What do you think?
Rate this book
The Devil's Redemption: A New History and Interpretation of Christian Universalism
2018 Book Award Winner, The Gospel Coalition (Academic Theology)
A Choice Outstanding Academic Title for 2019
Will all evil finally turn to good, or does some evil remain stubbornly opposed to God and God's goodness? Will even the devil be redeemed? Addressing a theological issue of perennial interest, this comprehensive book (in two volumes) surveys the history of Christian universalism from the second to the twenty-first century and offers an interpretation of how and why universalist belief arose. The author explores what the church has taught about universal salvation and hell and critiques universalism from a biblical, philosophical, and theological standpoint. He shows that the effort to extend grace to everyone undermines the principle of grace for anyone.
A Choice Outstanding Academic Title for 2019
Will all evil finally turn to good, or does some evil remain stubbornly opposed to God and God's goodness? Will even the devil be redeemed? Addressing a theological issue of perennial interest, this comprehensive book (in two volumes) surveys the history of Christian universalism from the second to the twenty-first century and offers an interpretation of how and why universalist belief arose. The author explores what the church has taught about universal salvation and hell and critiques universalism from a biblical, philosophical, and theological standpoint. He shows that the effort to extend grace to everyone undermines the principle of grace for anyone.
1376 pages, Paperback
Published June 5, 2018
29 people are currently reading
298 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
March 25, 2020
McClymond does an excellent job of organizing, displaying, and thoughtfully engaging with universalism throughout the ages. He starts this book by examining Jewish Kabbalah thought and the influence that it had and continues to have on Christian and Muslim universalism. In this two volume work he dispels multiple myths about universalism, but I will stick the three most prevalent ones for the 21st century take on universalism. Myth one is that universalism primarily came about in the 20th and 21st century. This is disproven by McClymond’s data that points to universalism being seen in Jewish Kabbalah communities prior to year 1 B.C. Throughout the work he walks through universalism in each century of the church. He disproves myth two, which is that universalism is western thought, by pointing to theologians all over the globe. However, it’s footings take place in eastern thought rather than western theology. This leads into the third myth he dispels, which is that universalism was widely held by the Apostolic Church fathers. McClymond’s usage of primary sources shows great scholastic and historical work as he highlights the Apostolic Church’s denial of the teachings of Origin in regard to universalism. A theme that is prevalent amongst universalist thinkers throughout the century is that they typically hold to other views that the church has deemed heretical. From Gnosticism, Docetism, Panentheism to creation being Ex Creo universalism is typical held alongside one of, if not multiple, of these views. McClymond illustrates that thinkers throughout the centuries have had to perform great acts of theological gymnastics to get the Bible to fit their taste of universalism. While majority of the work is spent on historical views of universalism, he does point out 21st century universalism. However, this may be the shortest chapter in the book. On page 943 he says that 21st century universalism “reads more like earlier deistic or skeptical literature than like traditional evangelical literature.” This books closes with a final statement on universal salvation being the antithesis of grace. I had no idea that an academic book would lead me to deeper worship of Jesus as I see just how gracious he is by offering the free gift of eternal. Historically universalism denies the grace of God in salvation and makes salvation dependent on who humans are and not on who God is. In a world where theological liberalism is ever present and the Word of God is constantly being challenged McClymond’s piece is timely and deeply appreciated. May many scholars, pastors, and lay people pick up this masterpiece.
October 28, 2022
I had high hopes for this because its so highly recommended but was extremely disappointed.
The Good: It has a great bibliography and gives a general layout of who all of the players are.
McClymond is at his best when arguing against Robin Parry via exegesis. He is able to bring up a few points in Parry’s argument that don’t add up. But there’s still plenty (I think) good points that McClymond doesn’t address in Parry.
The Bad: I only read the second volume because that’s where my research is in. But it was mostly bad. The main bits of contention are in his coverage and argument against Barth, McCormack, and his McClymond’s argument against Christian Universalism as a whole. In dealing with the 20th century-current theologians on the topic, he proves to be about as uncharitable reader as I’ve ever read. It’s just straw man after straw man, slippery slope arguments, and begging the question on repeat. The game is all about presuppositions here. He will mention some of the presuppositions of these thinkers, then their argument, and then critiques their conclusions according to McClymonds own presuppositions. He doesn’t critique their presuppositions or question why they go the route they do to get to their conclusions and show why his are more sound.
