by their supposed association with Crowder's bizarre heterodoxy.

Moreover, it is unusual that MyClymond chooses, until the 20th century, to skip over the more well-reputed likely supporters of universal reconciliation. He says nothing directly, for example, of Gregory of Nyss (or the other Cappadocians, who some seem to think have universalist leanings), who only helped formulate the doctrine of the Trinity! Additionally, if McClymond relies so heavily upon universalism belonging to the realm of "visionaries," why not mention Julian of Norwich in his narrative? Perhaps he doubts her universalist leanings, but it seems to be that he ignores her simply because she is theologically "respectable" in a way that Boehme, for example, is not (at least among the more theologically traditional).

Of course, McClymond's narrative only works if all and every form of Christian universalism necessarily shares the same "gnostic" conception of the doctrine of God. Again, I think I have called into question whether this can even be said of Origen, who typically has been interpreted as being pretty close to gnosticism. I have no doubt that Boehme held some heterodox views and that these were picked up by Hegel and thus influenced a great deal of 20th century theologians. However, to suggest that all these theologians simply picked up wholesale this supposed gnostic doctrine of God (which we don't know was actually held by any "gnostics") and that it is the foundation of their universalism just seems flat-out implausible. Does McClymond really want to suggest that von Balthasar holds a gnostic conception of God? He, like Origen, actively fought against this, and Cyril O'Regan - the leading scholar of the "gnostic influence" in modern thought - claims that von Balthasar is one of the strongest anti-Hegelian (and thus, on McClymond's narrative, anti-Boehmian --> anti-gnostic) modern theologians.

McClymond, I think, is appealing to the similarity in the supposed gnostic narrative of "unity-diversity-unity" and the traditional narrative of "creation-fall-redemption" and then only selectively identifying universalist Christian theologians' with the former. But none (as far as I am aware) of the major theologians he cites believe in an emanationist doctrine of creation, of some primordial "sinfulness" in God, or any of the other supposed doctrines that he describes as gnostic. The only distinctions left between them and those good, old traditional theologians are their universalism and the fact that other areas of their theologies consequently look different (atonement, God's justice/wrath, etc)!

Finally, let's consider McClymond's more explicit critiques of universalism. First of all, it's just silly to assume that an increase in the popularity of universalism in the 20th and 21st centuries is due to the "moral laxity" of the modern age and the "cheap grace" of the (liberal) modern church. It seems to me there is a whole cornucopia of other factors that likely play far greater a role in this shift: watching those who aren't "saved" die by the millions in the Holocaust and other atrocities of the 20th century, changes in biblical scholarship that open up new ways of reading the gospels and Paul, the re-evaluation of Origen as not a "gnostic," etc. etc. "Liberalism" and "moral laxity" might have affected some to accept universalism, but to suggest that these are the only causes is just ridiculous.

Additionally, McClymond cannot charge his characterization of universalism with holding to "cheap grace" unless he is already assuming a certain conception of grace that inherently holds to a hell of eternal conscious torment. But this is precisely what is in question! How can one read Robin Parry, as McClymond has claimed he has, and say that Parry advocates cheap grace, rejects the wrath or justice of God, or has no place for evangelism unless one has already a priori ruled out the possibility? McClymond's definition of true "grace" and "justice" requires that one already hold to a doctrine of God's wrath/justice in which God punishes those who do not receive grace with eternal suffering in hell. But this just means that McClymond has already smuggled the doctrine of everlasting hell into his doctrine of God and God's attributes. The universalist need not (and almost never does) deny that God does not display God's wrath or justice; it's just that this justice is always working for reconciliation and never for pure retribution.

