I am impressed that you managed to go 20 minutes without saying "the Hart of the matter" or "the Hart of his argument". That is far more intellectual discipline than I could ever muster. 😋
Like many Christians, I lived for years in a cognitive dissonance with my emotions and beliefs at odds with one another. Conservative Protestants exist to defend doctrines, never to live life in peace and joy. Joy does not exist in the nihilistic framework of ect. This universe, imagined by Edwards and his ilk, is worse than an empty universe; it is a hostile one. God bless DBH for his work. He freed me from meaninglessness.
I think you hit the nail on the head here my friend. ECT, if defended to the bitter end, leads to nihilism. Things like "goodness" and "love" become meaningless and empty concepts, "might makes right" becomes the only law.
I'm a universalist, I'm completely at peace, a few months back I was just a regular protestant but I viewed unbelievers as my enemy which.. "depart from Me, I never knew you". I'm free, at peace, and literally LOVE EVERYBODY
@@daMillenialTruckeramen. Something that held me as a Baptist raised unbeliever was the thought of the people I loved most who didn’t believe or did things I know were “sinful” and I couldn’t bear the thought of them being rejected. I’ve been on a long journey but now , after hearing this side of things I have FULL peace and love my neighbors and all the different people around the world like never before…..
Based on what morality? Since Jesus rejected universalism clearly and consistently, and since the Church has historically rejected it (since Scripture does), he needs to show that his moral vision is superior to that of Jesus, the Apostles, and the Church through the ages.
@@RobertEWaters Morality isn't just about what's written down or traditional customs; it's objective and universal. Anyone, regardless of their religious beliefs or even if they're atheist, should be able to understand and discuss what is moral. Morality isn't tied to any specific religion, so saying that morality is meaningless doesn't make sense.
@@RobertEWaters Did Jesus reject Universalism when He said that when He will be lifted up He will draw all men to himself? The word that was translated to "draw" actually means "drag" as if dragging a net of fish into a boat. He will drag ALL men to himself. Further, in the original Greek text Jesus never said the word "hell" at all ("hell" is a word from Norse mythology) and He never described afterlife punishment as "eternal" in Matthew 25:46. He actually described it as "age-during correction". What is the purpose of corrective punishment? To improve the individual. Eternal punishment is NOWHERE in the original Hebrew OT or Greek NT texts. Additionally, Universalism is what MOST early Christians believed. Augustine himself acknowledged in his writings that most Christians in his day were universalists. The Christians closest to the time of Jesus and the Apostles believed that the wicked would one day accept Jesus and be reconciled to God. That is why the herald angels described the birth of Jesus as "good news for all men".
It's true that he often, unfortunately, does employ an emotional appeal that he would be better served without, but to reduce his the arguments he does give to personal prejudices I think is to be just as dismissive. His arguments about analogy do in fact address the counterclaim from ignorance that "we just don't understand God's love" (that it effectively amounts to a rejection of the principle of non-contradiction, asserting that God can be both A and not A), likewise his argument about freedom are pretty solid.
It's not just "his concept", we all share the same concept of love and goodness. Not only do we all share the same concept of love and goodness intuitively, if we look to both Scripture and Christian tradition for a definition of "love" and "goodness", those will corroborate our innate understanding. "To love is to WILL THE GOOD of the other." - Thomas Aquinas "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, DO GOOD to them that hate you..." - Matt 5:44 The biblical, and specifically, the New Testament concept of love is best illustrated in parables like the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son. So, no. It's not a matter of DBH's own personal or idiosyncratic understanding of "love". We all know what he's talking about, we all know what love and goodness are, don't equivocate or try to pretend that we don't. To do that is to indulge in nihilistic and post-modern thinking in order to avoid the argument. If you're constantly wrestling in the church with questions like, "this doesn't make sense to me with God's love", "this doesn't make sense to me with God's goodness" then that ought to tell you something. At the very least it tells you that it's not simply a matter of one person or another's idiosyncratic understanding of these concepts. There is a fundamental contradiction that people are noticing and that you cannot deal with. So you pretend the problem is with them, and not your doctrine.
Thank you for the thoughtful review, Dr. Cooper. I don't have a dog in the fight as I am not a big fan of Hart's work, but I do find one aspect of your response troublesome. You consistently characterize his moral outrage at the idea of an eternal hell as an "emotional argument." Why characterize moral disgust, and arguments that are related to moral disgust, as emotional...and I get the sense that you mean by this that it is merely emotional. Also, despite how lacking Hart's exegetical arguments are, he does go on to connect this moral outrage to straightforwardly logical arguments about the good. These arguments are logical and moral (broadly speaking) in the accepted senses. Indeed, this is one of the main points of his arguments concerning God's goodness being analogical with our own rather than equivocal. In other words, this is an example of his moral outrage being brought into the ambit of rational analysis and logical argumentation. It is true that there is a fair amount of rhetorical flourish that crosses over the line into a self-indulgent sense of moral superiority, but to be distracted by that is to miss the logical point. In sum: do we want to characterize moral arguments, and the expression of moral experience, as merely emotional? And, is this not missing the logical point by a response that is too distracted by Hart's rhetorical flourishes (or whatever one wants to call these)?
I was about to make a similar comment regarding analogy vs. univocity and phenomenology of the good (and indeed you cannot honestly reduce these considerations to anything resembling an appeal to sentimentality), but was gladdened to see you've already made the point better than I could.
Ethan Smith, you really get to the heart of the matter in a clear and concise way. Thank you for your response. An argument is not invalidated by virtue of the fact that it involves strong emotion.
@@hansnyman9546 I second what everyone is saying. I find this author to be biased in favor of believing in eternal hell even if he doesn't directly say it. Ethan's rebuttal is well thought out and articulated far better than I could say it. Believing that your grandmother might be suffering eternally in hell because she was an alcoholic is a pretty emotional thing, so to dismiss that there may be emotion in some of Hart's arguments as "extremely immature" is just wrong. I don't think that invalidates his arguments.
Hart says that God's morality is analogical not equivocal, but then goes on to make arguments as if it is equivocal. "I cannot accept this as anything but evil, therefore God cannot either" is the gist of his argument. Moral outrage can be conflicting, look at the ongoing culture war in the west, there's plenty of moral outrage on both sides, I guess since there's conflicting moral outrage amongst humans we can assume that God is a moral schizophrenic. Edit: I'm probably mischaracterizing or overstating DBH's point, so apologies for that. My point is that proper exegesis is NECESSARY to solve moral issues because outrage and moral compasses alone can be in conflict. DBH consistently assumes human morality to be universal and constant, it isn't. On a weird side note he has to be the most theologically protestant author I've read in a while, and he's not even a protestant! bu
I think Dr. Hart's book is excellent. Dr. Cooper wants to dismiss it as "emotionalism" but he is just as emotional in his weak defense of calvinism. The idea of eternal damnation is toxic to christianity and is an affront to the goodness of God. But don't worry, Dr. Cooper, God forgives you.
@@DrJordanBCooper Did he say you were a Calvanist? You defended Calvanism against Hart's criticisms without any argument beyond the assertion that "it's bad". Really, you provide no argument at all in the entire video. One substantial critique would have been more satisfying that glossing over the entire book in such condescending and glib manner. Mathew 7:5...
The book was packed with logical arguments. Literally packed. Critics seem to be distracted with the force of his affective appeal because, when restating infernalism in non-technical, real world terms without euphemisms, it suddenly sounds as blasphemous and medieval as it truly is.
"Reformed Theology is diabolical nonsense" (David B. Hart). What do you mean by a "regular universalism"? No universalist that I have read has argued that when you die you go straight to heaven. The Cappodocians, for instance, are insistent that sinners will be saved "as by fire", as even St Paul says. And, moreover, you are idiotic to describe his revulsion to eternal suffering as "emotional reasoning" for his revulsion has a rational basis. If a little, impoverished girl stole an apple and was sent to prison for the rest of her life for the crime, we would all feel revulsion- but the revulsion has a rational basis. The punishment does not fit the crime. No amount of sin could ever deserve infinite punishment. And, indeed, the Greek word aionios means "for an age", not eternal (which is aidios).
I’m agnostic about universalism vs ECT but for dr copper to claim that anyone who seriously reads harts book and is opened will not be convinced is silly. Dr copper probably wouldn’t be reviewing the book if he actually believed this were true. Many bright minds in theology have read this book and have been deeply convinced about Hart’s conclusion and some have even called his arguments irrefutable. Dr copper really isn’t given any specific examples as to how Hart is wrong and didn’t really deal with any of his arguments
Dr. Cooper, could you give a response to Hart's argument on the possibility of analogical theological speech about God's goodness in light of eternal torments? You mentioned the argument, dismissed it as 'emotional' - although later indicating its philosophical and theological provenance - but never actually get around to refuting it. So where is Hart wrong on this point? [Momentarily bracketing the question of scriptural interpretation, if you could]
These were just my off the cuff thoughts after finishing the book. I'm thinking of putting forth some substantive critiques of his arguments. This would most likely be in writing.
This is the comment I would have made as well. If goodness means anything at all surely it means at the very least not willing or allowing the eternal torment of conscious creatures. As I believe DBH has put it elsewhere "With a God like that who needs a devil?"
but emotional arguments make sense when it comes to morality because we get our moral knowledge from our moral sense, which primarily informs us via emotional reactions (ex. someone gets tortured, you feel empathy. Someone does something bad, you feel angry. etc.)
This is always the double-edged sword when it comes to Christianity and moral arguments… We want to be able to make a “moral argument” for God’s existence, essentially saying that we have reliable moral senses that reveal to us objective, not subjective, morality, and that this is evidence for God. However, we then have to answer why those moral senses seem to squirm at the doctrine of Hell, God’s actions in the Old Testament, aspects of the problem of evil, etc etc It’s difficult to parse out when Scripture should challenge our moral intuitions versus when our moral sense should cause us to rethink our interpretations of Scripture.
I don’t see how belief in ECT could lead to anything other than debilitating mental psychosis… if you really love others, and you really believe they are experiencing agony for all eternity, how could that not affect you? Just not think about it? What if your mother or your spouse or your child rejected the faith, and died? How could you function? And how on earth could Christianity be considered “good news”? To hear such a thing was happening to your loved one would be the worst news a person could possibly hear, and no amount of eternal bliss for themselves could make up for it. If you are able to love someone and still accept that they are suffering eternally and get on with your life, what does “love” possibly mean at that point? How could any of us say that we know God loves us if our understanding of love is so vastly different? I’ve always wanted to defer to the widely held Christian tradition on controversial doctrines, but I’ve never had anyone explain to me how this belief can be held at a practical level. I used to accept it, but only by not thinking about it and with much cognitive dissonance.