There are generally some good arguments to be made, but for the most part, they aren’t here. I’d suggest the critiques of Robin Parry in 4 views on Hell way before this. Preston Sprinkle (not a universalist) has good arguments as well.
He also says Bonhoeffer has a take it or leave it attitude view on universalism after quoting him affirming it lol.
The Good: It has a great bibliography and gives a general layout of who all of the players are.
McClymond is at his best when arguing against Robin Parry via exegesis. He is able to bring up a few points in Parry’s argument that don’t add up. But there’s still plenty (I think) good points that McClymond doesn’t address in Parry.
The Bad: I only read the second volume because that’s where my research is in. But it was mostly bad. The main bits of contention are in his coverage and argument against Barth, McCormack, and his McClymond’s argument against Christian Universalism as a whole. In dealing with the 20th century-current theologians on the topic, he proves to be about as uncharitable reader as I’ve ever read. It’s just straw man after straw man, slippery slope arguments, and begging the question on repeat. The game is all about presuppositions here. He will mention some of the presuppositions of these thinkers, then their argument, and then critiques their conclusions according to McClymonds own presuppositions. He doesn’t critique their presuppositions or question why they go the route they do to get to their conclusions and show why his are more sound.
There are generally some good arguments to be made, but for the most part, they aren’t here. I’d suggest the critiques of Robin Parry in 4 views on Hell way before this. Preston Sprinkle (not a universalist) has good arguments as well.
He also says Bonhoeffer has a take it or leave it attitude view on universalism after quoting him affirming it lol.
April 4, 2023
Updated review:
I wrote a preliminary review of this book after having read only the first volume, which turned out to be a mistake. I referred readers to David Bentley Hart's review at https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2019/10... , a far more thorough and incisive review than anything I could write.
McClymond's book purports to be a history and new interpretation of universalism. This, I think, is disingenuous. It is, rather, a theological critique of universalism masquerading as a history book. Thus in the first volume he peppers his accounts of the thought of certain theologians as "conflictual", "problematic", "peculiar", or "alien to mainstream Christian theology" etc. In the second volume his criticisms get more intense, sometimes going on for pages, such as when he criticizes Barth, Moltmann, and Congdon.
I found McClymond's account of Congdon's thought interesting enough to buy and read The God Who Saves. After reading it, I really don’t know what to make of McClymond's criticisms. Congdon asserts clearly his belief that theology must be multivalent, and I don’t know whether McClymond doesn’t understand what this means or whether he is simply ignoring it. McClymond claims that Congdon rejects Trinitarian and Christological doctrines. I’m not sure what McClymond means by this. Perhaps he objects to Congdon's critique of Chalcedonian Christology? Certainly there is nowhere in the book where Congdon says Christ is not God or disaffirms any othe basic traditional Trinitarian doctrine. Rather, the whole point of Congdon's book is to recenter the person of Christ in is salvific activity, contrary the Chalcedonian centering of Christ in his nature. This is not a rejection of traditional Christology but rather a different way of looking at the person of Christ.
An example of McClymond's inability (or perhaps refusal?) to grasp the meaning of multivalent theology is his statement that for Congdon "Cocrucifixion does not mean sharing the benefits of Christ's death. It means one has to be crucified, too: To undergo some experience of one’s own that is comparable to Christ's own on the cross," and that for Congdon "cocrucifixion is not a logic of participation but a logic of repetition." This is silly. Congdon's thought does not exclude people sharing the benefits of Christ's death. Rather people share both in Christ's suffering and in the benefits of his death. As Congdon puts it, "cocrucifixion and justification are identical." Furthermore in claiming the importance of experiencing one’s own suffering (for example, by carrying one's owncross, as Jesus said), Congdon is not somehow negating the reality of people also participating in Christ's own suffering. Indeed he explicitly states "to be saved is to participate existentially in the death of Christ." Thus Congdon's logic is one both of participation and repetition. This is not a case of either/or but rather a case of both/and.
McClymond's defenses of the monstrous doctrine of infernalism are largely based on the assumption of the nearly as monstrous doctrine of penal substitution. So he cites disapprovingly C. Baxter Kruger's statement that "Jesus did not come to suffer punishment inflicted by his Father." While noting that penal substitution has been the historic position of mainstream Protestantism for centuries, McClymond neglects to say that most Christians are not Protestants and therefore do not hold it, and even a number of evangelicals are recognizing how monstrous and unbiblical it is.