In fairness, McClymond does attempt to support this assumption by an appeal to the biblical narrative. Here, as I mentioned, he puts forth, as far as I can remember, only one real argument for his view that God's justice/wrath requires that human beings make a choice of eternal consequence: the two thieves. McClymond uses the example of the thief who mocks Christ as an example of the one who rejects grace and thus deserves eternal punishment, whereas the thief that accepts Christ gains grace and earns everlasting bliss. But, just moments later, McClymond himself mentions how the "good" thief extraordinarily accepts Christ while Christ's own apostles are denying him and scattering! But this means they did nothing different from what the "bad" thief did! The only difference is that the bad thief dies without repenting, whereas the apostles have the further opportunity to repent. But this leaves a few issues unresolved. As I think McClymond would admit, this story alone does not support his doctrine of hell; it can only do so in conjunction with his interpretation of other passages as pointing to this doctrine. Thus, it makes it an odd choice for scriptural support for his view; he probably would have done better to argue for an eternalist reading of some hell passage. Consequently, McClymond's reading of this passage to support his doctrine of hell relies upon the assumption that there are no further chances to accept grace after death. The only reasoning which McClymond seems to offer for this assumption is that no second chances makes life's decisions more "meaningful." But, this too is just assumed. Far more interpretive work needs to be done to support his reading of this passage.

Finally, McClymond's charge that a true Christian who believed in the power of the cross couldn't "even toy" with universalism is flat-out uncharitable. Just like in the rest of his lecture, he simply assumes that a true Christian theology must hold to certain positions, one such position being that God punishes the unrepentent in hell for all eternity. Universalism is thus ruled out as un-christian by definition and without any convincing arguments as to why this is so. McClymond mentioned that his substantiative arguments would be made in the book, but if the peeks at his arguments in the lecture are any indication, his book will be more of the same, tired traditionalist arguments against universalism, only with an odd "historical" genealogy tacked on as supposed support.

I am very familiar with Dr McClymond and his book. His contention that Christian Universalism initially arose from Gnosticism is in my view completely wrong and based on a misreading of evidence by an extremely clever but man but a man who is not skilled in how to read this sort of historical evidence. Indeed I think the only piece of evidence he is not misreading in this part of his book is that Ireanaeus in 'Against Heresies' reports that Carpocrates taught that all souls will be saved; but even here I disagree with his interpretation that this is probably the clearest and most unambiguous evidence [for] Gnostic universalism (it is by no means unambiguous - and indeed there is no reason to think that Carpocrates' teachings can have had any influence whatsoever on Clement. I am happy to discuss any part of this argument with you - which mainly occurs in vol i, chapter 2. section 2.3 including footnotes. It's a complex misreading that Dr. McClymond makes - and I'd have to write a book myself to completely say what I think - and I'm not going to do that - becuase I'm not a book writer. But do ask me about any specific points from his discussion of early Gnosticism (for starters). I'd be delighted to tell you what I think (and I've checked his sources scrupulously)

One of the problems with McClymond in my view is that he persistently misreads and sources - and that takes some detail to demonstrate. Here's something I wrote about an example of him misconstruing a source. I'm also working on a demonstration of why an assertion he makes in a footnote that Simon Magus taught universalism is plain wrong and plain unscholalry. And there's plenty more I can say …

GNOSTIC UNIVERSALISM IN PISTIS SOPHIA?

Introduction

(Here is another little informal essay about Michael McClymond's hypothesis expounded in his Devil's Redemption that Christian Universalism originates in Egyptian Gnosticism in the second and third centuries C.E.

'The Devil is in the detail' as the old saying has it. And this time I want to look again at a detail from Dr McClymond's argument; that is, his assertion that the Gnostic Dialogue known as Pistis Sophia is useful supporting evidence for his hypothesis.

Argument from Authority using Brian Daley

In Devil's Redemption., vol. i, c. 2.3, para. 1, Dr McClymond opens his case with an argument from authority as follows:

Brian Daley notes that ''positive punishment for those who reject the saving gnosis'' is not a prominent theme in gnostic treatises. While certain passages mention punishment, ''other Gnostic documents speak, more encouragingly, of a purifying punishment of each soul after death… The Pistis Sophia describes in some detail the purification of all departed souls - even sinless ones - in fire, until they are judged worthy to drink 'the water of forgetfulness.'' Another major text, the Tripartite Tractate, suggests that much time will be needed for the perfection that has been achieved in the: Logos to be accomplished in his members; only when all are perfected will the Logos and his body be 'restored' to the Pleroma.''

For starters, ''Positive punishment'' (a term taken from Behaviourist Psychology) seems an odd phrase to use for eternal retribution - but this must be what is meant because in Daley's full text he cites The Apocryphon of John as one example; and, indeed, in this Sethian Gnostic tract apostates from gnosis are condemned to eternal torment (see, Apoc. John., 27 - and see endnote for further reason for unease).

