Einstein said somewhere that his theory of general relativity had to be true because it was so beautiful. When I finished DBH’s book on universalism, my first thought was that he had to be right, because what he wrote was so beautiful in its arguments, and so beautiful in its picture of God. Thank you.
Thanks so much. I have your first edition on Kindle and it's been liberating to see how our typical translations have been rendered more with theological presuppositions and tradition instead of unapologetic honesty and careful research.
I grew up as a rigid calvinist protestant. When Michael Heiser (RIP) argued that election is not synonymous with salvation I eventually ended up at your writings. Really loved your point in Doors of the Sea that if we cannot imagine uttering the calvinist dogma directly to those who are suffering, then surely we must never speak it at all.
Among the books for universalism I am somehow familiar with, the best experiential one is Philip Gulley's If Grace is True, the best for philosophically/analytically minded and especially scripture-centred people is John Kronen and Eric Reitan's God's Final Victory, but the best book for theologically sophisticated people is your Thal All Shall Be Saved. I happen to think that if any book has the power to change the mind of a prince of some of our great churches, it's yours. (I trust many a prince has read it, but of course they do not speak). In that sense it is an especially important book; I think and hope it may help our churches repent.
It is perhaps for this reason that people who have made "tradition" into a graven image have worked to find weaknesses in your book, to the point of giving the impression that they are deliberately trying not to understand it. To be fair, your book is not that easy to understand (I remember how one very educated person I know came away with the firm impression that you were defending compatibilist free will). That your book is difficult to understand should not really come as a surprise; your mind has been shaped by the study of the Greek Fathers, and so you use a language that is unfamiliar to many contemporary people. So I'd like to suggest that the power of your book would be increased if you began each of the four meditations with a short summary of it in the plainest possible language - imagining that you were writing to someone who by your measure was an idiot. I don't know how short a summary would work, but I trust you can do it in 500 words. After reading your summary, the reader's mind would be prompted to orient itself better towards understanding the full meaning of each meditation. I think such an exercise would at least be interesting, and you might consider posting these summaries here first.
Thank you David. Very kind of you. I sometimes think that if we just keep saying it, tweaking here and there, folks (like Rooney) who don't see it will see it. The coin will drop in the slot. But being a moral argument, I suppose it is also aesthetic at bottom. And just as there is no syllogism (which is what Rooney wants) that will communicate the beauty of a Turner, a Sorolla, or a Monet canvas, perhaps there's no syllogism that will move one into seeing why divine beauty exposes eternal hell as the worst kind of art. Not familiar terrain for Thomists I take it?
Your curt nod of the head causes me to imagine you in persona Iovis on an Olympian crag, slowly nodding your assent as Thetis (or in this case Tom Belt) begs you to honor Achilles and bring ruin on the Achaean Thomists.
I ordered mine off eBay. I didn't realize until recently that they sold brand new copies of books but I'm glad I discovered it. It will be fun having the first and second editions side by side and studying the differences between them since your revisions. I hope the proceeds from the sale of your book through eBay get to you somehow. If not, I'll make sure whatever book I buy of yours in the future does. For now, I've got some good reading coming up soon!
I was intrigued by your note about "epibalon" and Peter in the Gospel of Mark, 14:72 and wondered if you had any thoughts about the possible relation with the "neaniskos" and the nakedness after leaving the "sindon". Given the proximity, Mark seems like he might be making a point about Jesus' disciples and the shame of fleeing naked, compared with the shame of Peter's denial and covering/encowling.
I was reading in the introduction of The New Testament your concern about translation by committee and that had me wondering about what, if anything, distinguishes the Septuagint, or is it susceptible to the same pitfalls, and if not, in your estimation, why not? I recognize , of course, that it is a translation in very different circumstances, but it seems likely that many of same impulses that you reasonably decry would still obtain.
Alas, we in the UK must wait until 6th May for the 2nd Ed. to be released. Speaking of scripture, would you recommend The Orthodox Study Bible as an entry into EO approaches to scriptural interpretation?
Incidentally, Dr. Hart, do you know of any translations of the Deuterocanonical books in the line of, say, Robert Alter’s translation of the Hebrew Bible or your translation of the New Testament? All I have to go on is my NRSV.
question: david, tom quotes you as saying creation is not theogony but rather theophany. however, in “you are gods”, you write “creation is already deification—is, in fact, theogony”. would appreciate clarification. btw — your writing has been profoundly transformative to my faith & understanding — i give thanks to God for you.
I look forward to my updated copy. Had your previous one next to me whenever I did a paper while getting my MTh. BTW, was there anything that jumped out at you in your second go-around. Something that changed you a bit?