So generally speaking McClymond's argument against universalism runs something like this: "Christ bore the full punishment for our sins. To claim people will eventually be released from hell is to claim that people can bear punishment for their own sins. Therefore universalism cannot be correct." This argument fails to adequately distinguish between suffering that is atoning and suffering that is purifying. Malachi says, “But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap. He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver.” And what about the necessity of believers' suffering, a theme that often appears in the N.T.? Clearly this does not involve believers atoning for their sins.
McClymond's bad arguments are too numerous to mention them all here but I must note a couple rather amusing ones. The first is his citing John 6:44 as a refutation of Barth's idea of universal election, not noticing that John 6:44 in conjunction with John 12:32 is actually a pretty good argument foruniversal election. The second is McClymond's criticism of Ilaria Ramelli's attempts to understanding the Greek words for eternity in the N.T. by studying the Greek Church Fathers on the grounds that our theology must come from the N.T. itself and not the Church Fathers, and then a couple paragraphs later appealing to what Augustine, who didn’t know Greek, has to say about eternity. I have always found it amusing that theologians are quick to appeal to the Church Fathers when those Fathers agree with their theology, but equally quick to note that these Fathers are not divinely inspired when the same Fathers disagree with their theology.
Another criticism of McClymond's that must be addressed is that universalism blurs the distinction between the church and unbelievers. This may be true to some degree, but perhaps the infernalist doctrine unfairly sharpens the distinction between believers and unbelievers, both of whom, after all, bear the image of God according to most Christian theologies. But universalism does not blur the distinction nearly as much as McClymond implies. I think McClymond has fallen into the trap of placing all the emphasis on the world to come, at the expense of neglecting Christ's saving action in the present world. While the N.T. certainly teaches that a day of judgment where God's wrath will be poured out, it also teaches that wrath is currently being poured out on unbelievers (Romans 1:18; 1 Thess. 2:16). Not only does becoming a Christian lead to advantages in this life it would seem to be advantageous in the respect of leading to greater rewards in the next life (Matt. 5:12; Mark 9:41; 1 Cor. 3:14; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 22:12). So it is not at all correct to say that under universalism believers and unbelievers have the same result.
So, is David Bentley Hart's assessment of this book as "a disaster" fair? I understand this assessment but I don’t think it is quite fair. Hart asserts that McClymond is operating outside his expertise when it comes to evaluating the ancient evidence of universalist thought, and he’s probably right. McClymond's conclusions concerning Origen and Origenism are quite at odds with those of Ilaria Ramelli. Certainly where they are at odds, Ramelli is to be trusted over McClymond. McClymond does not even discuss the fifth ecumenical council, the proceedings of which that have come down to us condemn Origin (although in all fairness he mentions it a handful of times.)
Concerning McClymond's thesis that Universalism from the 3rd century to 1700 consisted of footnotes to Origen, and from 1700 to the 20th century consisted of footnotes to Jacob Boeme, I have something to say. I will leave aside Boehme for now, because that subject has been adequately treated in an appendix to A Larger Hope?, Volume 2: Universal Salvation from the Reformation to the Nineteenth Century. Concerning Origen, McClymond states that Origen got his universalist ideas from Plato (which is weird, since Plato was not a universalist) and from Gnosticism. As evidence of gnostic universalism, McClymond offers a quote of a gnostic group coming down to us second-hand from Irenaeus, to the effect that all souls will be saved. McClymond's claim is that this is an unambiguous endorsement of universalism.
I found that interesting since we find similar statements in the New Testament, such as Paul's assertion that through one man death came to all people, but through one man all people will be made alive, or even Christ's own words that his crucifixion will drag all people to himself. Of course the hellfire club will answer that maybe all does not really mean all here; McClymond himself argues somewhat desperately that the "all" who are made alive are a different group than the "all" who die. But what makes these biblical instances of "all" ambiguous, and the second-hand quote of a gnostic group unambiguous? The answer is: McClymond's wishful thinking.
For further critique of McClymond's ideas about the supposed Origen/gnostic connection, check out Ilaria Ramelli's response to McClymond in A Larger Hope?, Volume 1: Universal Salvation from Christian Beginnings to Julian of Norwich
McClymond's treatment of Origen and Boehme reminds me a lot of the tactics of today's anti-evolutionists, who comb through Darwin's works to find racist and eugenicist remarks in order to discredit evolution. But of course, modern day evolutionists aren’t embracing racism or eugenics by accepting the truth of evolution. In the same way one can embrace some of Origen's or Boehme's ideas without embracing them all.