How about Jesus repeatedly and consistently rejecting universal salvation? The burden of proof is on Hart, and if he fails to meet it, what more needs to be said?
@@RobertEWaters What more needs to be said? Precisely that - clearly presenting how Jesus repeatedly and consistently rejected universal salvation. ‘He’s just not convincing’ addresses nothing.
In Matthew 21:31 Jesus says to the chief priests and the elders, "“Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you." Since these priests and elders did not believe in Jesus, it is commonly believed that they were not saved. But notice what Jesus says here. He says that the tax collectors and prostitutes will enter the kingdom AHEAD OF YOU. Jesus is telling these people that they WILL enter the kingdom. It will just happen after believers have entered. Jesus would not have said this if He rejected universalism. In Matthew 5:25-26, Jesus talks about being thrown into prison by the judge because you did not settle matters with your adversary. This is talking about getting right with God before judgement. Our Lord and Savior says in verse 26, "Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny." Notice that Jesus did NOT say that there is no getting out of the prison, He said that you won't get out until you have paid in full. Again, why would Jesus have said this if He rejected universalism?
Hart writes, "Can we imagine - logically, I mean, not merely intuitively - that someone still in torment after a trillion ages, or then a trillion trillion, or then a trillion vigintillion, is in any meaningful sense the same agent who contracted some measurable quantity of personal guilt in that tiny, ever more vanishingly insubstantial gleam of an instant that constitituted his or her terrestrial life? And can we do this while realizing that, at that point, his or her sufferings have only just begun, and in fact will always have only just begun? What extraordinary violence we must do both to our reason and moral intelligence (not to mention simple good taste) to make this horrid notion seem palatable to ourselves, and all because we somehow, foolishly, allowed ourselves to be convinced that this is what we must believe. Really, could we truly believe it at all apart from either profound personal fear or profound personal cruelty?" He forgets one thing, ie. that fact that a person can be so utterly stupid that s/he misses Hart's point.
While done in a kinder gentler fashion, your critique of Hart is (in my humble(!) opinion) predictable, shallow and dismissive. I genuinely wonder if the livelihood and the institutional entrenchment (not to speak of the respect of others of like mind) were not quite so important to many who hold positions of authority in the Church and Christian academia - if they would give Hart's simple but profound arguments the weight and consideration they are due. And how many times have I heard Calvinists say, "He really just doesn't understand Calvinism"! It makes me wonder, does anyone? I was a 5-pointer for around 15 years (a PCA pastor and a graduate of RTS). Maybe I am just clueless? (Yes, maybe...) The cult of Calvinism (sorry, I was predestined to say that) has blinded the minds of many - and obscured the very fundamental revelation of God's Glory: His Goodness (NOT His sovereignty)! [Moses: "Show me your glory!" God:"I will cause all my GOODNESS to pass in front of you..."] That - I believe - is what has raised the ire of Dr. Hart - who sees clearly this is not just another theological aside, but strikes at the very core of the true nature of God - and the scope of the Gospel as unconditional Good News: That, "while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son"... Yes - He has acted sovereignly - unilaterally to accomplish all He purposed to do via His Word (Jesus Christ - cf. Is. 55:11ff) - nothing less than the reconciliation of ALL things - and the salvation of the World. That's enough - I'm sorry - I do get a bit exercised about these things.... please forgive me any and all unnecessary offense...
I believe christ paid the price to redeem the world, but you still need to accept that and trust christ as lord to receive it. Because of that I think hell is locked from the inside not outside. There are plenty of people who proudly shout that they would rather burn than acknowledge christ as lord. Check this out. th-cam.com/video/tiYf6ITgWbk/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/rzpyRL3gto8/w-d-xo.html
Questioning modern Christian doctrines. I found the book “that all shall be saved” by David Bentley Heart to be a real eye opener about the beliefs of the Greek church fathers that are rarely mentioned in Protestant Christianity. Also 4th century saint Gregory of Nyssa commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:28. Also you tube channel “the total victory of Christ”
DBH's book is amazing, and blather like this only reinforces his brilliance. My advice to people is to carefully study the book, grasp its arguments, and then refute the actual arguments in the book, if you can, and not rely on this distortion of his arguments. Hart's vision is simply breathtaking! To grasp what he is saying is to realize that God is love, and we will all ultimately experience and emulate that love, having been transformed into His very image and likeness. It will be an arduous and painful process for most, but the ending is certain.
I really sympathize with your comments on the frequently ungracious style that has characterized much of Hart's work. However, with regard to his tone on this issue, I think that your criticisms misunderstand what Hart is intending to convey. When he speaks of "moral imbecility" and insists upon the incompatibility of eternal punishment and divine love, these are not arguments based upon moral intuition or what seems to be true to him. They are based on a moral knowledge that is more certain than any premises that might serve to undermine our belief in these moral truths. Hart's attitude towards his opponents is direct and impatient, but this is not because he simply assumes that he is right and they are wrong, it is because their claims are such that it is rational to reject them on the basis of the fact that divine love is incompatible with their proposals. This may appear uncharitable or arrogant, but it simply reflects the fact that there are some cases of disagreement that cannot be addressed by appeal to mutually shared assumptions. Like those who deny moral truth, the reality of conscious experience, and knowledge of the external world, critics of Universalism can be rationally dismissed on the basis of Hart's claims even if those critics themselves do not find Hart's position the least bit persuasive. A world with eternal torment is a world where love fails. It is refreshing to see someone give such an unapologetic defense of love, despite those who would seek to deny the breadth of its reach.
Hart’s theological arguments end up being grounded in the original greek use of words, although he doesn’t really delve into that perspective. His ethics in argumentation become lacking. He’s both correct, and arrogant. If he were more patient then perhaps he could convince some agnostics or some christians, or otherwise refrain from relaying truth without love.
Hart is bitter and cruel while trying to claim that a loving God wouldn't send anyone to hell for eternity. Hart is bitter and on the verge of apostasy.
Solid review. Sounds like a very poorly reasoned and scripturally unmerited book. You should do a review of David Bentley Hart's "That all Shall be Saved." Seriously though try and answer his argument on personhood, or creatio ex nihilo, or his exegesis of Romans 9-11. I'm pleading with you TRY. Try explaining 1 Timothy 2 as a Calvinist without resorting to some ad hoc bifurcation of God's will. Try answering the parallelism of Romans 5:18 without butchering it as half meaningful and half hyperbole and then dismissing it. Or the unbelievable expansive eschatological vision of 1 Corinthians 15's "All in all." Or explain how Collossians' reconciliation of all things somehow doesn't include most all of humanity--the flower and centerpiece of creation. These "Very unique readings of scripture" regarding things like the atonement are accepted by most all of eastern orthodoxy--a massive and ancient wing of the church. So who is being dismissive here? Try and address his argument on free will. Please. This is the most engaging part to me because I think he's absolutely correct that the mechanical philosophy turned our understanding of free will into the naked right to choose (or mere "sovereignty" perhaps in calvinist terms") rather than the more bibilical notion of the truth itself setting you free, i.e. the more free you become the better choices that person makes. His argument is virtually unassailable but you let your personal offense get in the way. If your'e more mature than Hart's ad hominems then be more mature than them for pity's sake. Btw, calling his personal experience the main driver behind his philosophy on the book is absolutely juvenile. Perhaps the the same could be said of a Calvinist raised on Piper and Spurgeon and honestly believing church history started in the 14th century because that's what he was raised in. Wouldn't that be influenced by personal experience? Who isn't?
@@kevinreddington4251 do you mind sharing some of the thinkers you're reading/listening to? Or channels, podcasts, etc.? I've recently embraced total redemption after too many years of assuming ECT as a brute fact of the faith. It's incredible, pulls together the whole biblical vision. I'm into Hart, Brad Jersak, Robin Parry, and a few others. I'm in the process of working on a degree in theology. Thanks!
@@youngpilgrim5 sure. George MacDonald's unspoken sermons, dbh obviously, the new testament, St Gregory of Nyssa, Athanasius. The guys you mentioned are good too, albeit a little pop theology-ish. I don't have dogmatic views on the subject as of now. I just really dislike it when people take the most beautiful universalistic verses in the new testament and try to blot them out. It's foolish. But I encourage you to think long and hard about origens warning before you start preaching dogmatically about it. God be with you.
@@kevinreddington4251 thanks for the reply, sir! I'm nearing the end of dbh's NT right now. Quick FYI on Jersak: he does write pop level stuff (e.g. his two "a more Christlike... " books), but the guy has two theo majors and a PhD, with one of those degrees being in patristics! RE: Origin's warning. I do think it would be unwise to overrepresent total redemption in every sermon, conversation, etc.. However, I want to be cautious, too, of burying it like a secret that the plebs are too undisciplined to hear (E.g. Chrysostom's approach), or to avoid rocking the boat. Considering how many lives have been terrorized by the fear of hell, how many faiths shipwrecked, how many inquirers repelled in moral disgust... I think to a reasonable extent it is incumbent to investigate this issue, and if one is convinced and their conscience is moved, to then participate in whatever way that looks for us. For me, it likely means a jeopardizing of future ministry opportunities in the only denomination I've ever belonged to, and to all/most evangelical churches. I am studying theology and counselling, and the infernalist God really has brought deep harm to many lives. I am still processing the implications of all this for my vocational possibilities. Thanks again!
You say that David Bentley Hart's main problem is that his argument is really an emotional one. I think you are right in that his argument is mainly emotional for our moral sense is emotional, “emotional” referring to the movement of the soul. But how is that a problem? Selfless love is an emotion, our response to beauty is an emotion, meeting Christ is a very emotional experience. I fear one must be very misguided to think that in theological insight emotion is an obstacle. Rather theological insight is at bottom and by nature emotional. How could it be otherwise? God is beyond mechanistic understanding. But it seems you believe that the better way to see the truth is by using scripture - you write: “What really I think this all comes down to is the scriptural evidence.” And here I think lies the deception, for by itself scripture is only a text. The true power of scripture arises from our sense of the divine, from our ethical and aesthetic reaction to reading the text, from the way our soul recognizes the voice of her maker, and after that from prayer and meeting Christ in spirit and re-reading scripture under His light. And thus from emotion. The fact that the protestant denominations interpret the same Bible in so many different ways proves that believing one is only following the text alone is a chimera. Of course there are many spirits of deception, and one can always be wrong. But Christ Himself explains how one is to distinguish truth from error, namely by its fruit: Whatever belief moves one to follow Christ by loving like He did comes from the truth. Conversely any belief that is an obstacle to one’s repenting and becoming similar to Christ comes from deception. In this context the idea that Christ will abandon even one of His creatures to eternal perdition makes it more difficult to love God with all one’s heart, and thus is a false belief.
