Perhaps my favorite podcast on this topic yet (with respect to Jason). I know you aren't an overly sentimental fellow, Dr. Hart, but I just wanted to sincerely thank you for dispelling so many of my dark shadows through your writing. There was always a very, very, very, deep schizophrenia in my evangelical conservative homeschooled background regarding the character of God. As a very biblically literate young protestant, I used to read over and over Romans 11:32 and secretly hope that it meant exactly what it said, even though I would never dare question what I was taught. I realize you take the brunt of a lot of criticism from those who have the most to lose, i.e. Calvinist and Thomist clergy especially. You speaking with such clarity on this is threatening not only their livelihood, but the clarity of their entire worldview, indeed, the entire foundation of imperial Western Christianity in so many ways. Although you have correctly deduced that the motivation behind some of these attacks is that "for some, hell is the best part of the story." I think the vast majority of the pushback (for almost everyone else) is fear, top to bottom. Fear that if you question the doctrine of eternal hell, you too will be thrown to the flames. Its not even really biblically justified WITH an infernalist viewpoint, but for some reason the fear drives everyone mad. At my evangelical university, which shall remain unnamed, *ahem* we used to have an annual event called "Scaremare." In this event, the school would invite unsuspecting strangers and students to a haunted mansion type walkthrough horror thrill event, and then in the end they would bring everyone into tents and tell them "if you thought that was scary, hell is an infinity times worse and it never ends. Repent and believe the good news." This was spoken without the slightest hint of irony. Anyways, all that's to say, what you are pushing against ultimately is fear. Its unbelievably obvious that your argument is philosophically unassailable, and makes far more sense of scripture. But fear is not rational. It is deep, dark, and fiercely tribalistic.
But I suppose this was all a part of the divine plan anyways. In the end, every sad shadow will be dispelled, and all will see God as He truly is. Truly all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
I especially appreciated your analysis of the evolution of absolute sovereignty starting with late Augustine through the divine right of kings on to modern notions of individualism.
Your discussion of Augustine's "darker side" also confirmed my sense of his being a tormented soul, as revealed in some parts of the Confessions. I wonder if he was really able to forgive himself for his youthful debauchery?
I felt very sad to learn the injustice falling upon Origen of Alexandria, who, otherwise, could have directed Christianity into a different direction as mentioned. The transformation (?) of Augustin in the age of his over maturity might have been related to *his sovereignly earned by the achieved Christian power as a prime influencer. A theological genius with no contemporary rival as said.
God as tyrant or rival has a historical shock value for me. My very casual association with immediacy is Nietzsche. Will to power, free from (Christian) God. The line goes straight to Postmodernists' fragmentations as a consequential development. The modernity is a test site for the refutation of God, you implied more than nuanced. Sublime as much as intimate God in Early Christianity holds no space in liberal democracy with the apprehension, except in a form of social adaptation.
In "Leviathan", Hobbs (cynically or not), *praised* the dogmatic invention of purgatory for unbaptized babies. Resolution, a sort of, one can say. Around that time, not only Hobbs but many others also seemed to formulize the counter-thoughts against Divine covenant as interactive with the sovereignty of political regime. No one said so clearly however; very naturally.
God as love not as power is heart-breakingly touching. But the over-circulation is a spoil in my view. My very casual association with immediacy is psychiatric treatments, or a catch phrase in the pop culture. True, we may be living in the time of fragmented divinities in all genres.
wanted to ask a question about BOTI and figured this might be an ok place to drop it.
I have a sneaking suspicion that you took ayah 4:171 very seriously when you wrote your PhD. "[Attention Christians:] Do not say 'three!' Cease! It would be better for you!" Because I can't recall you ever making a big deal of the "threeness" of the trinity. Rather, you seemed to emphasise more "unitary" language such as "God, his analogous repetition, and the 'yet another' repetition which explodes the totality into a true musical infinity" (riffing and paraphrasing here).