I found the statement that "Dual strands especially in the Pauline letters may well be an exegetical invention of German Philadelphian Universalism" a curious statement. McClymond is referring to the dual strands of eternal punishment v. universal salvation, and intends it as a negative feature. Yet if it is true that the Philadelphian society invented the dual strands idea, have they not done modern orthodoxy a huge service? What about the already but not yet soteriology embraced by so many mainstream Christians? What of Christ's death being both inclusive (we have been crucified with Christ) and exclusive (Christ died in our place)? In fact, it is ludicrous to say the Philadelphians invented dual strands exegesis. They are simply the first to have given it that name. Christians have been reconciling disparate, not to say contradictory, strands in the N.T. since before there was a N.T. canon.
Would I recommend reading this book? It’s hard to say. True, it contains a lot of great information about universalism and especially the many universalists he examines. Unfortunately you will also have to wade through tons of extraneous material about the esoteric and unorthodox beliefs these universalists held that has nothing to do with universalism and everything with associating universalism with historically unorthodox positions.
I wrote a preliminary review of this book after having read only the first volume, which turned out to be a mistake. I referred readers to David Bentley Hart's review at https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2019/10... , a far more thorough and incisive review than anything I could write.
McClymond's book purports to be a history and new interpretation of universalism. This, I think, is disingenuous. It is, rather, a theological critique of universalism masquerading as a history book. Thus in the first volume he peppers his accounts of the thought of certain theologians as "conflictual", "problematic", "peculiar", or "alien to mainstream Christian theology" etc. In the second volume his criticisms get more intense, sometimes going on for pages, such as when he criticizes Barth, Moltmann, and Congdon.
I found McClymond's account of Congdon's thought interesting enough to buy and read The God Who Saves. After reading it, I really don’t know what to make of McClymond's criticisms. Congdon asserts clearly his belief that theology must be multivalent, and I don’t know whether McClymond doesn’t understand what this means or whether he is simply ignoring it. McClymond claims that Congdon rejects Trinitarian and Christological doctrines. I’m not sure what McClymond means by this. Perhaps he objects to Congdon's critique of Chalcedonian Christology? Certainly there is nowhere in the book where Congdon says Christ is not God or disaffirms any othe basic traditional Trinitarian doctrine. Rather, the whole point of Congdon's book is to recenter the person of Christ in is salvific activity, contrary the Chalcedonian centering of Christ in his nature. This is not a rejection of traditional Christology but rather a different way of looking at the person of Christ.
An example of McClymond's inability (or perhaps refusal?) to grasp the meaning of multivalent theology is his statement that for Congdon "Cocrucifixion does not mean sharing the benefits of Christ's death. It means one has to be crucified, too: To undergo some experience of one’s own that is comparable to Christ's own on the cross," and that for Congdon "cocrucifixion is not a logic of participation but a logic of repetition." This is silly. Congdon's thought does not exclude people sharing the benefits of Christ's death. Rather people share both in Christ's suffering and in the benefits of his death. As Congdon puts it, "cocrucifixion and justification are identical." Furthermore in claiming the importance of experiencing one’s own suffering (for example, by carrying one's owncross, as Jesus said), Congdon is not somehow negating the reality of people also participating in Christ's own suffering. Indeed he explicitly states "to be saved is to participate existentially in the death of Christ." Thus Congdon's logic is one both of participation and repetition. This is not a case of either/or but rather a case of both/and.
McClymond's defenses of the monstrous doctrine of infernalism are largely based on the assumption of the nearly as monstrous doctrine of penal substitution. So he cites disapprovingly C. Baxter Kruger's statement that "Jesus did not come to suffer punishment inflicted by his Father." While noting that penal substitution has been the historic position of mainstream Protestantism for centuries, McClymond neglects to say that most Christians are not Protestants and therefore do not hold it, and even a number of evangelicals are recognizing how monstrous and unbiblical it is.
So generally speaking McClymond's argument against universalism runs something like this: "Christ bore the full punishment for our sins. To claim people will eventually be released from hell is to claim that people can bear punishment for their own sins. Therefore universalism cannot be correct." This argument fails to adequately distinguish between suffering that is atoning and suffering that is purifying. Malachi says, “But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap. He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver.” And what about the necessity of believers' suffering, a theme that often appears in the N.T.? Clearly this does not involve believers atoning for their sins.