However, Dr McClymond - via Brain Daley - seems to be leading us confidently through implicit contrast to believe here that the Pistis Sophia is a Universalist Gnostic text that does not contain any passages concerning ''positive punishment of those who reject saving gnosis.'' So with my suspicion aroused I consulted the primary source and found that this is not the case. In Book III of Pistis Sophia the Saviour thunders:

''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 is all in Book III of Pistis Sophia. However, Daley is referencing Book IV when he writes that -

The Pistis Sophia describes in some detail the purification of all departed souls - even sinless ones - in fire, until they are judged worthy to drink 'the water of forgetfulness.''

I want to leave no shred of doubt about the lack of Universalist credentials in Pistis Sophia here; so I'm now going to list the fates of sinners spoken of in Book IV.

Those that are punished, purified and - in all but one case - punished again through circumstances.

The man who curses will be punished by fire and by avenging archons, purified in the boiling fire waters, drink from the waters of forgetfulness and then be reincarnated as a person who is ''troubled in heart''(P.S., Book IV, c.144, p. 374)

The man who slanders will be punished, purified and given amnesia in the same way but in this instance reincarnated as a person who spends their time being oppressed. (Book IV, c.145, p.376)

The proud and scornful man will be punished, purified and given amnesia in the same way but in this instance reincarnated as a person in a ''lame, crooked and blind body'' (P.S., Book IV, c. 146, p. 337- 378)

The robber and thief who dies unrepentant will be punished, purified and given amnesia in the same way but in this instance reincarnated as a person in a 'lame and ugly body so that everyone continually despises it (P.S., Book IV, c. 146, p. 379)';

The man who has not committed sin and has continually done good deeds, yet has not found the mysteries will go to the underworld, but only for the mildest of correction rather than for vengeful punishments. He will be purified , given the waters of amnesia - and then will also be given a cup of wisdom and sobriety to drink so that when reincarnated this will act as a spur for him to seek wisdom so as to inherit the mysteries of eternal light (P.S., Book IV, c.148 , p. 383)

Those who are tormented and then annihilated

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)

Election and determinism

In both Book III and Book IV 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 not sin again. 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)

Jesus said to his disciples: ''If when the sphere turns, Cronus and Ares come behind the Virgin of the Light, and Zeus and Aphrodite come into the presence of the Virgin … all souls which she will cast into the cycle of the aeons … become righteous and good, and they find the mysteries of the light… If on the other hand Ares and Cronus come into the presence of the Virgin; while Zeus and Aphrodite are behind her… all souls which will be cast into the creation of the sphere in that hour become wicked and ill-tempered…'' (P.S. Book IV, c. 148, p. 384). <>P

Now perhaps that was overkill - but I think it is fair to say now that Pistis Sophia is not relevant as evidence of 'Gnostic universalism' and that I can assert this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Brian Daley made a mistake - and I can hardly blame Dr. McClymond for that. However, it is important to check authorities when citing them. I note that Pheme Perkins - another authority cited at the beginning of Vol. I, c. 2 of Devils' Redemption by Dr. McClymond for, in his view, explicitly affirming Gnostic universalism - actually gives the quotations from Pistis Sophia Chapter III referring to the torment and annihilation of apostates and of false teachers and their followers on pp. 138-9 of her book, Gnostic Dialogues. This is the very book that Dr McClymond cites as authoritative - so that lessens my sympathy for this mistake.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Daley, Brian E., The Hope of the Early Church: A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology , Cambridge, C.U.P. 1991 (p. 27 Chapter 3, Rergaining the light; eschatology in the Gnostic crisis

McClymond, Michael J., The Devils Redemption, Two Volumes, A New History and Interpretation of Christian Universalism , Grand Rapids, Baker Academic 2018 (Kindle DX version retrieved from Amazon.co.uk)

Perkins, Pheme, The Gnostic Dialogue , New York, Paulist Press, 1980

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

I was also confused by the relevance of the premise; the rarity of descriptions of retributive punishment specifically for apostates in Gnostic texts does not necessarily suggest Gnostic universalism. And while the Valentinian Gnostic text known as the Tripartite Tractate cited at the end of this quotation does not anywhere threaten torment for apostates, it is certainly not Universalistic in any meaningful sense. It states that there are three classes of human beings; the pneumatics (spiritual humans), the psychics (humans with animal souls) and the hylical (purely material humans). Unlike other Valentinian sources the Tractate does not assume a hard deterministic framework - it teaches that people are not born into these classes. However, it teaches that they become fixed in their class by their responses to the Saviour - and it does unequivocally state that the hylicals who reject Christ are doomed to annihilation. It is not in any way a universalist text (see, Trip., Tract., 118). Those who are perfected in the Logos over time and then restored to the spiritual realm of the Pleroma are the psychics (see Trip., Tract., 122).

TOOLKIT FOR EVALUATING MCCLYMOND'S HYPOTHESIS

WHAT DID THE GNOSTICS BELIEVE?

In order to make sense of and evaluate Michael McClymond's proposition that Christian universalism originated in the Gnostic heresies of the second and third centuries - and I'm afraid this one is hard work - it's important to have some grasp of what Gnostics believed - beliefs that they expressed in elaborate mythological narratives that had some. Here is my 'cack-handed' (clumsy) attempt at a summary schema:

• 1. Before the beginning, is the Divine Source - sometimes named FOREFATHER. The Source is beyond all comprehension and without comparison. However, we can affirm that it all good; indeed it is the GOOD. And in the beginning the Divine Source brings forth a multitude of exalted spiritual beings from itself. These emanations are woven of pure intellect - they are never actually described in Gnostic myths, not even in terms of physical analogy and this absence reinforces their ethereal nature. The most we are told of them is that they are gendered - some male and some female and often paired together. They also have names - like Forethought, Wisdom, Truth, Logos etc., - so they are abstractions and, in a sense, thoughts in the mind of the divine source; but each has some kind of independent existence and will. These beings are known as AEONS (yes that is the same Greek word that orthodox Christian writers use to describe a vast but finite period of cosmic time - so the Gnostic use it to mean something very different). The full complement of the aeons is known as the PLEROMA - a word which denotes fullness and perfection. (The groovy adjective form of PLEROMA is PLEROMATIC).

• 2. The youngest of the Aeons becomes overpowered by the desire to fully comprehend the unknowable Divine Source. This Aeon is often feminine and named SOPHIA (some Gnostics of the Valentinian Gnostic school saw the story of the woman with the issue of blood in Luke's Gospel as an allegory of the rupturing of the Pleroma by Sophia that is eventually healed by Christ). Her act of hubris ruptures the perfection of the Pleroma which loses some of its light as Sophia falls from it and, as she falls, auto creates copies of the divine world sevenfold. These copies manifest in increasingly disfiguring forms as copies become copies of copies. Solphia then begets the DEMIURGE a being who is ignorant of the Divine Source and the Pleroma and falsely believed himself to be the highest God.

• 3. The Demiurge creates the physical cosmos which is the nadir of the fall from the Pleroma in which the copying of the ideal forms of the divine world becomes most chaotic, disfigured and debased. He also creates ARCHONS who are the spiritual powers that rule over the world. These are often described as having monstrous animal forms. So Creation and Fall for most Gnostics were seen as a single event.

• 4. The Demiurge and his Archons also creates mankind but is only able to create a physical being or at best a psychic being with a dim intimation of higher worlds to control and oppress. He is incapable of creating spiritual beings because spirit originates in the Pleroma. But then some of the pleromatic light which haemorrhaged as Sophia fell descends to earth and becomes trapped there in at least some human beings who are the pneumatics. (The fall of the light is expressed either/or - both/and - as an evil entrapment by the Demiruge and his Archons, or as a ruse brought about by the now repentant Sophia who guides the light into human beings so that they can grow up to one day undo the works of the Demiurge.

• 5. Jesus is sent as a Divine Messenger from the Pleroma to reveal the spiritual destiny of humanity. Their destiny is to return to the Pleroma.

• 6. Salvation comes to humans through direct insight/gnosis into this truth that is mediated though the Saviour which allows the Gnostic to slip free from the entanglements of matter and to ascend upwards through the seven planetary heavens created by the fall of Sophia back to the Pleroma.

But the big question for us is about whether the evidence suggest that any Gnostics were Universalists and, if so, can they be shown to have influenced clement and/or Origen?

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY UNIVERSALISM?