In light of that broad approach to explaining and elucidating the trinity, I was wondering: the son is an analogy of the father, which is to say (and tell me if i missed the point here) that they are 100% identical with respect to their divinity, but simultaneously 100% dissimilar when comparing the divinity and the humanity. In other words, the dyophysis of Christ is the ground of the analogical relationship between son and father. If I got that right, then I'm wondering how the spirit can be a "second analogy" to both the son and the father if the spirit is monophysic. Abstracting aside the "quality of the intra-trinitarian relations" (which might be my error) and trying to discern the analogy purely according to distinctions/similarities in nature between the hypostases, it would seem that there are functionally two fathers (divine arche + divine spirit) and one son (divine/human logos).
To try and summarise: if the divine analogia entis is rooted in the relevant natures of the hypostases, then how can the spirit - if he is/has the same monophysis as the father - be the repetition which explodes the totality between father and son into a musical infinity? Clearly I'm missing something, because it seems to me that if on the level of nature there is nothing to distinguish the spirit from the father, then the musical infinity metaphor will turn back into an record snapping ekpyresis which sounds something like Madonna's "Material Girl" on repeat unto the ages of the ages.
Hopefully a stimulating question for you :) Maybe i just need to re-read BOTI XD
So good. I transcribed a bit of this in order to reflect upon it some more…
“There’s a curious convergence between this way of thinking about God and the emerging political models of early modernity. The absolute monarch (which is not a medieval idea, it’s an early modern idea), the absolute prerogatives of the nation state—more and more there’s some sort of strange occult interchange going on.”
Would DBH or anyone else happen to have any insights, or to know any quality research resources on the subject of Augustine's early universalism (With perhaps an analysis of why he moved away from it)? I'm yet to deepdive Illaria Ramelli's relevant tome, and that might be what I'm looking for. Any recommendations appreciated
Thanks to Jeffrey Altman for reminding me of your remarks about sovereignty, and so the link between voluntarism and the rise of absolutism. Do you have an opinion, David, about Michael Gillespie's version of the story in Nihilism before Nietzsche? I've sometimes summed up Gillespie's narrative as: the existentialist self is Ockham's God writ small.
Perhaps my favorite podcast on this topic yet (with respect to Jason). I know you aren't an overly sentimental fellow, Dr. Hart, but I just wanted to sincerely thank you for dispelling so many of my dark shadows through your writing. There was always a very, very, very, deep schizophrenia in my evangelical conservative homeschooled background regarding the character of God. As a very biblically literate young protestant, I used to read over and over Romans 11:32 and secretly hope that it meant exactly what it said, even though I would never dare question what I was taught. I realize you take the brunt of a lot of criticism from those who have the most to lose, i.e. Calvinist and Thomist clergy especially. You speaking with such clarity on this is threatening not only their livelihood, but the clarity of their entire worldview, indeed, the entire foundation of imperial Western Christianity in so many ways. Although you have correctly deduced that the motivation behind some of these attacks is that "for some, hell is the best part of the story." I think the vast majority of the pushback (for almost everyone else) is fear, top to bottom. Fear that if you question the doctrine of eternal hell, you too will be thrown to the flames. Its not even really biblically justified WITH an infernalist viewpoint, but for some reason the fear drives everyone mad. At my evangelical university, which shall remain unnamed, *ahem* we used to have an annual event called "Scaremare." In this event, the school would invite unsuspecting strangers and students to a haunted mansion type walkthrough horror thrill event, and then in the end they would bring everyone into tents and tell them "if you thought that was scary, hell is an infinity times worse and it never ends. Repent and believe the good news." This was spoken without the slightest hint of irony. Anyways, all that's to say, what you are pushing against ultimately is fear. Its unbelievably obvious that your argument is philosophically unassailable, and makes far more sense of scripture. But fear is not rational. It is deep, dark, and fiercely tribalistic.
But I suppose this was all a part of the divine plan anyways. In the end, every sad shadow will be dispelled, and all will see God as He truly is. Truly all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
I especially appreciated your analysis of the evolution of absolute sovereignty starting with late Augustine through the divine right of kings on to modern notions of individualism.
Your discussion of Augustine's "darker side" also confirmed my sense of his being a tormented soul, as revealed in some parts of the Confessions. I wonder if he was really able to forgive himself for his youthful debauchery?