By that logic Mormonism and jehovah witness and Arians are right because they use the same argument. Scripture is supreme, we interpret it by reason and with tradition as a tool but not a method. We don't base our understanding of scripture by how it makes us feel. I'm not saying that reflecting on the emotions gained from scripture is wrong, but that it can't be our theological base.
@@JP-rf8rr I am not quite sure what you mean by "theological base", but in any case I certainly did not claim that theology should be based on emotion alone - see the last paragraph of my comment.
@@DianelosGeorgoudis And I think you misunderstand if you think Christ is abandoning them if hell is forever. There are people who say that they'd rather live in hell than be with christ. Is Christ supposed to take them by force? Is he supposed to undermine their free will and make them choose to be with God? Like CS Lewis said, the "doors to hell are locked from the inside" hell or sheol was always known in its purists sense as being cut off from God. The thing is that we choose this when we reject God's redemption and put other things or ourselves as lord. God simply respects our request and we suffer from not being in connection to the source of piety and love.
Emotional appeals are certainly not legitimate are they? We should rather follow the example Johnathon Edwards in his famous infernalist crime against humanity known as “Sinners in the hands of an angry God”. Did you note that emotional word in the title? It would seem the strongest argument that has ever held up to substantiate Eternal Punishment is in fact that God is....angry. Um, that’s an emotion isn’t it? And Oh how theologians relish that emotion in God. But is love an emotion? When God so loved the world that He sent Christ or when while we were yet sinners God demonstrated His love in Christs death, Love is in no way a mere emotion. How you can reduce this book to an emotional appeal is actually quite dishonest. The fact is many in religion check their brain at the door, but you seem to request that we all check our heart at the door. Perhaps Hart operated from a position involving the whole person and that is unfamiliar to you. I see the Christ as a man who sympathized with us, wept for us and sweat great drops of blood for us. If emotion is such a disqualifying element of an argument, then why did God create us in His own image...with emotions? Can you say “Jesus wept” was a weak moment in the gospel? This review is really more of a dismissal than anything. As far as the complaint that Hart doesn’t go in depth enough...you know as well as anybody he could bury you in pages of that business if he so chose to. But your refusal to even quote from the book but rather characterize it inferring “trust me”, you are calling the kettle black. Read the book everybody. This guy is a sore Calvinist and Calvinism takes a thrashing in the book.
What about Hart's engagement with Biblical and Patristic texts in support of his arguments? I see Dr. Cooper addressing this in a fairly limited way. What about the philosophical arguments that are ignored by Dr. Cooper? I think they are important to the overall case. I've read the book 3 times, and while it addresses affect, I do not find the heavy emphasis on affective reasoning that Dr. Cooper does. But if we are to talk about feelings, what does Dr. Cooper feel about the fact that those he loves (and those he should love) will be eternally and consciously tormented in Hell? Does he truly feel at peace about this, an authentic Christian peace? Will he be at peace in Heaven knowing family members, friends, and fellow parishioners are experiencing extreme and endless suffering? Will he (a sinner deserving Hell) herald this as just? If he doesn't care, what does this say about him and his faith. Motivated by his own beliefs, and through his action, he can help save others but not all -- only a very few. In so many ways, we are limited in the essential project of evangelism. How many are damned to Hell? And are his (or our) beliefs and actions sufficient, even appropriate. Can we know for sure? Is it, then, reasonable to live in torment in this life and in the next, knowing how many of God's children are facing unrelenting brutality, not only of the body, but of the soul? How far away can we cast hope for human souls (in a definitive, permanent way)? Do we even have that right? Scripture says Our Blessed Lord desires, "that all shall be saved." What about those who insist on an eternal hell of punishment, do they hold the same desire, in a God-like way? What do it mean to live and pray in hope, as a Christian? How broad can this be? I hope that "all shall be saved: and "all that things will be made new" and I'm confident that God does not want, and will not accomplish, anything inferior to that. He is infinitely more loving and resourceful than me. Yet for most of history this would make me a heretic. If you're reading this and you think I am, please help me out and explain why (preferably addressing the book). :)
I call into question your rather harsh critique of David's work. Reducing it down to an emotional diatribe is academically trite and unworthy of your fine skills as a theologian. It's very obvious why you would do such a thing coming from your Lutheran doctrinal background. But let's get right to the point, shall we? - Hart and other like-minded philosophers have pierced right through to the core of Reformed Soteriology and exposed one of its main weaknesses; 'Limited Atonement'. Rather than simply clustering and cross-referencing proof texts to formulate a hermeneutic that suits one’s presuppositions, one should rather look closely at the nuance and cumulative spirit of the text and understand the eternal and self-sacrificial love of The Referent. I think that experientially as a ‘Man’, you know better as well. You are a Father, yes? And like me, no matter how contentious, irrational and maddening my Son’s behavior or beliefs become, I’m never going to give him up, cash him out or wish him away Eternally. I simply cannot do that - it would be a heartless incoherent act of self-nihilism and even self-hate. Now, as an imperfect human Father, I ask you, How could the Father of the entire Universe, the Creator and sustainer of everything conceivable and the source of all Being, either punish eternally in torment or fade out of existence, one of his own children designed from the foundation of the world to share in the joy of his own existence and creation? The limits of our ignorance is surely not greater than his eternal everlasting Love! Universal Reconciliation is about The Restoration of All Things; ‘The Apocatastasis’, it’s not about ubiquitous unreserved salvation, pushing the exponential limits of Sin and or sidestepping repentance through faith. The Parable of the Prodigal Son so beautifully illustrates for us, the true nature of the Father who rejoices when his son returns after hitting absolute rock-bottom. He allows for his son to exercise his ‘free will’ but at the same time, the table is always set for his return with his place secure! It’s almost as if Jordan the whole Reformed Theology is aesthetically and systematically analogued in the jealousy of the older brother in the parable, who believes he’s done everything right, has had perfect faith & works, done everything his father has asked of him do, but yet cannot bring himself to forgive his own brother and welcome him home with open arms. What is this? If one’s conception of God is that he is a selective arbiter of Grace and a retributive eternal punisher of those non-elect, then the whole of the Crucifixion is a nonsensical event. “Father forgive them for they know not what they do” was not directed at a cherry-picked group of individuals or would be Followers, Post-Resurrection, but all those who witnessed firsthand and, in the ages, to come. If you really feel Hart is in error, could please demonstrate assiduously the contextual use of ‘Aion’ and ‘Aionios’ in the original Greek and why you feel they are best interpreted and defined as ‘Everlasting’, rather than ‘Age Enduring’.
I think he's critique of infernalism is spot on, moral imbecility sums it up beautifully. His arguments, if they came from a non emotional standpoint I felt were irrefutable. I've read the book and I emotionally responded to your your refutation by finding it specious and disengenious.
Thank you for a very lucid summary of Hart’s arguments, dr. Cooper. I have myself formerly been a universalist, but moved away from this position after having considered the scriptural evidence for the possibility of damnation. However, I am also eager to read more on the issue, so that I don’t simply point to my own understanding or the general argument of “well, most people say that...”. If you were to point to a work that deals with this issue well, which would you recommend?
The original Greek text of the Bible provides little to no evidence for ECT. you only find scriptural "evidence" for ECT in inaccurate translatioms of the original Bible text.
Here's what I dont understand. There are many other words in the origional Greek classical language that mean "eternal" and are more exact and diffenitive than the word "aion". In Harts words, aion at minimum brings up many ambiguities (questions and debates of it's meaning) when they didn't need to use it! As I previously noted, there were multiple other words that were more definite in the use of the word eternal.....and it wasn't used. Thats worth questioning.
Let me say that Hart's logic is actually quite strong, and it is Hart's logic that you fail to address in your critique. You want him to deal more with the history of Biblical exegesis and discuss Aquinas and Calvin in greater depth in order for you to take his book more seriously; but with all due respect, you cannot dismiss Hart's book without addressing the logic of his universalist position. That is something you have not done here. Also, his argument does not rely on having gotten Calvin or Aquinas right. I don't know enough about either to say whether he has or not. Even if he had misrepresented both the essentials of his own case would still stand. You and I have a fundamental disagreement on epistemology here. For you, if I am not mistaken, if the Bible upholds infernalism, that is the end of the matter. For myself (and Hart, if I understand him correctly, and I'm pretty sure I do) if the Bible upholds infernalism, the Bible is making an irrational and morally offensive claim, and is therefor in the wrong in this issue.
Hart would never allow “the Bible” upholds a teaching of everlasting punishment in hell. On the contrary, he makes a very strong case the Bible & St. Paul are teaching the restoration of all things. “The Bible” is never absent its interpreters. IOWs, it is a fiction we can read the Bible “alone”-we always bring a lens.
No one disputes that God punishes sin, what's called into question is the notion that 100 trillion years of torment isn't nearly long enough for the crime of being born in North America prior to the 16th century, or in a North Korean multi-generational concentration camp. Or that the majority of holocaust victims receive the same fate at those who perpetrated it.
I'm Orthodox myself, and I have to say, in this and your other video about Hart and marcionism, you nailed Hart. He puts his intellect and moral intuition over and against everything else. I'm not sure you can square such a high opinion of one's own moral instincts over and against scripture and tradition, with any sort of small o orthodox, small c catholic, Christianity.
While Hart is indeed Orthodox, he's also a Barthian. That part of his influence is for some reason being phased out of his biography. So his reading of Karl Barth and neo-orthodoxy is clear when it comes to universalism and his disregard for the Holy Scripture, placing personal experience above the Word.
Jordan - you should consider giving a critique of Brian Zahnd's 2024 book, "The Wood Between the Worlds." Amazingly, though Zahnd advocates for a rejection of Penal Substitutionary Atonement and is a universalist, I have found zero substantial critique of this work, which is published by IVP. Would love to hear your thoughts.
Anyone who believes in an eternal hell, cannot in good conscience bring a child into the world without being considered a monster of demonic proportions.
Does Hart really have to prove that the rejection of Originism isn't tied to universalism when the rejection of Originism itself makes no claim that this was the doctrine that it took onus with?
Even if Hart’s argument is purely “emotional” which, I must say, seems to fall short given the fact that he makes pretty robust arguments all throughout the book. I myself, cannot see how one cannot only believe-but square an eternal hell morally upon one’s mind. How can it remotely be the case that the epitome of moral goodness and perfection, imbued with an everlasting love for us, can leave rational creation to suffer forever in hell? Maybe it’s deemed “emotional," because there is no cogent defense of such a conviction.
Christ's own words are the cogent defense. Hart's book is full of ad hominem and he ultimately asserts that only universalists are true Christians. Hart is a bitter man on the verge of apostasy.
Despite whatever emotion or lack thereof in DBH’s arguments, the real truth is that they are also completely cogent. If the ’emotion’ disturbs you then ignore it and interact with the arguments then.