Einstein said somewhere that his theory of general relativity had to be true because it was so beautiful. When I finished DBH’s book on universalism, my first thought was that he had to be right, because what he wrote was so beautiful in its arguments, and so beautiful in its picture of God. Thank you.
Thanks so much. I have your first edition on Kindle and it's been liberating to see how our typical translations have been rendered more with theological presuppositions and tradition instead of unapologetic honesty and careful research.
I grew up as a rigid calvinist protestant. When Michael Heiser (RIP) argued that election is not synonymous with salvation I eventually ended up at your writings. Really loved your point in Doors of the Sea that if we cannot imagine uttering the calvinist dogma directly to those who are suffering, then surely we must never speak it at all.
Among the books for universalism I am somehow familiar with, the best experiential one is Philip Gulley's If Grace is True, the best for philosophically/analytically minded and especially scripture-centred people is John Kronen and Eric Reitan's God's Final Victory, but the best book for theologically sophisticated people is your Thal All Shall Be Saved. I happen to think that if any book has the power to change the mind of a prince of some of our great churches, it's yours. (I trust many a prince has read it, but of course they do not speak). In that sense it is an especially important book; I think and hope it may help our churches repent.
It is perhaps for this reason that people who have made "tradition" into a graven image have worked to find weaknesses in your book, to the point of giving the impression that they are deliberately trying not to understand it. To be fair, your book is not that easy to understand (I remember how one very educated person I know came away with the firm impression that you were defending compatibilist free will). That your book is difficult to understand should not really come as a surprise; your mind has been shaped by the study of the Greek Fathers, and so you use a language that is unfamiliar to many contemporary people. So I'd like to suggest that the power of your book would be increased if you began each of the four meditations with a short summary of it in the plainest possible language - imagining that you were writing to someone who by your measure was an idiot. I don't know how short a summary would work, but I trust you can do it in 500 words. After reading your summary, the reader's mind would be prompted to orient itself better towards understanding the full meaning of each meditation. I think such an exercise would at least be interesting, and you might consider posting these summaries here first.
Re 1, might you at any point offer some kind of summary of what the main changes in this updated edition are?
Thank you David. Very kind of you. I sometimes think that if we just keep saying it, tweaking here and there, folks (like Rooney) who don't see it will see it. The coin will drop in the slot. But being a moral argument, I suppose it is also aesthetic at bottom. And just as there is no syllogism (which is what Rooney wants) that will communicate the beauty of a Turner, a Sorolla, or a Monet canvas, perhaps there's no syllogism that will move one into seeing why divine beauty exposes eternal hell as the worst kind of art. Not familiar terrain for Thomists I take it?
Your curt nod of the head causes me to imagine you in persona Iovis on an Olympian crag, slowly nodding your assent as Thetis (or in this case Tom Belt) begs you to honor Achilles and bring ruin on the Achaean Thomists.
I ordered mine off eBay. I didn't realize until recently that they sold brand new copies of books but I'm glad I discovered it. It will be fun having the first and second editions side by side and studying the differences between them since your revisions. I hope the proceeds from the sale of your book through eBay get to you somehow. If not, I'll make sure whatever book I buy of yours in the future does. For now, I've got some good reading coming up soon!
I was intrigued by your note about "epibalon" and Peter in the Gospel of Mark, 14:72 and wondered if you had any thoughts about the possible relation with the "neaniskos" and the nakedness after leaving the "sindon". Given the proximity, Mark seems like he might be making a point about Jesus' disciples and the shame of fleeing naked, compared with the shame of Peter's denial and covering/encowling.
I was reading in the introduction of The New Testament your concern about translation by committee and that had me wondering about what, if anything, distinguishes the Septuagint, or is it susceptible to the same pitfalls, and if not, in your estimation, why not? I recognize , of course, that it is a translation in very different circumstances, but it seems likely that many of same impulses that you reasonably decry would still obtain.
Alas, we in the UK must wait until 6th May for the 2nd Ed. to be released. Speaking of scripture, would you recommend The Orthodox Study Bible as an entry into EO approaches to scriptural interpretation?
Incidentally, Dr. Hart, do you know of any translations of the Deuterocanonical books in the line of, say, Robert Alter’s translation of the Hebrew Bible or your translation of the New Testament? All I have to go on is my NRSV.
Ooh, are there lots of new footnotes? I bought the first edition mainly for the footnotes and the post-script.
question: david, tom quotes you as saying creation is not theogony but rather theophany. however, in “you are gods”, you write “creation is already deification—is, in fact, theogony”. would appreciate clarification. btw — your writing has been profoundly transformative to my faith & understanding — i give thanks to God for you.
I look forward to my updated copy. Had your previous one next to me whenever I did a paper while getting my MTh. BTW, was there anything that jumped out at you in your second go-around. Something that changed you a bit?
<3