David Bentley Hart a universalist

[Isaac32]

On the well-known blog, "Eclectic Orthodoxy," the well-known Christian author and scholar David Bentley Hart, who himself is an Orthodox Christian, admits that he believes in universal reconciliation.

There is no verse in the New Testament that unambiguously threatens eternal punishment. There are three that are regularly invoked by the Hellfire Club (my fond name for those who have some emotional commitment to the idea of a hell of eternal torment), but none of them really says what they imagine it says. Conversely, the seemingly very clear statements of universal salvation number quite high (47 at my last casual count).

I am not really wrestling with the text, at least not in a moral or intellectual or existential sense. My only struggles are finding the mot juste (so to speak). I am, and have never concealed that I am, a complete and unreserved universalist, and believe no other interpretation of Paul’s theology is coherent. Geoffrey Wainwright’s review of my first book noted it, for instance. Gregory of Nyssa, after all, succeeded where Augustine failed: his eschatology incorporates the whole of the New Testament witness (sans Revelation, which he did not regard as canonical) in a seamless synthesis, without truncation, equivocation, or attempts to explain away the plain meaning of crucial texts.

As it happens, the next work of technical theology I plan to write is on precisely that topic. Unfortunately, I have been very ill these past 15 months, so I do not know when or if I shall write it. But my translation, I hope, will come to be thought of as The Apokatastatic Standard Version.

DB Hart

Found in the comments section of the article "Readings in Universalism" on the Eclectic Orthodoxy blog.

 

[jckstraw72]

i don't know much about Hart, but my understanding is that he has several problems. IIRC he also rejects the essence/energies distinction. aka he's not to be trusted.

 

[Isaac32]

i don't know much about Hart, but my understanding is that he has several problems. IIRC he also rejects the essence/energies distinction. aka he's not to be trusted.

Jckstraw, I would like to humbly request that we avoid posting such accusations without evidence. Do you have a source for the above?

 

[jckstraw72]

A mouthful and more, as so often in Hart, but my interest here is in this passing comment, and elaborating footnote: “whether the fourteenth-century Palamite distinction between God's essence and energies would have found favor with [Gregory] is an open question.” And then, footnoting, “I am not at all convinced that Palamas ever intended to suggest a real distinction between God's essence and energies; nor am I even confident that the energies should be seen as anything other than sanctifying grace by which the Holy Spirit makes the Trinity really present to creatures. I take the distinction to mean only that God's transcendence is such that he is free to be the God he is even in the realm of creaturely finitude, without estrangement from himself and without the creature being admitted thus to an unmediated vision of the divine essence.”

Essence, Energies, and the Presence of God | Peter J. Leithart | First Things

 

[Isaac32]

A mouthful and more, as so often in Hart, but my interest here is in this passing comment, and elaborating footnote: “whether the fourteenth-century Palamite distinction between God's essence and energies would have found favor with [Gregory] is an open question.” And then, footnoting, “I am not at all convinced that Palamas ever intended to suggest a real distinction between God's essence and energies; nor am I even confident that the energies should be seen as anything other than sanctifying grace by which the Holy Spirit makes the Trinity really present to creatures. I take the distinction to mean only that God's transcendence is such that he is free to be the God he is even in the realm of creaturely finitude, without estrangement from himself and without the creature being admitted thus to an unmediated vision of the divine essence.”

Thank you, sir Over the summer I plan to read more on Palamism, since it is currently over my head.

Also, here is a response from DB Hart to Fr. McGuckin that I think is relevant:

I do, I confess, take exception to the claim [by Fr John McGuckin] that [my] book [The Beauty of the Infinite] ‘is not Orthodox theology’. Of course it is. Admittedly it does not much resemble the sort of ‘neo-Palamite’, ‘neo-patristic’ books which have dominated Eastern theology since the middle of the last century, when the great ressourcements movement that has done so much to define modern Orthodoxy was inaugurated. But Orthodox theology has taken many forms over the centuries – mystical, scholastic, mystagogical, idealist, neo-patristic, even ‘Sophiological’ – all of which have been perfectly legitimate expressions of the Eastern Church’s mind. And frankly, I think that the theological idiom to which Orthodox theology has been confined for the last fifty years or so has largely exhausted itself and has become tediously repetitive. It has also, to a very great extent, done much to distort the Orthodox understanding of the traditions of both East and West.

– David Bentley Hart, Scottish Journal of Theology, 60(1): 95-101 (2007)

 

[Gxg (G²)]

On the well-known blog, "Eclectic Orthodoxy," the well-known Christian author and scholar David Bentley Hart, who himself is an Orthodox Christian, admits that he believes in universal reconciliation.



Found in the comments section of the article "Readings in Universalism" on the Eclectic Orthodoxy blog.

In regards to David Bently Hart, if I may say...

Christ is our Atonement - how far that atonement goes, of course, is another issue of debate all together and there are a myriad of differing perspectives on the issue which Hart noted in his own page - suchas when he pointed out Kallistos Ware doing an excellent discussion on the issue in “Dare We Hope for the Salvation of All" and ALSO shared thoughts of some of the Fathers such as St Isaac the Syrian who shared on God's Extensive Love...some of this connected to the issue of understanding that God isn't out to punish for its own sake as if it's the theme of "The Gods are Angry!!!" and he's of the mindset "You were BORN guilty!!!" (counter to Ezekiel 18 noting how he takes NO Pleasure in the death of the wicked and wishes Mercy) - all of that reflective of inclusivism, a la the end to C.S. Lewis’ The Last Battle, in which Francis essentially adopts Aslan’s statement that all good deeds are rendered in the name of Christ, regardless of whether the doer is a Christian (and that we can distinguish Christ's[/COLOR] redemptive work from the acceptance of salvation...as the Lord redeemed the whole world and yet many will reject that saving work... the universality of Christ’s redemptive work).

I John 2:1-2
2 My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
​

Romans 5:18-19

Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.”
​

[COLOR=black

That said, Hart did do a lot of clarification on his stances when speaking on the Incarnation

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0FOHCN-1uI[/url]

Personally, although I do not agree with all things Hart has noted, I do greatly value what Hart has placed out when it comes to the issue of addressing the New Atheists arguments and why God can be seen across so many different cultures

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt9HSQZMQYM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYWEYuhiWzE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99onNksSYA0

 

[Cappadocious]

If he does, I wonder if Hart thinks that the Energies/Essence distinction isn't fundamental because he thinks God's essence is an activity, per Classical Theism?

Anyway I don't give much credence to what Hart says. There are better Orthodox philosophers of religion out there.

 

[Isaac32]

There are better Orthodox philosophers of religion out there.

Who are your favorites?

 

[jckstraw72]

its also a problem to say Sophiology is legitimate Orthodoxy ...

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

On the well-known blog, "Eclectic Orthodoxy," the well-known Christian author and scholar David Bentley Hart, who himself is an Orthodox Christian, admits that he believes in universal reconciliation.



Found in the comments section of the article "Readings in Universalism" on the Eclectic Orthodoxy blog.

I am a big David Bentley Hart fan, having recently read The Experience of God. I would need to understand his argument further here, which is probably characteristically nuanced and recondite. Remember, he is a philosopher more than a theologian.

There is a strand of apokatastasis or Christian universalism that finds some support in some of the Fathers such as Greggory of Nyssa, and, one might argue, in modern theologians such as Metr. Kallistos Ware and Metr. Hilarion Alfeyev.

Personally, I cannot see much support for universalism in Scripture. However, I think it is fair to say that to hope for the eventual salvation of all is a pious belief, indeed, even a theologoumenon.

 

[Isaac32]

its also a problem to say Sophiology is legitimate Orthodoxy ...

I was wondering if that was a jab at Fr. McGuckin whose Sophia Institute's name is inspired by the Divine Wisdom. (see sophiainstitutenyc.org)

 

[Isaac32]

Personally, I cannot see much support for universalism in Scripture. However, I think it is fair to say that to hope for the eventual salvation of all is a pious belief, indeed, even a theologoumenon.

What languages have you read the New Testament in?

 

[ArmyMatt]

I was wondering if that was a jab at Fr. McGuckin whose Sophia Institute's name is inspired by the Divine Wisdom. (see sophiainstitutenyc.org)

I think Sophiology is the study of the Divine feminine in God, and some folks take that too far. Fr McGuckin just uses that to mean what you pointed out, which is wisdom.

and I have also heard from people that I trust to take DBH with a grain of salt at best.

 

[Lukaris]

I think the main concern towards declaring universalism is that seems presumptuous of us to ultimately define the sovereignty of God. While we can honestly say, "we do not know." This does not seem to be helpful most of the time. Surely, universal reconciliation is worth praying for but it also seems that this could also weaken our intercessory "Lord, have mercy". No disrespect to other Christians but nowhere is "Lord, have mercy" said more often than in the Orthodox Church. Surely the intent of this intercession is meant for the salvation of anyone & everyone but it is given with the understanding of the fear of the Lord (note the progression from Proverbs 1:7 to 23:17 per: https://www.biblegateway.com/quicks...ll&wholewordsonly=yes&spanbegin=24&spanend=24

In Romans 1, 2, & 3 it seems that St. Paul relays the basic conditions of judgment. Romans 1 relays the consequences of degeneracy from the fall of Adam in Rom. 1 & the basis of condemnation. Romans 2 clearly seems to indicate that humanity is not totally degenerate & that moral individuals exist in most human societies. Such individuals will be saved but this is truly within the sovereignty of God. We have to be most careful not to endorse non Christian beliefs but also realize that we do not presume we are exclusively saved as Christians. I mean if a Buddhist monk saves my life & in my ingratitude call him or her a "heathen" I think that person will enter St. Peter's gate & I will go to hell. Despite these mysteries though, Romans 3 clearly indicates that, collectively, sinning humanity faces a condemnation since collectively "all have sinned" (Romans 3:23) & the corollary "for the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). Our hope lies in the propitiation of our Lord through faith in His blood (which seems could apply as an aspect of the Eucharist).

Clearly universalism seems most problematic.

 

[Isaac32]

I think Sophiology is the study of the Divine feminine in God, and some folks take that too far. Fr McGuckin just uses that to mean what you pointed out, which is wisdom.

It may be more than that. On the website they have several icons of Divine Sophia, who is represented as a female angelic figure.

 

[Isaac32]

Clearly universalism seems most problematic.

I don't see how those verses in and of themselves are problematic for the universalist. I can see how certain translations of those verses, read with a certain view and context in mind, might be problematic, though.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

What languages have you read the New Testament in?

Mostly in Koine, but when weary, I peruse the Latin Vulgate.

 

[Kristos]

He also doesn't believe that the earth is 6743 years old - so definitely not trustworthy!

 

[Kristos]

On the well-known blog, "Eclectic Orthodoxy," the well-known Christian author and scholar David Bentley Hart, who himself is an Orthodox Christian, admits that he believes in universal reconciliation.



Found in the comments section of the article "Readings in Universalism" on the Eclectic Orthodoxy blog.

Sounds like he agrees strongly with St Gregory of Nyssa.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It may be more than that. On the website they have several icons of Divine Sophia, who is represented as a female angelic figure.

no, becuase if you look on that icon, the initials ICXC are there. I think it's just because Sophia is feminine word. the issue is when folks try to take that into the inner life of the Trinity. that figure is of the Logos I am pretty sure.