McClymond's bad arguments are too numerous to mention them all here but I must note a couple rather amusing ones. The first is his citing John 6:44 as a refutation of Barth's idea of universal election, not noticing that John 6:44 in conjunction with John 12:32 is actually a pretty good argument foruniversal election. The second is McClymond's criticism of Ilaria Ramelli's attempts to understanding the Greek words for eternity in the N.T. by studying the Greek Church Fathers on the grounds that our theology must come from the N.T. itself and not the Church Fathers, and then a couple paragraphs later appealing to what Augustine, who didn’t know Greek, has to say about eternity. I have always found it amusing that theologians are quick to appeal to the Church Fathers when those Fathers agree with their theology, but equally quick to note that these Fathers are not divinely inspired when the same Fathers disagree with their theology.
Another criticism of McClymond's that must be addressed is that universalism blurs the distinction between the church and unbelievers. This may be true to some degree, but perhaps the infernalist doctrine unfairly sharpens the distinction between believers and unbelievers, both of whom, after all, bear the image of God according to most Christian theologies. But universalism does not blur the distinction nearly as much as McClymond implies. I think McClymond has fallen into the trap of placing all the emphasis on the world to come, at the expense of neglecting Christ's saving action in the present world. While the N.T. certainly teaches that a day of judgment where God's wrath will be poured out, it also teaches that wrath is currently being poured out on unbelievers (Romans 1:18; 1 Thess. 2:16). Not only does becoming a Christian lead to advantages in this life it would seem to be advantageous in the respect of leading to greater rewards in the next life (Matt. 5:12; Mark 9:41; 1 Cor. 3:14; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 22:12). So it is not at all correct to say that under universalism believers and unbelievers have the same result.
So, is David Bentley Hart's assessment of this book as "a disaster" fair? I understand this assessment but I don’t think it is quite fair. Hart asserts that McClymond is operating outside his expertise when it comes to evaluating the ancient evidence of universalist thought, and he’s probably right. McClymond's conclusions concerning Origen and Origenism are quite at odds with those of Ilaria Ramelli. Certainly where they are at odds, Ramelli is to be trusted over McClymond. McClymond does not even discuss the fifth ecumenical council, the proceedings of which that have come down to us condemn Origin (although in all fairness he mentions it a handful of times.)
Concerning McClymond's thesis that Universalism from the 3rd century to 1700 consisted of footnotes to Origen, and from 1700 to the 20th century consisted of footnotes to Jacob Boeme, I have something to say. I will leave aside Boehme for now, because that subject has been adequately treated in an appendix to A Larger Hope?, Volume 2: Universal Salvation from the Reformation to the Nineteenth Century. Concerning Origen, McClymond states that Origen got his universalist ideas from Plato (which is weird, since Plato was not a universalist) and from Gnosticism. As evidence of gnostic universalism, McClymond offers a quote of a gnostic group coming down to us second-hand from Irenaeus, to the effect that all souls will be saved. McClymond's claim is that this is an unambiguous endorsement of universalism.
I found that interesting since we find similar statements in the New Testament, such as Paul's assertion that through one man death came to all people, but through one man all people will be made alive, or even Christ's own words that his crucifixion will drag all people to himself. Of course the hellfire club will answer that maybe all does not really mean all here; McClymond himself argues somewhat desperately that the "all" who are made alive are a different group than the "all" who die. But what makes these biblical instances of "all" ambiguous, and the second-hand quote of a gnostic group unambiguous? The answer is: McClymond's wishful thinking.
For further critique of McClymond's ideas about the supposed Origen/gnostic connection, check out Ilaria Ramelli's response to McClymond in A Larger Hope?, Volume 1: Universal Salvation from Christian Beginnings to Julian of Norwich
McClymond's treatment of Origen and Boehme reminds me a lot of the tactics of today's anti-evolutionists, who comb through Darwin's works to find racist and eugenicist remarks in order to discredit evolution. But of course, modern day evolutionists aren’t embracing racism or eugenics by accepting the truth of evolution. In the same way one can embrace some of Origen's or Boehme's ideas without embracing them all.
