I would just like to say that I am very pleased with how the interview(s) with Dr. Hart turned out. My purpose was not to cover any new ground with Dr. Hart. Rather, what I wanted to produce was a lively conversation (with good sound quality!) which succinctly introduced Dr. Hart's thoughts on Christianity and universal salvation. I also wanted to give more attention to Dr. Hart's translation of the New Testament and its connection to TASBS.
I hope that these interviews will become a widely used introduction to his unparalleled scholarship, not to mention garnering more support for Leaves in the Wind. David Bentley Hart is a godsend for all of us who have been trying to articulate the necessity of a Christian universalist approach. We needed someone with his status and breadth of scholarship to come forward and to make an urgent, modern argument for the biblical, historical, and philosophical case for universal reconciliation. And, Dr. Hart has done just that.
So I have followed your work on this for quite some time. I must admit I find it quite compelling. But I must ask how exactly you see your view relating to Catholicism? Can a Catholic endorse your view? The Catholic tradition, to me, seems on the whole very anti-universalist (Although thankfully the tradition appears to have softened a bit in recent years).
That being said, I really have a hard time seeing how universalism it is not a necessary implication of the metaphysics of classical theism and creation ex nihilo. In short, as even every good Thomist would agree, what God will to happen happens (Feser gets this very wrong as I saw in one interview he did), but according to the way in which God wills it. Therefore, God's willing something to happen does not deprive it being done freely by creatures. Thus, divine action is not a hindrance to creaturely freedom but the very condition for its possibility. (This is why the free will defense of hell is so wrong. Such a defense would only work if God and creatures were related as two discreet entities.) It seems then that if God really wills that all men are saved, it must happen (unfortunately Aquinas has to read I Timothy 2:4 as meaning that God doesn't really will that all men are saved).
For the life of me I cannot see it any other way..... That being said, universalism does not sit super well with the Catholic tradition to which I belong. But of course, everything (I am thinking of Conciliar declarations) is more complicated than it appears.
Well, that was a very interesting read. His speculative interpretation at the end was kind of clever (the "false self" is burned away in hell - reminds me of Thomas Merton). And you probably like it because of the phrase "astride a dusty bronco" (!) I have a couple of problems with it - first of all, he makes the assumption that
Catholics are those belonging to churches in communion with (and answerable to) the bishop of Rome. Hogwash! There are over one million independent Catholics in the US alone. Why should the Vatican have a monopoly on the name? The second thing I really don't like is the way he uses super patriarchal language until he gets to the description of the "damned sinner" - when he then starts using the feminine pronoun. What's up with that? Can we please start noticing misogynistic language and calling it out?
That said, I did like his attempt to reconcile universalism with the so-called "de fede credenda" truths. But why even try? Why not just flat out declare that the doctrine is not just wrong, but wicked? (That is why I like you!)
Hi Seth, I’m in the same boat. Catholic, yet at the same time fully convinced by David’s arguments. What to do? I think we can go with the “dare we hope” of Balthasar, but that ignores the force of the arguments in That All May Be Saved - to even admit eternal hell as a possibility seems to undercut meaningfully analogous religious language such as God the “good Father”.
I apologize if this is the inappropriate setting to do this, but David Bentley Hart is a big reason why I’m alive today. Stumbling on to his work regarding universalism may have literally kept me from suicide. I merely want to extend my humble gratitude.
That's too much to reply to, if you know what I mean. Just take care of yourself and be sure you're well. Rely on friends if you suffer from depression.
I loved it! David Artman's podcast is where I heard about this newsletter! I particularly enjoyed the discussion about how neuro-atypical people have particular trouble with the concept of hell. I can totally see that, I would add artists to that list. People who take in their environment in an unfiltered way.... that explains so much!
David's wife, Amy, was one of my professors at Missouri State and a good friend of mine in the department while I was a graduate student there. She's a first-rate scholar on American Pentecostalism, herself.