It seems to me Hart was far more concerned, and centered on, the rhetorical force found in his moral argument against hell, which I think you correctly picked up on. I was disappointed myself because I was expecting more of an exegetical approach dealing with each passage he laid out found within Paul. I have some sympathy with some of his arguments, especially the first meditation.
The book was packed with logical arguments. Literally packed. Critics seem to be distracted with the force of his affective appeal because, when restating infernalism in non-technical, real world terms without euphemisms, it suddenly sounds as blasphemous and medieval as it truly is.
If people want a nice, calm, discussion of eternal conscious torment in abstract formulations, free from any pastoral concerns, it is because they have forgotten, for example, the countless thousands of grieving mothers living in life-long grief because they were told-according to the explicit teachings of Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and their ilk-that her miscarried child was now in perpetual anguish in hell as God's eternal enemy because they died unbaptized (all of which He either foreordained, or foreknew and permitted). It is vulgar, it is heartless, it is anti biblical, and it is anti Christ. Eternal conscious torment is a vulgar offense against the God perfectly, fully, and finally revealed in Jesus of Nazareth. Its consequences have been vast, deep, and destructive. The biblical case against ECT is comprehensive. No more kid gloves. "Let no one promise infants who have not been baptized a sort of middle place of happiness between damnation and Heaven, for this is what the Pelagian heresy promised them" The Soul and Its Origin, Patrologiae Latinae, Migne, 44:475, Augustine "Although we must recollect that God would never have suffered any infants to be destroyed, except those which He had already reprobated and condemned to eternal death." Harmony of the Law Volume 2, John Calvin
Hart’s unapologetic scathing rhetoric is a result of a valid viewpoint being vilified beyond warrant for centuries. The time for the larger body of Christ to tolerate a humble and private universalism was (probably) two decades ago (a La “the Shack,” or Rob Bell’s speculations), but it was repeatedly spat on and ‘cancelled’ until recent scholarship challenged bigoted doctrines with exhaustive logical arguments and retaliatory contempt.
There’s an order to things. You can’t start with the Bible. The Bible is dependent on man, hummanity’s struggle with God over time, and most importantly, logos. In the beginning was the logos. It’s best to start with logic and then let the Bible unfold from there.
0:57 You think he's best when dealing with philosophy and not theology? I see a grave problem with separating the two. Philosophy is simply the presuppositions we bring into any form of reasoning, be it logical, scientific or theological. Hart is pointing out the philosophical contradictions brought to the table by most theology. For example, when theologians say "love" they must not mean "hate". That is a philosophical presupposition that we must agree to if we are to have any meaningful conversation at all. Hart points out, and rightfully so, how most theologians have rendered all theological language equivocal by claiming that God is "love" while simultaneously claiming a God who's actions could only be done by a God that is objectively "hate". He also points out that the Christian's supposed view of what a final salvation looks like is essentially anti-Christ. Christ teaches us to visit the sick, feed the hunger, clothe the poor, love our enemies as ourselves and to bless them. Yet our eternal destiny is to live in our own personal bliss, while being indifferent to the suffering of those that weren't quite as good as us to have made it where we are? They have effectively turned the ethos of heaven into the very ethos of hell. Every soul for itself. I mean, call that emotional all you want I suppose.
This sounds like you were correct, that Hart was not writing to scholars but as a popular book. So many of your comments are about a book he was not intending to create at this time. I look forward to your in depth writing about all you mention that layman and scholar will be happy to read.
Love the video Dr Cooper! I would be interested to get your opinion on some of jay dyer's material, his theological stuff at least. I sometimes get the same intellectual arrogance vibe from him that dbh has. Sometimes it seems to me like he uses unnecessarily complex jargon that makes it difficult to tell what he is actually saying. Love your channel
+Luke Crossman -- *_"I sometimes get the same intellectual arrogance vibe from [Jay Dyer]..."_* Join the crowd. I say that as one who has barely "touched" any of his stuff (a bit more familiar with him when he has appeared on *Red Ice TV* and one or two other outlets in a debate manner) but have a feeling he most probably up and screws the pooch when he wraps his tongue around Protestantism in general and certain Protestant traditions in particular. I can't believe I have not done so despite downloading his 3+ hour video back in August of this year attempting to disentangle and critique the anti-Trinitarian views spelled out across several videos by a TH-camr named *RockingMrE* who I also critiqued, criticized, etc. within a handful of his videos from last year. The one thing I can say in favor of *RockingMrE* is that Jay Dyer most probably wasted his time seeing the length of his video (I am pretty sure it could have been done in half the time!). NOTE: On a whim I just glanced at it momentarily a minute ago and the portion I just happened to hear had Mr. Dyer spout off nonsense about Protestantism. What else is new under the sun with the Orthodox!?!? **
Apparently, God created David Hart to complete His understanding of love! Thus- we are all indebted to Hart for making God worthy of our love. Really, God was quite lucky that Hart came from Him. 'Tis the "Fortuity of Aseity" God has a Hart-shaped hole in His heart 💟.
I read the book, and I have to admit that all of your reservations occurred to me while reading it, especially the exegetical ones. I am not a scholar, so, I always wonder. I'll look for N. T. Wright on this. I have Hart's take on the moral/philosophical/intuitive issues tho, as much as I'd like the NT to line up behind them, it remains an open question for me.
We don't have any details on the rejections of Originism, or even what the 5th century church meant by that rejection. How can you criticize Hart for not being a time traveling mind reader?
While I agree with Dr. Cooper on this one, it is worth mentioning that Hart's book is an essay-as in the European "essai"-and not an exhaustive text. So the lack of thorough argumentation is to be expected. But.. that said, it is even more odd for the sycophantic universalists in the comments to cling to it so dearly given that, again, (and as Hart admits) is not a rigorous, systematic opus.
I'm pretty disappointed with this review. You don't address the logic of the arguments in his meditations at all. 20 minutes of complaining Hart hurt your feelings. I don't like Hart's personality, I don't like his politics, but I read him for his arguments. If you think he is wrong show his arguments are not sound.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 📘 The *video is a run-through of Jordan Cooper's thoughts on David Bentley Hart's new book, "That All Shall Be Saved". * 📖 The *book, according to Cooper, is not a formal philosophical or theological argument, but more a collection of Hart's personal reflections and objections against the idea of an eternal hell. * 👨🏫 Hart *is considered by Cooper more convincing when dealing with philosophy than theology, and his strength lies in his critique of materialism and dualism.* 😫 The *main driving force in Hart's book is his emotional struggle with the concept of eternal damnation, which doesn't align with his understanding of God's love and goodness.* 📜 Hart *discusses scriptural evidence in support of universal salvation, without providing a thorough or detailed analysis, according to Cooper.* 🔍 Hart's *reading of scripture is influenced by his predetermined conclusion about universal salvation, leading to what Cooper claims as less than an honest interpretation.* ⛪ Hart's *arguments showing lack of understanding of Protestantism and Calvinism, while his dismissive tone and intellectual arrogance make the book less inviting for differing opinions.* 🤔 Overall, *Cooper found the book lacking in depth and breadth in its argument for universal salvation, influenced more by Hart's personal objections and moral struggles than a detailed study of scripture.* Made with HARPA AI
In another era you might be leading his inquisition. Quite simply Hart is letting his innate human morality and decency clash openly with the the obvious problems with morality as espoused in the tradition
That's absurd. He is a theologian first and not a philosopher. NT Wright does not even come CLOSE to this mans genius and expertise in the field of theology. He's translated the NT from the original Greek and is deeply versed in the early Church Fathers and the early church. Evanagelicals and evangelical converts who bring their baggage when they convert to Orthodoxy, always dislike DB Hart because (as he says about the Pope) he has the sheer audacity to behave like a Christian. It think the true reason you cannot see his VAST superiority to Wright is - ironically enough - your own emotional attachment to denominational church dogma.
Although I essentially think DBH's universalism is correct , especially after reading his controversial treatise , I nonetheless respect your sincerity and charitably expressed rejection of his arguments . I would really appreciate a more comprehensive justification for your own contrary view on universalism , the gist of which perhaps could involve exegesis and logical criteria . Many thanks .
After watching your video, I am left wondering if we really did the same book. TASBS spends a great deal of time analyzing the text and refuting the infernalist position. His emotional tone is present, but nowhere near as stridently as you claim. His remarks about Calvinism are quite accurate, since Calvin's God is indeed a monster. Ditto for his comments about Protestantism,. More to the point, you did not engage with his actual arguments. Instead you fell back on the bandwagon argument:, backed by insults and, of course, moving the goalposts. I can only conclude that you are either jealous or are threatened by the universalist position. In any event, I wish you well.
I think you missed Hart's point regarding emotion. As he mentioned, St Augustine acknowledged a large number of universal reconciliationists in his day and did not accuse them of heresy, as ignoranus orthodox Christians do today. Rather, St Augustine implied their issue was soft heartedness, as if that were a bad thing. Based on that idea, Hart is suggesting that the only reason many orthodox Christians don't give the idea of eternal torment vs universal reconciliation much exegetical, theological, and historical attention is because they refuse to think through what they profess due to largely unconscious and erroneous fears around downplaying Divine judgement and recognizing that many revered saints have perpetuated a horrific and contradictory doctrine of God. Which continues to result in confessional toxicity whether considering evangelism, spirituality, or moral reasoning, etc, as well as any topic related to the Divine character. Therefore, a genuine emotional response to the notion of eternal torment is often needed to counteract such unwarranted fears so that objective thought can begin to take place. And, of course, Martin Luther's theological emphases leading to much needed reforms were themselves largely inspired by emotion.
Our concept of love may not be exactly the same as God's but it can't be completely antithetical or else we might as well all pack up and go home. It has to be at its highest level to a large extent analogous or to put it simply, we cannot be made in God's image. I think DBH's book is convincing. I really like Robin Parry's work on this issue too. If you can't be appalled about the concept if never ending torment, then what would ever appall you?
All the arguments regarding faith are essentially emotional. Its not science!! Thats why im an atheist. I find Dr Hart to be far more rational than most other Christians. Dr Hart is a breath of fresh air.
Interesting....I work at an ELCA church where the pastor mentions some orthodox Christians who believe that all will ultimately be saved.....I think that's where the pastor where I work gets his ideas about universalism....there and Rob Bell's church
What I don't understand hell is not in the Bible. There sheol, Hades and another Greek mythology reference and Gehenna which is actual place outside of Jerusalem. Wasn't the concept of hell created by Catholics in the middle ages?
Arent experiential and emotional arguments just as valid as the Bible. God can talk to us in many ways. He’s teaching me about himself not from the bible but through experience. It’s far more profound than any bible study I’ve ever done, or sermon I’ve ever listened to.
Thanks for this review. You seem knowledgable and have helped me make the decision to not waste my money on this book. I need evidence with these.topics ! That's all I'm looking for.
I had a bit of a random question I was hoping you could answer. I’m an independent baptist, and I stumbled upon your channel doing research on the church fathers. I really enjoy your content even on things we may disagree on. I was curious how the sacramental Lutherans view the salvific nature of non-sacramental baptism. I.e. If one gets baptized upon profession of faith in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the blessed Holy Spirit , but does not view baptism as sacramental, from your perspective is that person regenerate or unregenerate?
We seem to live in an age in which people want to create a god in their own image and imbue him (or it) with their personal concepts of love and morality that generally contradict those of Scripture, Jesus, and the consensus of Christians of all ages, and think they have made an argument that should be taken seriously. Thanks, but I'll take Jesus, the Apostles, and what has been believed always, everywhere, and by all.
You have to think as love does. God is love, love is the ONLY good. Love doesn't think like logic and logic doesn't think like love. Love will always want the authentic creation to be realized, as it is an expression of God's heart, spoken into existence. How is eternal punishment with no reconciliation ever found in love? It isn't. What healthy parent would be blissful if their child was eternally separated from them?
Much of Hart's "ungracious" attitude comes from the fact that he is arguing against infernalism, an absolutely barmy idea believed by so many otherwise good and intelligent people for centuries. Under the circumstances, I don't think he is so ungracious. Nor is he excessively emotional by any means. If people are offended by "That All Shall be Saved" I think the primary reason is that Hart has a very strong argument against hell, and there are many who cling to hell quite fiercely, even desperately, for some reason. Of course their feelings are likely to be hurt if they begin to think they are wrong. Also, you seem to equate moral objections with emotional objections. The two are by no means inherently identical. If Hart finds a God who tortures people forever to be morally objectionable, is Hart therefor being emotional as opposed to objective? What would the objective response to an eternal torturer be? Also, you seem to require that Hart go more into scripture and church history, etc. Well, I'm sure there would be value in that. But Hart's focus is on philosophical argument, not scripture. As he says, if I recall correctly, he is prepared to disagree with scripture if it speaks nonsense. No, it is not necessary for Hart to look at every bit of eschatology in the Bible and prove his case accordingly. I don't think he would fail to see the value in that, but again, it is beyond the purview of the book. And no, Hart does not have to show how all the infernalists got their biblical exegesis wrong. Again, that would be great. But if his argument on a philosophical level is sound (and it is) that draws Biblical reliability into question, if indeed the Bible preaches infernalism.
His whole argument with infernalism would've disappeared if he'd been properly catechized when he became EO. Or rather, if he'd converted for more than just the smells and bells so to speak.
Great thoughts. While I thoroughly enjoyed the book, Hart was emotional and gave the appearance of threatening his critics with being labeled stupid. For scholars, his lack of reviewing counterpoints and previous writers is a problem. For the rest of us, it was entertaining and offered an imposing list of verses which none of his detractors have dealt with, leaving plebeians like myself the impression that his list of scriptures cannot be argued against. You seem to have fallen into your own criticism of DBH, however, in that you dismissed his list of scriptures without dealing with those scriptures. DBH dismissed detractors without dealing with them. You and apparently all his detractors have not dealt with his list of scriptures. Most failed to even mention his list, so at least you did that while only counter-arguing that his understanding is a minority view. A Lutheran surely appreciates to value of a heroic minority, in light of Luther himself..
After watching this video, I do agree with you and will continue to be a universalist. But I still have so much to learn. Hell is one of the most misinterpreted and misunderstood ideas in biblical history. In a way, a "place" or reality of torment does exist but not for eternity. Neither the Greek nor the Hebrew (or Aramaic for that matter) prove an eternal state of torment and punishment after earthly death. Yes, Hart is arrogant but he is also extremely knowledgeable. I'm praying for his humility and holiness in all matters of study and life. God bless.
I'd suggest looking into the actual Eastern Orthodox views on the afterlife (not Origen/DBH's). Universal reuniting with God does happen (by EO theology) BUT forcing that reuniting to be a joyful experience for everyone, including those that hate God is a violation of the free will that God gave us. God can but death unto death and redeem all creation and mankind. He refuses to force us to love Him.
Evil is a defect of the good. Beings unreconciled to God is a defect; an evil. If you believe beings will be unreconciled for all eternity then you believe that God will never defeat evil and Satan wins. However Scripture does not say this. Scripture says Christ reconciles ALL THINGS. Christ is the Telos, as He says in Revelation. If you believe in eternal punishment, you dont believe Christ is the Telos. You believe Christ is one telos, and Hell is the other. You are essentially a Manichean, like Augustine, whom I believe never completely shed his Manicheism and is largely responsible for the dualistic telos eschatology we have today. This is not an emotional argument.
Tho I suppose I agree with your critique of Hart. He has the burden of proof and he shortcuts a lot of things and is just simply dismissive about a lot of things. And yes it seems he knows nothing of Calvin and even lies about him.
Right, as you well state, the New Testament does not teach what Hart espouses and so he could never do it well. Hart suggest that hell is only temporary? If that is the case, then Christ going to the cross and suffering there for the salvation from such hell bent fate of sinners, would only be temporary. No, it is an everlasting fix (redemption) from an everlasting consequence (downfall). Again, if all will be saved regardless of faith being put in Christ, then Christ died in vain! He say's, this notion of eternal hell does not sit well with him, yet how does Gods grace on repentive sinners sit any better? I mean, surly we have trouble thinking some one like Hitler could receive forgiveness and salvation by grace, through faith Ephesians 2:8,9. Then why does the same bible that speaks of the grace of God, speak also of the wrath of God? As this is why (according to scripture) "..God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." John 3:17. God has made provision for escape, yet we must take it "through faith", as "How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation" Hebrews 2:3. Gods love is universal, as in "God so loved the world" John 3:16. It effects the whole world, as in "he is the propitiation (payment for) for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world". 1 John 2:2, yet the word is clear, make a choice, you cannot have it both ways, as his philosophy of more like; "Having your cake and eating it too". Impossible. "The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up. From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew 4:16,17.
That may all be true...the key word though is eternal, or aionos. He doesn't neccessarily beleive there is not a correction. He beleives its just not eternal. Is it possible Christ died for THAT?
@@djm.326 No dj M, it is an everlasting fix (redemption through Jesus) from an everlasting consequence (downfall of Adam), as the life that the righteous enjoy is parallel to the punishment the wicked suffer. Basically, Hell lasts as long as heaven. For example, Daniel speaks of those who will awake from death: “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2). This idea is carried through into the New Testament by Jesus in Matthew 25 (which many think is, by itself, decisive on the matter) when he teaches the parallel fates of the righteous and the unrighteous: “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matthew 25:46). Thanks, and Happy New Year!
It looks like you struck a nerve by criticizing Hart. I found his book to be 200 pages of conjecture, self defeating logic, and pure rancor. I think Hart is on the verge of apostasy.
Thanks for the review of a very important book. I think, however, that your review fails to fully grasp the force of Hart's argument, and circumscribes it within a too-reductive dismissal as "emotional." Viewers interested in another opinion to fairly balance this one out should see this review with a couple very devoted pastors: th-cam.com/video/6o2w3oHMM_k/w-d-xo.html While it is true that Hart at times employs impassioned, forceful, and vehement rhetoric against the notion of eternal conscious torment and the character of a God who would initiate a creation bound for such a destiny, it is an egregious disservice to the depth of his thought here to characterize his primary argument as "emotional." The argument that you call "emotional" is in fact a carefully reasoned argument from moral philosophy, and the meaning of the language we use when we call God "good." Moral reasoning is an essential dimension of our humanity created in the image of God, that is, in the image of the Logos Jesus Christ, who is the word, reason, and logic of God's being and love made manifest in the flesh. And surely no respectable theologian of any stroke would deny this. We are called to exercise a well-formed conscience and discern between justice and injustice, morally right and wrong acts on a daily basis. There is no reason to suddenly turn this switch off when examining the character of God. If God is indeed good, his goodness must correlate with something of the same goodness and justice that we understand on the human plane. It can't totally contradict what we understand of goodness and justice-- as Jesus points out, even the wicked don't give their son a snake when he asks for bread. Jesus can point to our human intuitions for justice and goodness to illustrate something about our heavenly father. And what father would not be a monster who punished his children for any reason other than their correction and improvement? We cannot teach a behavior of God that we would find reprehensible and morally damnable in human behavior. And eternal conscious torment, vindictive punishment without end, with no hope of moral reform or improvement of character and no purpose but to cause pain, day after day for trillions of trillions of years is precisely such a morally repugnant absurdity as to be completely abhorrent to human reason and everything we know about what is good and just. Hart makes this and other arguments far more eloquently and with a depth of reasoning that greatly exceeds anything you present in your video. As far as I can tell, his logic is completely unassailable, and the only defense against his case is proof texts from scripture interpreted through a pre-committed dogmatic lens that simply accepts as a dogmatic given that eternal hell must be the case. Alas, this is probably one of the biggest reasons people become atheists and hate the church: because frankly, in a universe where eternal hell exists, God is a monster, and Satan is the real moral hero to defy him.
@Oners82 I STATED MY POINT!!!!!!! READ THE SENTENCE AGAIN, AGAIN, AND AGAIN!!!!!!! HOW AM I SPEWING NONSENSE??????? WHAT I STATED IS 100% CORRECT!!!!!!! I KNOW THE CAPS ARE LOCKED ON!!!!!!! THAT IS WHAT THEY CALL AFFECT AND EFFECT!!!!!!!?????? HAVE A GOOD DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well - as you know - the "predominant view" will unerringly lead you to the Truth! :) (e.g. see the Scribes and Pharisees as a cautionary tale) It is certainly a genuinely received and acceptable view - otherwise the Orthodox would have to disavow one of their greatest of saints, Gregory of Nyssa!
@@MrHwaynefair "For, as to the latter, on account of the depth of the ingrained evil, the chastisement in the way of purgation will be extended into infinity; but as for what has never existed, how can any torment touch it?” According to this, Judas and some similarly grievous sinners (devils and demons presumably included) will never be saved."-Gregory of nyssa "the fire which man will experience in the next life will be different from the fire of the present life. The fire of this life is extinguished in various ways, whereas the fire of the next life remains unextinguished."-Gregory of Nyssa It's not clear cut what Gregory believed. But even then, just because a saint in wrong on a very specific issue doesn't mean he can't be a saint. Clement believed in justification through faith alone, justin martyr believed justification by faith and works. These are contradictory positions yet both Catholic and orthodox churches hold these people as saints.
You (or who ever you’re quoting) has misrepresented/mistranslated Gregory. Please see Ilaria Ramelli’s “A Larger Hope”. “Justification by faith” is certainly true (insofar as it goes) - but we mustn’t continue to force our understanding of Paul into a 15th century language game. We understand so much more about 2nd temple Judaism than Luther or Calvin (or the Catholic Thomists) ever did- and therefore what Paul meant.... But what they failed most to see and acknowledge was the utterly unilateral nature of God’s salvation which is especially pronounced in Romans 5: “while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.... while we were enemies we were reconciled...” As Paul goes on to say there- Just as everyone has been profoundly influenced by Adam’s sin- so (“how much more”) will everyone be justified by the death of Christ: “Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. “ And- “Where sin abounded - Grace did MUCH MORE abound!”
@@MrHwaynefair So you're claiming I misrepresented/mistranslated Gregory but don't provide the textual or contextual information needed to repair this misunderstanding. You just provide text from a book written by an author who already agrees with your position. I already have several books I want to get but don't have the spending money. If you have a philosophical argument or quotes from church fathers please just present them.
HaecceitasQuidditas Like the Youngs Literal translation- Hart has the wisdom to leave ambiguous words like aionos- well, ambiguous! I.e. he does not translate it as simply “eternal” because the words most natural and indeterminate meaning is simply “age”.
Yeah, Hart's just primarily emotional. Thank God you're on the side of logic and scholarship. I would've hoped Hart's loud, glaringly emotional rhetoric would actually help you in seeing past that crude distinction. This was disappointing.
1. Emotional appeal of God's Justice/Love 2. Appeal to the analogy of love between God/Man 3. Appeal to the "other" 4. Intellectual Arrogance 5. Poor historical argumentation via Scripture/Patristics/eccumemical condemnation of Origenism 6. Ignores Eternal Heaven Eon 7. Ignores Text on cosmic redemption 8. Amateur understanding of Atonement and Protestantism (Calvinism) 9. Hypothetical exegesis of Romans 9 is not historical Here is what Dr. Cooper states about the book. Actually watch the video, he clearly put forth over 9 seperate objections.
Largely, I have no idea what you're talking about. There isn't enough detail for me to make a decision and at the same time enough for me to tune out. I've never heard of Hart before your video. I watch your videos to learn about Lutheranism. This video, to me, is another reason not to watch TH-cam. I wish you all blessings and peace. Unsubscribed.
isnt it an acceptable position to be dismissive to protestantism though? The arguments have been flushed out for 500 years now. Sola Scriptura is completely nonsensical.
If the potter crafted you with the sole purpose of being raped and murdered, only to be thrown in hell hereafter - for his glory of course - would you be okay with that? I mean, they didn't accept Jesus so they deserve it, right? Because if Calvinism is true, there will be many who suffer such fates. Those who endure fates worse than crucifixion - those disfigured by acid, chemically castrated, driven mad by schizophrenia, sold into sex trafficking, etc. If "God" really wills all these things for personal glory, then he his far more wicked than the Romans who supposedly crucified Christ. By many fold. And if you are really kowtowing to a vicious, duplicitous, manipulative, calculating, machiavellian tyrant like that - well that is truly pathetic. Its sycophancy that eclipses even the most spineless bootlicking uncle tom in this world. It's the sort of mentality that let the nazis commit such atrocities. Just accept the Führer's will.
@@itisnow I know of the mental effects you speak of. I deconverted 3 years ago and I'm just now healed of all the ptsd-like symptoms. I still believe in God, but not Jesus or the Christian god in any way. Truth surge on youtube has a great series that exposes all the holes and flaws in the gospels. Highly recommended.
I am impressed that you managed to go 20 minutes without saying "the Hart of the matter" or "the Hart of his argument". That is far more intellectual discipline than I could ever muster. 😋
😂😂😂
He did say he didn't expect such an emotional argument from Hart so maybe an ironic pun was intended?
Like many Christians, I lived for years in a cognitive dissonance with my emotions and beliefs at odds with one another. Conservative Protestants exist to defend doctrines, never to live life in peace and joy. Joy does not exist in the nihilistic framework of ect. This universe, imagined by Edwards and his ilk, is worse than an empty universe; it is a hostile one. God bless DBH for his work. He freed me from meaninglessness.
I think you hit the nail on the head here my friend. ECT, if defended to the bitter end, leads to nihilism. Things like "goodness" and "love" become meaningless and empty concepts, "might makes right" becomes the only law.
I'm a universalist, I'm completely at peace, a few months back I was just a regular protestant but I viewed unbelievers as my enemy which.. "depart from Me, I never knew you". I'm free, at peace, and literally LOVE EVERYBODY
@@daMillenialTruckeramen. Something that held me as a Baptist raised unbeliever was the thought of the people I loved most who didn’t believe or did things I know were “sinful” and I couldn’t bear the thought of them being rejected. I’ve been on a long journey but now , after hearing this side of things I have FULL peace and love my neighbors and all the different people around the world like never before…..
Amen 🙏
@@clearlyweirdyou are a heretic
It's not an "emotional" argument; it's a *moral* argument.
Agreed. My sense is that Dr. Cooper is not making this distinction. Very problematic.
Based on what morality? Since Jesus rejected universalism clearly and consistently, and since the Church has historically rejected it (since Scripture does), he needs to show that his moral vision is superior to that of Jesus, the Apostles, and the Church through the ages.
@@RobertEWaters Morality isn't just about what's written down or traditional customs; it's objective and universal. Anyone, regardless of their religious beliefs or even if they're atheist, should be able to understand and discuss what is moral. Morality isn't tied to any specific religion, so saying that morality is meaningless doesn't make sense.
@@RobertEWaters Did Jesus reject Universalism when He said that when He will be lifted up He will draw all men to himself? The word that was translated to "draw" actually means "drag" as if dragging a net of fish into a boat. He will drag ALL men to himself. Further, in the original Greek text Jesus never said the word "hell" at all ("hell" is a word from Norse mythology) and He never described afterlife punishment as "eternal" in Matthew 25:46. He actually described it as "age-during correction". What is the purpose of corrective punishment? To improve the individual. Eternal punishment is NOWHERE in the original Hebrew OT or Greek NT texts. Additionally, Universalism is what MOST early Christians believed. Augustine himself acknowledged in his writings that most Christians in his day were universalists. The Christians closest to the time of Jesus and the Apostles believed that the wicked would one day accept Jesus and be reconciled to God. That is why the herald angels described the birth of Jesus as "good news for all men".
It's true that he often, unfortunately, does employ an emotional appeal that he would be better served without, but to reduce his the arguments he does give to personal prejudices I think is to be just as dismissive. His arguments about analogy do in fact address the counterclaim from ignorance that "we just don't understand God's love" (that it effectively amounts to a rejection of the principle of non-contradiction, asserting that God can be both A and not A), likewise his argument about freedom are pretty solid.
It's not just "his concept", we all share the same concept of love and goodness. Not only do we all share the same concept of love and goodness intuitively, if we look to both Scripture and Christian tradition for a definition of "love" and "goodness", those will corroborate our innate understanding.
"To love is to WILL THE GOOD of the other." - Thomas Aquinas
"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, DO GOOD to them that hate you..." - Matt 5:44
The biblical, and specifically, the New Testament concept of love is best illustrated in parables like the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son.
So, no. It's not a matter of DBH's own personal or idiosyncratic understanding of "love". We all know what he's talking about, we all know what love and goodness are, don't equivocate or try to pretend that we don't. To do that is to indulge in nihilistic and post-modern thinking in order to avoid the argument.
If you're constantly wrestling in the church with questions like, "this doesn't make sense to me with God's love", "this doesn't make sense to me with God's goodness" then that ought to tell you something. At the very least it tells you that it's not simply a matter of one person or another's idiosyncratic understanding of these concepts. There is a fundamental contradiction that people are noticing and that you cannot deal with. So you pretend the problem is with them, and not your doctrine.
Thank you for the thoughtful review, Dr. Cooper. I don't have a dog in the fight as I am not a big fan of Hart's work, but I do find one aspect of your response troublesome. You consistently characterize his moral outrage at the idea of an eternal hell as an "emotional argument." Why characterize moral disgust, and arguments that are related to moral disgust, as emotional...and I get the sense that you mean by this that it is merely emotional. Also, despite how lacking Hart's exegetical arguments are, he does go on to connect this moral outrage to straightforwardly logical arguments about the good. These arguments are logical and moral (broadly speaking) in the accepted senses. Indeed, this is one of the main points of his arguments concerning God's goodness being analogical with our own rather than equivocal. In other words, this is an example of his moral outrage being brought into the ambit of rational analysis and logical argumentation. It is true that there is a fair amount of rhetorical flourish that crosses over the line into a self-indulgent sense of moral superiority, but to be distracted by that is to miss the logical point. In sum: do we want to characterize moral arguments, and the expression of moral experience, as merely emotional? And, is this not missing the logical point by a response that is too distracted by Hart's rhetorical flourishes (or whatever one wants to call these)?
Excellent reply, telling there is no response. I don't like DBH's personality or politics but his theology and scholarship is compelling.
I was about to make a similar comment regarding analogy vs. univocity and phenomenology of the good (and indeed you cannot honestly reduce these considerations to anything resembling an appeal to sentimentality), but was gladdened to see you've already made the point better than I could.
Ethan Smith, you really get to the heart of the matter in a clear and concise way. Thank you for your response. An argument is not invalidated by virtue of the fact that it involves strong emotion.
@@hansnyman9546 I second what everyone is saying. I find this author to be biased in favor of believing in eternal hell even if he doesn't directly say it. Ethan's rebuttal is well thought out and articulated far better than I could say it. Believing that your grandmother might be suffering eternally in hell because she was an alcoholic is a pretty emotional thing, so to dismiss that there may be emotion in some of Hart's arguments as "extremely immature" is just wrong. I don't think that invalidates his arguments.
Hart says that God's morality is analogical not equivocal, but then goes on to make arguments as if it is equivocal. "I cannot accept this as anything but evil, therefore God cannot either" is the gist of his argument.
Moral outrage can be conflicting, look at the ongoing culture war in the west, there's plenty of moral outrage on both sides, I guess since there's conflicting moral outrage amongst humans we can assume that God is a moral schizophrenic.
Edit: I'm probably mischaracterizing or overstating DBH's point, so apologies for that. My point is that proper exegesis is NECESSARY to solve moral issues because outrage and moral compasses alone can be in conflict. DBH consistently assumes human morality to be universal and constant, it isn't.
On a weird side note he has to be the most theologically protestant author I've read in a while, and he's not even a protestant!
bu
I think Dr. Hart's book is excellent. Dr. Cooper wants to dismiss it as "emotionalism" but he is just as emotional in his weak defense of calvinism. The idea of eternal damnation is toxic to christianity and is an affront to the goodness of God. But don't worry, Dr. Cooper, God forgives you.
I'm not a Calvinist.
I sensed that too.