I felt very sad to learn the injustice falling upon Origen of Alexandria, who, otherwise, could have directed Christianity into a different direction as mentioned. The transformation (?) of Augustin in the age of his over maturity might have been related to *his sovereignly earned by the achieved Christian power as a prime influencer. A theological genius with no contemporary rival as said.
God as tyrant or rival has a historical shock value for me. My very casual association with immediacy is Nietzsche. Will to power, free from (Christian) God. The line goes straight to Postmodernists' fragmentations as a consequential development. The modernity is a test site for the refutation of God, you implied more than nuanced. Sublime as much as intimate God in Early Christianity holds no space in liberal democracy with the apprehension, except in a form of social adaptation.
In "Leviathan", Hobbs (cynically or not), *praised* the dogmatic invention of purgatory for unbaptized babies. Resolution, a sort of, one can say. Around that time, not only Hobbs but many others also seemed to formulize the counter-thoughts against Divine covenant as interactive with the sovereignty of political regime. No one said so clearly however; very naturally.
God as love not as power is heart-breakingly touching. But the over-circulation is a spoil in my view. My very casual association with immediacy is psychiatric treatments, or a catch phrase in the pop culture. True, we may be living in the time of fragmented divinities in all genres.
wanted to ask a question about BOTI and figured this might be an ok place to drop it.
I have a sneaking suspicion that you took ayah 4:171 very seriously when you wrote your PhD. "[Attention Christians:] Do not say 'three!' Cease! It would be better for you!" Because I can't recall you ever making a big deal of the "threeness" of the trinity. Rather, you seemed to emphasise more "unitary" language such as "God, his analogous repetition, and the 'yet another' repetition which explodes the totality into a true musical infinity" (riffing and paraphrasing here).
In light of that broad approach to explaining and elucidating the trinity, I was wondering: the son is an analogy of the father, which is to say (and tell me if i missed the point here) that they are 100% identical with respect to their divinity, but simultaneously 100% dissimilar when comparing the divinity and the humanity. In other words, the dyophysis of Christ is the ground of the analogical relationship between son and father. If I got that right, then I'm wondering how the spirit can be a "second analogy" to both the son and the father if the spirit is monophysic. Abstracting aside the "quality of the intra-trinitarian relations" (which might be my error) and trying to discern the analogy purely according to distinctions/similarities in nature between the hypostases, it would seem that there are functionally two fathers (divine arche + divine spirit) and one son (divine/human logos).
To try and summarise: if the divine analogia entis is rooted in the relevant natures of the hypostases, then how can the spirit - if he is/has the same monophysis as the father - be the repetition which explodes the totality between father and son into a musical infinity? Clearly I'm missing something, because it seems to me that if on the level of nature there is nothing to distinguish the spirit from the father, then the musical infinity metaphor will turn back into an record snapping ekpyresis which sounds something like Madonna's "Material Girl" on repeat unto the ages of the ages.
Hopefully a stimulating question for you :) Maybe i just need to re-read BOTI XD
So good. I transcribed a bit of this in order to reflect upon it some more…
“There’s a curious convergence between this way of thinking about God and the emerging political models of early modernity. The absolute monarch (which is not a medieval idea, it’s an early modern idea), the absolute prerogatives of the nation state—more and more there’s some sort of strange occult interchange going on.”
https://copiousflowers.com/2021/09/25/that-becomes-our-our-picture-of-the-libertarian-modern-individual-subject-invested-with-absolute-prerogatives-whose-freedom-consists-in-pure-spontaneity-of-will/
Would DBH or anyone else happen to have any insights, or to know any quality research resources on the subject of Augustine's early universalism (With perhaps an analysis of why he moved away from it)? I'm yet to deepdive Illaria Ramelli's relevant tome, and that might be what I'm looking for. Any recommendations appreciated
Thanks to Jeffrey Altman for reminding me of your remarks about sovereignty, and so the link between voluntarism and the rise of absolutism. Do you have an opinion, David, about Michael Gillespie's version of the story in Nihilism before Nietzsche? I've sometimes summed up Gillespie's narrative as: the existentialist self is Ockham's God writ small.