Posting this in the off chance you will answer. If Christ has overcome "economies of violence" represented symbolically by Pilot, then what place does law, order, criminal justice and the divine masculine have in the Kingdom of God, if any? That spirit of Mars that vanquishes evil, or names the animals, or orders creation, or punishes wrongdoing, or conquers new frontiers, what is the point of it in the Kingdom? It only serves a temporary end? I hear you critique Christendom and it is richly deserved, but I'm not even sure what "Christian government" would or could even look like if there can be no economies of violence (i.e. functioning criminal justice, etc.)?
I understand what your saying, but that's not what I was referring to. Obviously in heaven (if we wish to call it that or perfected earth if you will) there will be perfection of being and no need for criminal justice, but my point was what about now? Is law and order really something to be overthrown, is criminal justice something that is a necessary evil in the meantime? All of the language of loving your enemy and praying for those who persecute is beautiful but does that mean that as a society we should give up borders, laws, prisons, and private property? Are these things just perpetuating the same problem, or are they solving the problem? Because every attempt to get rid of them at a large scale, no matter how compassionately meant, has resulted in worse bloodshed and abuse.
Hmmm. Cal Ripken was not within a million miles of Frank Robinson. Any sound list of the 15 greatest players in the history of the game would include Frank. Any comparable list of the top 250 would still not include Ripken. Cal was a better than average power hitter, a below average hitter, a good but not great defender; his numbers reflect durability, not excellence.
While I am a universalist, the idea that haunts me and gives me pause is a line of reasoning from the problem of evil. To put it crassly, there are days when I see no guarantee that the God who can allow Auschwitz is not also a God who would allow eternal damnation. So if God would allow that real evil, why not an eternal evil?
The only instinct I have to stave off this creeping doubt is the moral intuition, the gut instinct that if there is a God, he must reconcile all things, for if not, the very idea of God must be genuinely absurd and thus make the concept of eternal damnation an impossibility.
So to me, Auschwitz and hell cannot both logically exist.
A humble response. Could your aversion, and rightly so, to the horrific doctrine of eternal torment, have pushed you to the other extreme?
I am an annihilationist. None of us asked to be born, certainly not into this fallen world, and I believe that, with the Gospel , God gives us the opportunity to have the eternal life that He had originally wanted for us to have but lost due to sin; or we can choose to go back to the nothingness out of which we first came.
I have a moral aversion to everyone being saved, though not as strong as my aversion against even one person facing eternal torment, a sick and horrific doctrine if there ever were one. (Don't you find it fascinating that you can meet the nicest and most loving Christian people, but the moment you mention that God doesn't torture the lost for eternity in hell they act as if you had just shoved child porn in their face?) I once preached a sermon called "The Promise of Hell" with the idea that it's only the promise that one day the evil that has not been punished here will one day be that helps me trust in God now.
In the end, I believe, contra eternal torment, all evil will be eradicated from the universe and the only reminder of sin, evil and death will be Christ retaining forever the scars of the cross.
Might have to get the book, then. I can see that one might not agree with annihilationism, but that it’s incoherent? You probably just sold another book. 😊
I would just like to say that I am very pleased with how the interview(s) with Dr. Hart turned out. My purpose was not to cover any new ground with Dr. Hart. Rather, what I wanted to produce was a lively conversation (with good sound quality!) which succinctly introduced Dr. Hart's thoughts on Christianity and universal salvation. I also wanted to give more attention to Dr. Hart's translation of the New Testament and its connection to TASBS.
I hope that these interviews will become a widely used introduction to his unparalleled scholarship, not to mention garnering more support for Leaves in the Wind. David Bentley Hart is a godsend for all of us who have been trying to articulate the necessity of a Christian universalist approach. We needed someone with his status and breadth of scholarship to come forward and to make an urgent, modern argument for the biblical, historical, and philosophical case for universal reconciliation. And, Dr. Hart has done just that.