I found the statement that "Dual strands especially in the Pauline letters may well be an exegetical invention of German Philadelphian Universalism" a curious statement. McClymond is referring to the dual strands of eternal punishment v. universal salvation, and intends it as a negative feature. Yet if it is true that the Philadelphian society invented the dual strands idea, have they not done modern orthodoxy a huge service? What about the already but not yet soteriology embraced by so many mainstream Christians? What of Christ's death being both inclusive (we have been crucified with Christ) and exclusive (Christ died in our place)? In fact, it is ludicrous to say the Philadelphians invented dual strands exegesis. They are simply the first to have given it that name. Christians have been reconciling disparate, not to say contradictory, strands in the N.T. since before there was a N.T. canon.
Would I recommend reading this book? It’s hard to say. True, it contains a lot of great information about universalism and especially the many universalists he examines. Unfortunately you will also have to wade through tons of extraneous material about the esoteric and unorthodox beliefs these universalists held that has nothing to do with universalism and everything with associating universalism with historically unorthodox positions.
August 18, 2018
Very long. Organization was somewhat confusing, and there was some repetitive material. Overall, though, interesting and helpful.
December 2, 2023
This is a very good reference work on universalism that also doubles as a useful (albeit not exhaustive) reference work on esotericism, Christian esotericism especially (of which I am an enthusiast). There's some repetition of points in this very long text, but apart from that a straightforward read.
Regardless of David Bentley Hart's florid criticism of the work, Hart raises at least two salient points with McClymond's work:
1. Many of the motifs associated with universalism and esotericism (he identifies nine: ascent of fallen souls, reconstituted pleroma, et al.) are arguably motifs that can be read into scripture/tradition (if they were otherwise totally alien, they would the more simply be dismissed out of hand);
and
2. There is a degree of implied "guilt by association" between esotericism and universalism. (Which is made all the stranger in that McClymond notes specific instances of non-universalist esotericism. There's some logical flaw here, something along the lines of: there are men who like the color blue who strangle puppies. There are also men who haven't made their color preference known who strangle puppies. It's probable that those who strangle puppies have a predilection for the color blue...even though there are definitely instances of men who avowedly like the color blue who do NOT strangle puppies. I've probably botched it, somewhat, but that's a close as I can get with the reasoning.)
Despite these two points, McClymond's argument for particularism has merit and deserves consideration, and overall this is a valuable reference work following two under-examined strains of Western thought through the centuries.
Regardless of David Bentley Hart's florid criticism of the work, Hart raises at least two salient points with McClymond's work:
1. Many of the motifs associated with universalism and esotericism (he identifies nine: ascent of fallen souls, reconstituted pleroma, et al.) are arguably motifs that can be read into scripture/tradition (if they were otherwise totally alien, they would the more simply be dismissed out of hand);
and
2. There is a degree of implied "guilt by association" between esotericism and universalism. (Which is made all the stranger in that McClymond notes specific instances of non-universalist esotericism. There's some logical flaw here, something along the lines of: there are men who like the color blue who strangle puppies. There are also men who haven't made their color preference known who strangle puppies. It's probable that those who strangle puppies have a predilection for the color blue...even though there are definitely instances of men who avowedly like the color blue who do NOT strangle puppies. I've probably botched it, somewhat, but that's a close as I can get with the reasoning.)
Despite these two points, McClymond's argument for particularism has merit and deserves consideration, and overall this is a valuable reference work following two under-examined strains of Western thought through the centuries.
September 3, 2024
This is one of my favorite books. I thank McClymond for his deep dive into the shelves of history. The portraits of the many philosophers and theologians (two hundred plus, I believe!) serve to provide cautionary tales regarding the tumultuous history of a highly attractive, yet troubled religious claim. I disagree with almost everything McClymond had to say about Roman Catholicism, but obviously I'm the idiot in the room here for expecting a sympathetic appraisal of medieval and modern Catholicism from a Calvinist. I appreciate McClymond's sympathy for George MacDonald and only wish that posture had carried over to his treatment of the Russian sophiologists.
January 12, 2025
This is an extremely informative and academic book about the "philosophers" (I use that word loosely for a reason) that influenced the outright heretical idea of Christian Universalism and believe me, all of them had pretty out-there ideas.
July 9, 2019
Excellent, very significant work. Link to my review will be forthcoming.