We need to clarify this one - and here is my best attempt at the definitions relevant to our discussion

• 1. Weak sense Salvation is offered to all regardless of social class, gender, ethnicity etc., although it is not achieved by everyone.

• 2. Strong sense Salvation (however this is conceived) will eventually be achieved by all beings. This 'all' can mean either:

  • a) All humans (human centred universalism); or -

  • b) All humans and all other intelligent beings such as fallen angels and including the devil or theological/mythological equivalent (radical universalism).

• 3. Strong sense version of Christian universalism

  The eventual eviction of moral evil and its consequences - death, corruption etc., - from Creation and the conversion, purification and salvation of all beings. It will encompass both the material and the spiritual when accomplished. This salvation is achieved by the one God of Creation in Christ through the Incarnation. And, additionally, this 'end' is imagined as a state of ever closer communion with God; although God will fill all things, the distinction between Creator and creatures will not disappear.

Apart from being discerning about whether specific primary and secondary sources are being interpreted properly we also need to ask:

• 1. Is there textual evidence from Gnostic sources of the second and third centuries of Gnostic's holding to weak or strong forms of Universalism? We need to be fairly sure that any sources predate or are contemporary with Clement and Origen - later sources cannot be counted as an influence.

• 2. Is there textual evidence from non-Gnostic sources from our period of study Of Gnostics holding to any type of Universalism? If so, how reliable is the evidence if it comes from the hostile sources of orthodox Christian Hereseologists? And, are Christian Heresiologists hostile to any Gnostic groups specifically because they think they teach universal salvation. How extensive is the evidence for the above (does it suggest a widespread belief or a limited, obscure one)?

• 3. Do we have any evidence from the writings of Clement and/or Origen that they may have been wittingly or unwittingly influenced by specific Gnostic Universalist teachings?

• 4. If Clement and/or Origen can be shown to have ideas in common with any Gnostics, were the Gnostics who they have some commonality with actually Universalists?

• 5. Finally - even if we have to discount discussion of the Biblical case for universalism from this investigation (because the early Christians differed about how to interpret biblical texts on the scope of salvation) - are there any other more compelling explanations for the genesis of the tradition of Christian Apokatastasis than McClymond's Gnostic hypothesis (and does McClymond deal adequately with any competing hypotheses)?

O'Regan, Cyril, Gnostic Return in Modernity, Albany, State University of New York Press, 2001

Perkins, Pheme, The Gnostic Dialogue, New York, Paulist Press, 1980

Perkins, Pheme, Gnosis and the Life of the Spirit: the Price of Pneumatic Order, in Voeglin and the Theologian. Ten Studies in Interpretation, ed. John Kirby and William M. Thompson (Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen, 1983), pp. 222 - 39

Wild, Robert, A Catholic Reading Guide to Universalism, Oregan, WiPF and Stock Publishers, 2015

Wink, Walter, Cracking the Gnostic Code; the Powers in Gnosticism, Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1993.

These are just some extracts of discussions with principally two experts in universalism - I know of many others. And there is a lot more material that I could have reproduced here. Suffice to say, McClymond is not a reliable expert in this field, does not check his sources adequately, misrepresents both universalism and the gnosticism which are central of his thesis. His claims are just plain false. And while J.W.Hanson's book on Universalism which we published clearly needs updating in some of the details, its overall thesis remains correct.

So to the questioner I have to say: your thesis is wrong and ill-informed. Just because someone whose doctrine you like has his name prefixed by 'Professor' or 'Doctor' does not make him automatically reliable as is true in any scholarly discipline, and multiple disciplinary sets of these are required in a study such as this one. McClymond needs to be refuted in the details by someone with both the time and expertise (for he has a lot of detail few would be inclined to check-up). From what we have already seen, he is not reliable and is not doing believers a service. His books and interviews are clearly partisan and do not reflect proper scholarly non-bias.

I therefore cannot recommend this author or his work.

Endnotes

[1] The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastais: The Reviews Start Coming In in 'Eclectic Orthodoxy' (3 April 2016) - see, 'Reply to Professor Michael McClymond' toward the end
[2] John Crowder, Sons of Thunder

This page was created on 4 November 2018 Last updated on 4 November 2018

Copyright © 1987-2018 NCAY - All Rights Reserved