So I have followed your work on this for quite some time. I must admit I find it quite compelling. But I must ask how exactly you see your view relating to Catholicism? Can a Catholic endorse your view? The Catholic tradition, to me, seems on the whole very anti-universalist (Although thankfully the tradition appears to have softened a bit in recent years).
That being said, I really have a hard time seeing how universalism it is not a necessary implication of the metaphysics of classical theism and creation ex nihilo. In short, as even every good Thomist would agree, what God will to happen happens (Feser gets this very wrong as I saw in one interview he did), but according to the way in which God wills it. Therefore, God's willing something to happen does not deprive it being done freely by creatures. Thus, divine action is not a hindrance to creaturely freedom but the very condition for its possibility. (This is why the free will defense of hell is so wrong. Such a defense would only work if God and creatures were related as two discreet entities.) It seems then that if God really wills that all men are saved, it must happen (unfortunately Aquinas has to read I Timothy 2:4 as meaning that God doesn't really will that all men are saved).
I like your way of putting it that universalism is a necessary implication of the metaphysics of classical theism and creation ex nihilo. Well said.
For the life of me I cannot see it any other way..... That being said, universalism does not sit super well with the Catholic tradition to which I belong. But of course, everything (I am thinking of Conciliar declarations) is more complicated than it appears.
Seth, what makes you single out Catholicism specifically as potentially incompatible with universalism?
Probably the huge number of clearly defined doctrines in the Enchiridion, which does make Catholicism a unique case.
Anyway, consider this: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2019/09/22/may-catholics-endorse-universalism/
Well, that was a very interesting read. His speculative interpretation at the end was kind of clever (the "false self" is burned away in hell - reminds me of Thomas Merton). And you probably like it because of the phrase "astride a dusty bronco" (!) I have a couple of problems with it - first of all, he makes the assumption that
Catholics are those belonging to churches in communion with (and answerable to) the bishop of Rome. Hogwash! There are over one million independent Catholics in the US alone. Why should the Vatican have a monopoly on the name? The second thing I really don't like is the way he uses super patriarchal language until he gets to the description of the "damned sinner" - when he then starts using the feminine pronoun. What's up with that? Can we please start noticing misogynistic language and calling it out?
That said, I did like his attempt to reconcile universalism with the so-called "de fede credenda" truths. But why even try? Why not just flat out declare that the doctrine is not just wrong, but wicked? (That is why I like you!)
Yes, I have seen this... I think it is about as good as one can do on the Roman side, but even then it is "not without difficulty."
Trent Pomplun's review of my book in Modern Theology is quite interesting on this topic.
Yes, quite interesting indeed. Thanks!
Well, being a Catholic myself makes it a more pressing concern...
Hi Seth, I’m in the same boat. Catholic, yet at the same time fully convinced by David’s arguments. What to do? I think we can go with the “dare we hope” of Balthasar, but that ignores the force of the arguments in That All May Be Saved - to even admit eternal hell as a possibility seems to undercut meaningfully analogous religious language such as God the “good Father”.
Anyway, just a fellow Catholic traveller here.
Seth, you can be an independent Catholic...
Meaning?
Here's the granddaddy (grandmama?) of them all - https://www.spirituschristi.org/
There's a lot of information on the internet. Here's just one article. https://www.inquirer.com/news/independent-catholic-churches-flourtown-bensalem-st-miriam-father-jim-20190422.html
I apologize if this is the inappropriate setting to do this, but David Bentley Hart is a big reason why I’m alive today. Stumbling on to his work regarding universalism may have literally kept me from suicide. I merely want to extend my humble gratitude.
That's too much to reply to, if you know what I mean. Just take care of yourself and be sure you're well. Rely on friends if you suffer from depression.
I loved it! David Artman's podcast is where I heard about this newsletter! I particularly enjoyed the discussion about how neuro-atypical people have particular trouble with the concept of hell. I can totally see that, I would add artists to that list. People who take in their environment in an unfiltered way.... that explains so much!
David's wife, Amy, was one of my professors at Missouri State and a good friend of mine in the department while I was a graduate student there. She's a first-rate scholar on American Pentecostalism, herself.
Dr. Hart,
Posting this in the off chance you will answer. If Christ has overcome "economies of violence" represented symbolically by Pilot, then what place does law, order, criminal justice and the divine masculine have in the Kingdom of God, if any? That spirit of Mars that vanquishes evil, or names the animals, or orders creation, or punishes wrongdoing, or conquers new frontiers, what is the point of it in the Kingdom? It only serves a temporary end? I hear you critique Christendom and it is richly deserved, but I'm not even sure what "Christian government" would or could even look like if there can be no economies of violence (i.e. functioning criminal justice, etc.)?
It's very strange notion, I think, that there might be need of criminal justice in the Kingdom of Heaven.
I understand what your saying, but that's not what I was referring to. Obviously in heaven (if we wish to call it that or perfected earth if you will) there will be perfection of being and no need for criminal justice, but my point was what about now? Is law and order really something to be overthrown, is criminal justice something that is a necessary evil in the meantime? All of the language of loving your enemy and praying for those who persecute is beautiful but does that mean that as a society we should give up borders, laws, prisons, and private property? Are these things just perpetuating the same problem, or are they solving the problem? Because every attempt to get rid of them at a large scale, no matter how compassionately meant, has resulted in worse bloodshed and abuse.
David, as a Baltimore fans do you ever get pushback by other Orioles fans when you rank Frank Robinson over Cal as the greatest Oriole?
Hmmm. Cal Ripken was not within a million miles of Frank Robinson. Any sound list of the 15 greatest players in the history of the game would include Frank. Any comparable list of the top 250 would still not include Ripken. Cal was a better than average power hitter, a below average hitter, a good but not great defender; his numbers reflect durability, not excellence.
true...in fact i think the other Robinson, Brooks ,has an argument as well alongside Frank... simply the greatest 3rd baseman of all time
Indeed. You are not far from the Kingdom.
While I am a universalist, the idea that haunts me and gives me pause is a line of reasoning from the problem of evil. To put it crassly, there are days when I see no guarantee that the God who can allow Auschwitz is not also a God who would allow eternal damnation. So if God would allow that real evil, why not an eternal evil?
The only instinct I have to stave off this creeping doubt is the moral intuition, the gut instinct that if there is a God, he must reconcile all things, for if not, the very idea of God must be genuinely absurd and thus make the concept of eternal damnation an impossibility.
So to me, Auschwitz and hell cannot both logically exist.
Isn't it at least logically obvious that the worst of Auschwitz can't compare to the concept of eternal torment?
I should say at least that how I try to convince myself.
I can only point you toward my book. As for the question of evil, perhaps The Doors of the Sea.
A humble response. Could your aversion, and rightly so, to the horrific doctrine of eternal torment, have pushed you to the other extreme?
I am an annihilationist. None of us asked to be born, certainly not into this fallen world, and I believe that, with the Gospel , God gives us the opportunity to have the eternal life that He had originally wanted for us to have but lost due to sin; or we can choose to go back to the nothingness out of which we first came.
I have a moral aversion to everyone being saved, though not as strong as my aversion against even one person facing eternal torment, a sick and horrific doctrine if there ever were one. (Don't you find it fascinating that you can meet the nicest and most loving Christian people, but the moment you mention that God doesn't torture the lost for eternity in hell they act as if you had just shoved child porn in their face?) I once preached a sermon called "The Promise of Hell" with the idea that it's only the promise that one day the evil that has not been punished here will one day be that helps me trust in God now.
In the end, I believe, contra eternal torment, all evil will be eradicated from the universe and the only reminder of sin, evil and death will be Christ retaining forever the scars of the cross.
So appreciate you, Dr. Hart.
I deal with that in the book. Annihilationism is to my mind also incoherent.
Might have to get the book, then. I can see that one might not agree with annihilationism, but that it’s incoherent? You probably just sold another book. 😊
Well, if so, order the softcover edition. Its preface extends the book’s argument.