August 30, 2023
Extremely thorough history and rebuttal to Christian Universalism
September 6, 2022
Though it is an exceedingly poor practice to leave reviews for books one has not even tried to read, I have not read this, nor do I ever intend to read it, because I trust David Bentley Hart's assessment, which concludes:
But do I not hereby deliberately imprison myself in an echo chamber? Shouldn't I at least read McClymond's clarification? Yeah, I guess I should. But he himself is guilty of the same offense, a fact one can discern from his willingness to appear on a podcast hosted by Desiring God, a "ministry" that ought by now to be considered thoroughly discredited. Is that mean? Should I be more diplomatic? Should I refrain from stating what I know to be true, viz. that anyone who actively opposes universal salvation is (usually unknowingly) doing the devil's work, since paradoxically the devil's only hope for victory is to convince us that his redemption is impossible (as, if he is lost forever, then we all are, because he's thereby proved that he was correct in saying that God is not good)? Maybe. It's probably wise to be more like Dallas Willard than David Bentley Hart. Should I really side with the latter when he claims the following? "American (midwestern) niceness is a wonderful formula for boring prose, which is the gravest sin imaginable. As a good Marylander, I would never betray the spirit of Mencken by affecting a pastoral tone."
John Piper at least asks the right question when he says: "Can Christian fellowship have any meaning when we view each other's God like this? I hope some wiser reader than I will write and tell us how we can be brothers in Christ and loathe each other's God." It's too bad he can't repent of the loathsome views that cause the problem in the first place. Perhaps I'll write a polemic someday entitled "It Is Time for Calvinism to Die", but then again, probably not, because what good would that really do? Actually, I guess the more fundamental problem would impel me to the title "It Is Time for Hell to Die".
…OK, I read McClymond's clarification, and it really has nothing to do with the essential issue. So I don't feel bad about posting this. Anything provocative I've said isn't new to me anyhow. I'm just regurgitating what countless other universalists have seen for centuries.
And something funny: I shelved this as "to-read" the day before I more or less became a universalist. You (if anyone is actually reading this) can see from the preceding invective how far I've progressed since then.
The proper critique of this disaster of a book would have to be as long as the book itself. And, frankly, it does not deserve even the attention I have given it here. Sometimes, the most pitiless candor is the only possible form honesty can take. There are countless genuine laborers in the fields of sane and scrupulous and at times unrewardingly tedious patristic studies and Christian history and philosophical and systematic theology, men and women who have devoted themselves to the most exacting standards of scholarly rigor. It is a crime against their honorable and difficult work, and a dereliction of intellectual probity, to pretend that an absurd, bloated, sprawling Victorian-Folly of a book like this, built around a demented conspiracy theory, is anything but the congeries of delusional nonsense that it is. It is Dan Brown “scholarship” (though with footnotes and bibliography). And there comes a point of absurdity at which polite periphrasis is discreditable and perhaps a little wicked.
But do I not hereby deliberately imprison myself in an echo chamber? Shouldn't I at least read McClymond's clarification? Yeah, I guess I should. But he himself is guilty of the same offense, a fact one can discern from his willingness to appear on a podcast hosted by Desiring God, a "ministry" that ought by now to be considered thoroughly discredited. Is that mean? Should I be more diplomatic? Should I refrain from stating what I know to be true, viz. that anyone who actively opposes universal salvation is (usually unknowingly) doing the devil's work, since paradoxically the devil's only hope for victory is to convince us that his redemption is impossible (as, if he is lost forever, then we all are, because he's thereby proved that he was correct in saying that God is not good)? Maybe. It's probably wise to be more like Dallas Willard than David Bentley Hart. Should I really side with the latter when he claims the following? "American (midwestern) niceness is a wonderful formula for boring prose, which is the gravest sin imaginable. As a good Marylander, I would never betray the spirit of Mencken by affecting a pastoral tone."
John Piper at least asks the right question when he says: "Can Christian fellowship have any meaning when we view each other's God like this? I hope some wiser reader than I will write and tell us how we can be brothers in Christ and loathe each other's God." It's too bad he can't repent of the loathsome views that cause the problem in the first place. Perhaps I'll write a polemic someday entitled "It Is Time for Calvinism to Die", but then again, probably not, because what good would that really do? Actually, I guess the more fundamental problem would impel me to the title "It Is Time for Hell to Die".
…OK, I read McClymond's clarification, and it really has nothing to do with the essential issue. So I don't feel bad about posting this. Anything provocative I've said isn't new to me anyhow. I'm just regurgitating what countless other universalists have seen for centuries.
And something funny: I shelved this as "to-read" the day before I more or less became a universalist. You (if anyone is actually reading this) can see from the preceding invective how far I've progressed since then.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews