David Bentley Hart a universalist

[Cappadocious]

Who are your favorites?

Contemporary: Metropolitan John Zizoulas, Richard Swinburne, Terence Cuneo, Jonathan Jacobs.

 

[Cappadocious]

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

Fixed!

 

[Isaac32]

Contemporary: Metropolitan John Zizoulas, Richard Swinburne, Terence Cuneo, Jonathan Jacobs.

I like your style, although I must admit that I prefer DB Hart to Swinburne.

 

[Isaac32]

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

Lol, the most vile of heresies.

 

[jckstraw72]

Sounds like he agrees strongly with St Gregory of Nyssa.

of course not everyone agrees that St. Gregory taught universalism. Apokatastasis has more than one meaning, as i'm sure you know.

 

[Isaac32]

of course not everyone agrees that St. Gregory taught universalism. Apokatastasis has more than one meaning, as i'm sure you know.

Fr. Whiteford made a similar claim. Here is Hart's response:

Dear me, you really think those are interpolations? That is something of a joke in scholarly circles. Especially since it would basically mean that Gregory’s whole theology, from the ground up, as unfolded in De anima et resurrectione and De hominis opificio and the Great Oration and the Psalms commentary is an interpolation. Maybe Gregory never really wrote anything (rather like the Oxfordian hyposthesis about Shakespeare). Something similar is true in Isaac’s case. And those two are far from being the only patristic universalists; both of the very distinct Alexandrian (including Cappadocian) and Antiochene tradition are full of them, from the days of Pantaenus to the 13th century writings of Solomon of Bostra. Goodness, there are almost overwhelming reasons to believe Gregory Nazianzen, and even Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria, were so disposed (Gregory unquestionably, really).

And, had our our Lord spoken of everlasting punishment, that would be an interesting argument. But he did not speak English, and in fact did not speak Greek; and the Greek text of Matthew 25:46 (which is the only one you can have in mind) has been read by a great many Greek-speaking and Syriac-speaking fathers, from the earliest days, as saying nothing of the sort.

As it happens, I number among my friends and acquaintances some of the greatest scholars of Orthodox canons and councils and history in the world; and to a man they would assert that the Orthodox Church–no matter what the inclinations of its catechists and prelates may have been down the ages–has never definitively condemned universalism as such, or even addressed it under any synodical or conciliar conditions of special import. It has condemned some teachings that are also, as it happens, universalist. But the sort of universalism found in Gregory and Isaac, which fully acknowledges the reality of judgment and hell, has never even been addressed.

But let’s not pursue the issue. Be wrong in good conscience, and by that you shall be saved.

 

[jckstraw72]

oh, i'd never heard that there were interpolations, but simply that St. Gregory is being misunderstood. Met. Hierotheos does not believe that St. Gregory taught universal salvation, nor does my Patristics professor, nor did St. Maximus. the nature of all men is restored, but that's not the same as universal salvation. i won't claim to be an expert on the issue, but just saying that it's not a guarantee that St. Gregory is a universalist.

 

[buzuxi02]

St Gregory can be interpreted in different ways. Roman catholics believe St Gregory of Nyssa was speaking of purgatory. St Gregory was a strong believer that punishments and rewards are meted out based on the priciples of justice. Those deeds and trials and longevity of man's experiences and intellect in this life progresses a man or degenerates him, his vices demanding a retribution and his virtues raising him.

For St. Gregory a man must cultivate his virtues and expand upon them, just like a man's accomplishments in this life give him greater glory and fame, multiplying God given virtues expands his glory in the life to come. This is drawn from the parable of the Talents.

A man who has lived long and has aquired great intellect has more talents, but also has more trials to overcome. That man can cultivate those virtues and multiply them quicker due to the tools he has aquired in this life, but it takes more discipline and adversity to avoid the temptations that come with it. Thus more talents in a godless person leads him more towards an inclination to sin because oppurtunity for sin increases in the more cultivated man. The simpler man has less talents but he can also increase them or decrease them with in proportion to his disposition. Its when those virtues are not utilized at all remain stagnant and instead vices multiply. In other words these things constitute the very character of the man.

Now universal restoration is not really taught in scripture unless one interprets certain passages of fire and heat as something that purges and refines. So Im not sure which passages Mr. Hart is relying on. The parable of the 10 virgins is a warning not to be shut out from the bridal chamber.

.

 

[Isaac32]

Now universal restoration is not really taught in scripture unless one interprets certain passages of fire and heat as something that purges and refines. So Im not sure which passages Mr. Hart is relying on. The parable of the 10 virgins is a warning not to be shut out from the bridal chamber.

.

Hart seems to believe that we take our personal contextual and linguistic views of scripture for granted, unaware that, from a different linguistic and cultural perspective one might interpret the bible in a completely different way from what they are accustomed to. It reminds me of what a Greek priest once told me. He said that when one reads the Septuagint and Greek New Testament familiar with the ancient Greek language, scripture takes on entirely new meanings. I believe Hart plans to write a book on the matter, and he just published an article on First Things on the topic.

I am somewhat sympathetic to his view since my perspective of the Bible was completely altered when I stopped reading it as a modern American and began asking how ancient Christians and Jews would have understood the texts.

 

[ArmyMatt]

oh, i'd never heard that there were interpolations, but simply that St. Gregory is being misunderstood. Met. Hierotheos does not believe that St. Gregory taught universal salvation, nor does my Patristics professor, nor did St. Maximus. the nature of all men is restored, but that's not the same as universal salvation. i won't claim to be an expert on the issue, but just saying that it's not a guarantee that St. Gregory is a universalist.

one of my classmates did a paper on this for Dr Harry's class, and came up with the same conclusion. while all things are restored, that does not necessarily mean all men are saved.

 

[Isaac32]

one of my classmates did a paper on this for Dr Harry's class, and came up with the same conclusion. while all things are restored, that does not necessarily mean all men are saved.

As someone who has spent some time in the academic theological studies world, I have found that one's findings often reflect the school/ department they are studying in, and I am certainly not immune to this reality. I'm sure my work reflects the inclinations of my advisors.

One only has to compare the theological studies that came out of the various Orthodox schools in the 80s and 90s (Florovsky, Clement, Romanides) to see this reality.

 

[buzuxi02]

Hart seems to believe that we take our personal contextual and linguistic views of scripture for granted, unaware that, from a different linguistic and cultural perspective one might interpret the bible in a completely different way from what they are accustomed to. It reminds me of what a Greek priest once told me. He said that when one reads the Septuagint and Greek New Testament familiar with the ancient Greek language, scripture takes on entirely new meanings. I believe Hart plans to write a book on the matter, and he just published an article on First Things on the topic.

I am somewhat sympathetic to his view since my perspective of the Bible was completely altered when I stopped reading it as a modern American and began asking how ancient Christians and Jews would have understood the texts.

Certainly reading scripture in its original language and cultural milieu yields quite a bit and challenges many misconceptions. But Im wondering whether Hart is familiar with the original language and its nuances.

 

[Isaac32]

Certainly reading scripture in its original language and cultural milieu yields quite a bit and challenges many misconceptions. But Im wondering whether Hart is familiar with the original language and its nuances.

That I am not sure of. I guess we will have to wait and see when his book comes out.

 

[ArmyMatt]

As someone who has spent some time in the academic theological studies world, I have found that one's findings often reflect the school/ department they are studying in, and I am certainly not immune to this reality. I'm sure my work reflects the inclinations of my advisors.

One only has to compare the theological studies that came out of the various Orthodox schools in the 80s and 90s (Florovsky, Clement, Romanides) to see this reality.

well I can tell you that the school did not influence his findings. the professor stayed out of the Father's writings that we had to find, and did not venture an opinion until after the presentations were done.

 

[Lukaris]

I fail to understand how universalism could be accepted within the teaching of the church. I mean the final Gospel reading for the departed in the funeral service is from John 5:24-30. Verses 28-30 pretty much sum it up:


John 5:28-30 New King James Version (NKJV)

28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. 30 I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.

The prayer of absolution joined by the intercessions of the Theotokos & all the saints soon follows before the benediction but absolution is not declared, of course. There is no ambiguity in the above Gospel words of the Lord. The same passage is quoted by St. John of Damascus in his "Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith".

 

[Kristos]

After reading through this thread - it seems to me that there is enough variation in the definition of "universalism" to allow people to take opposing positions without actually disagreeing.

Case in point - Hart clearly states that there is a judgment and hell - so arguing for such, yet against his position is a bit incoherent.

I guess we will just have to wait for the book - and of course, I'm sure we all pray that Hart's health improves.

 

[Isaac32]

well I can tell you that the school did not influence his findings. the professor stayed out of the Father's writings that we had to find, and did not venture an opinion until after the presentations were done.

Maybe not directly on this specific project, but that isn't what I meant.

 

[ArmyMatt]

fair enough, I was just letting you know it was independent of the professor. plus, we have a few who think that St. Gregory was talking about universal salvation.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Father John Whiteford has a thoughtful response to DBH's universalism here: http://fatherjohn.blogspot.com.es/2015/05/the-strange-theology-of-david-bentley.html

I have mostly been a fan of DBH in the past. However, his ridiculing of the 5th Ecumenical Council as well as St. Justinian seems little Orthodox.

As for Father Aidan Kimel, he seems to relish controversy, as his embracing universalism and Sergei Bulgokov seem to indicate. He should rename his site "Eclectic Heterodoxy".

 

[Isaac32]

After reading through this thread - it seems to me that there is enough variation in the definition of "universalism" to allow people to take opposing positions without actually disagreeing.

Good point. It should also be noted that most universalists (every universalist I have ever met) believes that there will be some sort of punishment/purgation/healing process after death. It isn't as though they believe that, regardless of your moral status at death, everyone enters immediately into eternal bliss. George MacDonald, for instance, believed there was a hell that many would certainly go there. What he rejected was that it was permanent.