@@DrJordanBCooper Did he say you were a Calvanist? You defended Calvanism against Hart's criticisms without any argument beyond the assertion that "it's bad". Really, you provide no argument at all in the entire video. One substantial critique would have been more satisfying that glossing over the entire book in such condescending and glib manner. Mathew 7:5...
The book was packed with logical arguments. Literally packed. Critics seem to be distracted with the force of his affective appeal because, when restating infernalism in non-technical, real world terms without euphemisms, it suddenly sounds as blasphemous and medieval as it truly is.
Good book was devoid of logic.
"Reformed Theology is diabolical nonsense" (David B. Hart). What do you mean by a "regular universalism"? No universalist that I have read has argued that when you die you go straight to heaven. The Cappodocians, for instance, are insistent that sinners will be saved "as by fire", as even St Paul says. And, moreover, you are idiotic to describe his revulsion to eternal suffering as "emotional reasoning" for his revulsion has a rational basis. If a little, impoverished girl stole an apple and was sent to prison for the rest of her life for the crime, we would all feel revulsion- but the revulsion has a rational basis. The punishment does not fit the crime. No amount of sin could ever deserve infinite punishment. And, indeed, the Greek word aionios means "for an age", not eternal (which is aidios).
Amen
I’m agnostic about universalism vs ECT but for dr copper to claim that anyone who seriously reads harts book and is opened will not be convinced is silly. Dr copper probably wouldn’t be reviewing the book if he actually believed this were true. Many bright minds in theology have read this book and have been deeply convinced about Hart’s conclusion and some have even called his arguments irrefutable. Dr copper really isn’t given any specific examples as to how Hart is wrong and didn’t really deal with any of his arguments
Dr. Cooper, could you give a response to Hart's argument on the possibility of analogical theological speech about God's goodness in light of eternal torments? You mentioned the argument, dismissed it as 'emotional' - although later indicating its philosophical and theological provenance - but never actually get around to refuting it. So where is Hart wrong on this point? [Momentarily bracketing the question of scriptural interpretation, if you could]
These were just my off the cuff thoughts after finishing the book. I'm thinking of putting forth some substantive critiques of his arguments. This would most likely be in writing.
This is the comment I would have made as well. If goodness means anything at all surely it means at the very least not willing or allowing the eternal torment of conscious creatures. As I believe DBH has put it elsewhere "With a God like that who needs a devil?"
but emotional arguments make sense when it comes to morality because we get our moral knowledge from our moral sense, which primarily informs us via emotional reactions (ex. someone gets tortured, you feel empathy. Someone does something bad, you feel angry. etc.)
This is always the double-edged sword when it comes to Christianity and moral arguments…
We want to be able to make a “moral argument” for God’s existence, essentially saying that we have reliable moral senses that reveal to us objective, not subjective, morality, and that this is evidence for God.
However, we then have to answer why those moral senses seem to squirm at the doctrine of Hell, God’s actions in the Old Testament, aspects of the problem of evil, etc etc
It’s difficult to parse out when Scripture should challenge our moral intuitions versus when our moral sense should cause us to rethink our interpretations of Scripture.
100%!!!!!! Good comment
Emotions are not the source of morality. Or shouldn't be,
I don’t see how belief in ECT could lead to anything other than debilitating mental psychosis… if you really love others, and you really believe they are experiencing agony for all eternity, how could that not affect you? Just not think about it?
What if your mother or your spouse or your child rejected the faith, and died? How could you function?
And how on earth could Christianity be considered “good news”? To hear such a thing was happening to your loved one would be the worst news a person could possibly hear, and no amount of eternal bliss for themselves could make up for it.
If you are able to love someone and still accept that they are suffering eternally and get on with your life, what does “love” possibly mean at that point? How could any of us say that we know God loves us if our understanding of love is so vastly different?
I’ve always wanted to defer to the widely held Christian tradition on controversial doctrines, but I’ve never had anyone explain to me how this belief can be held at a practical level. I used to accept it, but only by not thinking about it and with much cognitive dissonance.
I kept waiting for something more substantial than ‘he’s just not convincing’.
Right? 😂
How about Jesus repeatedly and consistently rejecting universal salvation? The burden of proof is on Hart, and if he fails to meet it, what more needs to be said?
@@RobertEWaters What more needs to be said? Precisely that - clearly presenting how Jesus repeatedly and consistently rejected universal salvation. ‘He’s just not convincing’ addresses nothing.
In Matthew 21:31 Jesus says to the chief priests and the elders, "“Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you." Since these priests and elders did not believe in Jesus, it is commonly believed that they were not saved. But notice what Jesus says here. He says that the tax collectors and prostitutes will enter the kingdom AHEAD OF YOU. Jesus is telling these people that they WILL enter the kingdom. It will just happen after believers have entered. Jesus would not have said this if He rejected universalism.
In Matthew 5:25-26, Jesus talks about being thrown into prison by the judge because you did not settle matters with your adversary. This is talking about getting right with God before judgement. Our Lord and Savior says in verse 26, "Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny." Notice that Jesus did NOT say that there is no getting out of the prison, He said that you won't get out until you have paid in full. Again, why would Jesus have said this if He rejected universalism?
@@alwaysadawg6488 Compelling.
Hart writes, "Can we imagine - logically, I mean, not merely intuitively - that someone still in torment after a trillion ages, or then a trillion trillion, or then a trillion vigintillion, is in any meaningful sense the same agent who contracted some measurable quantity of personal guilt in that tiny, ever more vanishingly insubstantial gleam of an instant that constitituted his or her terrestrial life? And can we do this while realizing that, at that point, his or her sufferings have only just begun, and in fact will always have only just begun? What extraordinary violence we must do both to our reason and moral intelligence (not to mention simple good taste) to make this horrid notion seem palatable to ourselves, and all because we somehow, foolishly, allowed ourselves to be convinced that this is what we must believe. Really, could we truly believe it at all apart from either profound personal fear or profound personal cruelty?"
He forgets one thing, ie. that fact that a person can be so utterly stupid that s/he misses Hart's point.
Well done
While done in a kinder gentler fashion, your critique of Hart is (in my humble(!) opinion) predictable, shallow and dismissive. I genuinely wonder if the livelihood and the institutional entrenchment (not to speak of the respect of others of like mind) were not quite so important to many who hold positions of authority in the Church and Christian academia - if they would give Hart's simple but profound arguments the weight and consideration they are due.
And how many times have I heard Calvinists say, "He really just doesn't understand Calvinism"! It makes me wonder, does anyone? I was a 5-pointer for around 15 years (a PCA pastor and a graduate of RTS). Maybe I am just clueless? (Yes, maybe...)
The cult of Calvinism (sorry, I was predestined to say that) has blinded the minds of many - and obscured the very fundamental revelation of God's Glory: His Goodness (NOT His sovereignty)! [Moses: "Show me your glory!" God:"I will cause all my GOODNESS to pass in front of you..."]
That - I believe - is what has raised the ire of Dr. Hart - who sees clearly this is not just another theological aside, but strikes at the very core of the true nature of God - and the scope of the Gospel as unconditional Good News: That, "while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son"... Yes - He has acted sovereignly - unilaterally to accomplish all He purposed to do via His Word (Jesus Christ - cf. Is. 55:11ff) - nothing less than the reconciliation of ALL things - and the salvation of the World.
That's enough - I'm sorry - I do get a bit exercised about these things.... please forgive me any and all unnecessary offense...
Amen.
I believe christ paid the price to redeem the world, but you still need to accept that and trust christ as lord to receive it. Because of that I think hell is locked from the inside not outside.
There are plenty of people who proudly shout that they would rather burn than acknowledge christ as lord.
Check this out.
th-cam.com/video/tiYf6ITgWbk/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/rzpyRL3gto8/w-d-xo.html
Me yesterday: "Man, I wish Dr. Cooper had some resources on universalism in Christianity."
Dr. Cooper the next day: "Oh, like this?"
Questioning modern Christian doctrines.
I found the book “that all shall be saved” by David Bentley Heart to be a real eye opener about the beliefs of the Greek church fathers that are rarely mentioned in Protestant Christianity. Also 4th century saint Gregory of Nyssa commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:28. Also you tube channel “the total victory of Christ”
I hope you re-read the book, this time closely, and give it a great deal more thought before publishing a review. Perhaps it will be better than this.
DBH's book is amazing, and blather like this only reinforces his brilliance. My advice to people is to carefully study the book, grasp its arguments, and then refute the actual arguments in the book, if you can, and not rely on this distortion of his arguments. Hart's vision is simply breathtaking! To grasp what he is saying is to realize that God is love, and we will all ultimately experience and emulate that love, having been transformed into His very image and likeness. It will be an arduous and painful process for most, but the ending is certain.
So Jesus was wrong, eh?
I really sympathize with your comments on the frequently ungracious style that has characterized much of Hart's work. However, with regard to his tone on this issue, I think that your criticisms misunderstand what Hart is intending to convey.
When he speaks of "moral imbecility" and insists upon the incompatibility of eternal punishment and divine love, these are not arguments based upon moral intuition or what seems to be true to him. They are based on a moral knowledge that is more certain than any premises that might serve to undermine our belief in these moral truths.
Hart's attitude towards his opponents is direct and impatient, but this is not because he simply assumes that he is right and they are wrong, it is because their claims are such that it is rational to reject them on the basis of the fact that divine love is incompatible with their proposals.
This may appear uncharitable or arrogant, but it simply reflects the fact that there are some cases of disagreement that cannot be addressed by appeal to mutually shared assumptions. Like those who deny moral truth, the reality of conscious experience, and knowledge of the external world, critics of Universalism can be rationally dismissed on the basis of Hart's claims even if those critics themselves do not find Hart's position the least bit persuasive.
A world with eternal torment is a world where love fails. It is refreshing to see someone give such an unapologetic defense of love, despite those who would seek to deny the breadth of its reach.
Hart’s theological arguments end up being grounded in the original greek use of words, although he doesn’t really delve into that perspective. His ethics in argumentation become lacking. He’s both correct, and arrogant. If he were more patient then perhaps he could convince some agnostics or some christians, or otherwise refrain from relaying truth without love.
Hart is bitter and cruel while trying to claim that a loving God wouldn't send anyone to hell for eternity. Hart is bitter and on the verge of apostasy.
Solid review. Sounds like a very poorly reasoned and scripturally unmerited book. You should do a review of David Bentley Hart's "That all Shall be Saved."
Seriously though try and answer his argument on personhood, or creatio ex nihilo, or his exegesis of Romans 9-11. I'm pleading with you TRY. Try explaining 1 Timothy 2 as a Calvinist without resorting to some ad hoc bifurcation of God's will. Try answering the parallelism of Romans 5:18 without butchering it as half meaningful and half hyperbole and then dismissing it. Or the unbelievable expansive eschatological vision of 1 Corinthians 15's "All in all." Or explain how Collossians' reconciliation of all things somehow doesn't include most all of humanity--the flower and centerpiece of creation. These "Very unique readings of scripture" regarding things like the atonement are accepted by most all of eastern orthodoxy--a massive and ancient wing of the church. So who is being dismissive here?
Try and address his argument on free will. Please. This is the most engaging part to me because I think he's absolutely correct that the mechanical philosophy turned our understanding of free will into the naked right to choose (or mere "sovereignty" perhaps in calvinist terms") rather than the more bibilical notion of the truth itself setting you free, i.e. the more free you become the better choices that person makes. His argument is virtually unassailable but you let your personal offense get in the way. If your'e more mature than Hart's ad hominems then be more mature than them for pity's sake. Btw, calling his personal experience the main driver behind his philosophy on the book is absolutely juvenile. Perhaps the the same could be said of a Calvinist raised on Piper and Spurgeon and honestly believing church history started in the 14th century because that's what he was raised in. Wouldn't that be influenced by personal experience? Who isn't?
Amazing. You win TH-cam today, in my books.
@@youngpilgrim5 lol. forgot about this.
@@kevinreddington4251 do you mind sharing some of the thinkers you're reading/listening to? Or channels, podcasts, etc.? I've recently embraced total redemption after too many years of assuming ECT as a brute fact of the faith. It's incredible, pulls together the whole biblical vision. I'm into Hart, Brad Jersak, Robin Parry, and a few others. I'm in the process of working on a degree in theology. Thanks!
@@youngpilgrim5 sure. George MacDonald's unspoken sermons, dbh obviously, the new testament, St Gregory of Nyssa, Athanasius. The guys you mentioned are good too, albeit a little pop theology-ish.
I don't have dogmatic views on the subject as of now. I just really dislike it when people take the most beautiful universalistic verses in the new testament and try to blot them out. It's foolish. But I encourage you to think long and hard about origens warning before you start preaching dogmatically about it.
God be with you.
@@kevinreddington4251 thanks for the reply, sir! I'm nearing the end of dbh's NT right now. Quick FYI on Jersak: he does write pop level stuff (e.g. his two "a more Christlike... " books), but the guy has two theo majors and a PhD, with one of those degrees being in patristics!
RE: Origin's warning. I do think it would be unwise to overrepresent total redemption in every sermon, conversation, etc.. However, I want to be cautious, too, of burying it like a secret that the plebs are too undisciplined to hear (E.g. Chrysostom's approach), or to avoid rocking the boat. Considering how many lives have been terrorized by the fear of hell, how many faiths shipwrecked, how many inquirers repelled in moral disgust... I think to a reasonable extent it is incumbent to investigate this issue, and if one is convinced and their conscience is moved, to then participate in whatever way that looks for us. For me, it likely means a jeopardizing of future ministry opportunities in the only denomination I've ever belonged to, and to all/most evangelical churches. I am studying theology and counselling, and the infernalist God really has brought deep harm to many lives. I am still processing the implications of all this for my vocational possibilities.
Thanks again!
You say that David Bentley Hart's main problem is that his argument is really an emotional one. I think you are right in that his argument is mainly emotional for our moral sense is emotional, “emotional” referring to the movement of the soul. But how is that a problem? Selfless love is an emotion, our response to beauty is an emotion, meeting Christ is a very emotional experience. I fear one must be very misguided to think that in theological insight emotion is an obstacle. Rather theological insight is at bottom and by nature emotional. How could it be otherwise? God is beyond mechanistic understanding.
But it seems you believe that the better way to see the truth is by using scripture - you write: “What really I think this all comes down to is the scriptural evidence.” And here I think lies the deception, for by itself scripture is only a text. The true power of scripture arises from our sense of the divine, from our ethical and aesthetic reaction to reading the text, from the way our soul recognizes the voice of her maker, and after that from prayer and meeting Christ in spirit and re-reading scripture under His light. And thus from emotion. The fact that the protestant denominations interpret the same Bible in so many different ways proves that believing one is only following the text alone is a chimera.
Of course there are many spirits of deception, and one can always be wrong. But Christ Himself explains how one is to distinguish truth from error, namely by its fruit: Whatever belief moves one to follow Christ by loving like He did comes from the truth. Conversely any belief that is an obstacle to one’s repenting and becoming similar to Christ comes from deception. In this context the idea that Christ will abandon even one of His creatures to eternal perdition makes it more difficult to love God with all one’s heart, and thus is a false belief.
This says it all. Thanks Dianelos.
By that logic Mormonism and jehovah witness and Arians are right because they use the same argument.
Scripture is supreme, we interpret it by reason and with tradition as a tool but not a method.
We don't base our understanding of scripture by how it makes us feel. I'm not saying that reflecting on the emotions gained from scripture is wrong, but that it can't be our theological base.
@@JP-rf8rr I am not quite sure what you mean by "theological base", but in any case I certainly did not claim that theology should be based on emotion alone - see the last paragraph of my comment.
@@DianelosGeorgoudis
What I meant is that our foundation can't be intention or emotion. It should be scripture and then reason.
@@DianelosGeorgoudis
And I think you misunderstand if you think Christ is abandoning them if hell is forever.
There are people who say that they'd rather live in hell than be with christ. Is Christ supposed to take them by force? Is he supposed to undermine their free will and make them choose to be with God?
Like CS Lewis said, the "doors to hell are locked from the inside" hell or sheol was always known in its purists sense as being cut off from God. The thing is that we choose this when we reject God's redemption and put other things or ourselves as lord. God simply respects our request and we suffer from not being in connection to the source of piety and love.
Emotional appeals are certainly not legitimate are they? We should rather follow the example Johnathon Edwards in his famous infernalist crime against humanity known as “Sinners in the hands of an angry God”.
Did you note that emotional word in the title? It would seem the strongest argument that has ever held up to substantiate Eternal Punishment is in fact that God is....angry. Um, that’s an emotion isn’t it? And Oh how theologians relish that emotion in God. But is love an emotion? When God so loved the world that He sent Christ or when while we were yet sinners God demonstrated His love in Christs death, Love is in no way a mere emotion. How you can reduce this book to an emotional appeal is actually quite dishonest. The fact is many in religion check their brain at the door, but you seem to request that we all check our heart at the door. Perhaps Hart operated from a position involving the whole person and that is unfamiliar to you. I see the Christ as a man who sympathized with us, wept for us and sweat great drops of blood for us. If emotion is such a disqualifying element of an argument, then why did God create us in His own image...with emotions? Can you say “Jesus wept” was a weak moment in the gospel? This review is really more of a dismissal than anything. As far as the complaint that Hart doesn’t go in depth enough...you know as well as anybody he could bury you in pages of that business if he so chose to. But your refusal to even quote from the book but rather characterize it inferring “trust me”, you are calling the kettle black.
Read the book everybody. This guy is a sore Calvinist and Calvinism takes a thrashing in the book.
Mark Deckard Excellent riposte!
Very well said.
What about Hart's engagement with Biblical and Patristic texts in support of his arguments? I see Dr. Cooper addressing this in a fairly limited way. What about the philosophical arguments that are ignored by Dr. Cooper? I think they are important to the overall case.
I've read the book 3 times, and while it addresses affect, I do not find the heavy emphasis on affective reasoning that Dr. Cooper does.
But if we are to talk about feelings, what does Dr. Cooper feel about the fact that those he loves (and those he should love) will be eternally and consciously tormented in Hell? Does he truly feel at peace about this, an authentic Christian peace? Will he be at peace in Heaven knowing family members, friends, and fellow parishioners are experiencing extreme and endless suffering? Will he (a sinner deserving Hell) herald this as just?
If he doesn't care, what does this say about him and his faith. Motivated by his own beliefs, and through his action, he can help save others but not all -- only a very few. In so many ways, we are limited in the essential project of evangelism.
How many are damned to Hell? And are his (or our) beliefs and actions sufficient, even appropriate. Can we know for sure? Is it, then, reasonable to live in torment in this life and in the next, knowing how many of God's children are facing unrelenting brutality, not only of the body, but of the soul? How far away can we cast hope for human souls (in a definitive, permanent way)? Do we even have that right?
Scripture says Our Blessed Lord desires, "that all shall be saved." What about those who insist on an eternal hell of punishment, do they hold the same desire, in a God-like way?
What do it mean to live and pray in hope, as a Christian? How broad can this be? I hope that "all shall be saved: and "all that things will be made new" and I'm confident that God does not want, and will not accomplish, anything inferior to that. He is infinitely more loving and resourceful than me.
Yet for most of history this would make me a heretic. If you're reading this and you think I am, please help me out and explain why (preferably addressing the book). :)
I call into question your rather harsh critique of David's work. Reducing it down to an emotional diatribe is academically trite and unworthy of your fine skills as a theologian. It's very obvious why you would do such a thing coming from your Lutheran doctrinal background. But let's get right to the point, shall we? - Hart and other like-minded philosophers have pierced right through to the core of Reformed Soteriology and exposed one of its main weaknesses; 'Limited Atonement'. Rather than simply clustering and cross-referencing proof texts to formulate a hermeneutic that suits one’s presuppositions, one should rather look closely at the nuance and cumulative spirit of the text and understand the eternal and self-sacrificial love of The Referent. I think that experientially as a ‘Man’, you know better as well. You are a Father, yes? And like me, no matter how contentious, irrational and maddening my Son’s behavior or beliefs become, I’m never going to give him up, cash him out or wish him away Eternally. I simply cannot do that - it would be a heartless incoherent act of self-nihilism and even self-hate. Now, as an imperfect human Father, I ask you, How could the Father of the entire Universe, the Creator and sustainer of everything conceivable and the source of all Being, either punish eternally in torment or fade out of existence, one of his own children designed from the foundation of the world to share in the joy of his own existence and creation? The limits of our ignorance is surely not greater than his eternal everlasting Love! Universal Reconciliation is about The Restoration of All Things; ‘The Apocatastasis’, it’s not about ubiquitous unreserved salvation, pushing the exponential limits of Sin and or sidestepping repentance through faith. The Parable of the Prodigal Son so beautifully illustrates for us, the true nature of the Father who rejoices when his son returns after hitting absolute rock-bottom. He allows for his son to exercise his ‘free will’ but at the same time, the table is always set for his return with his place secure! It’s almost as if Jordan the whole Reformed Theology is aesthetically and systematically analogued in the jealousy of the older brother in the parable, who believes he’s done everything right, has had perfect faith & works, done everything his father has asked of him do, but yet cannot bring himself to forgive his own brother and welcome him home with open arms. What is this? If one’s conception of God is that he is a selective arbiter of Grace and a retributive eternal punisher of those non-elect, then the whole of the Crucifixion is a nonsensical event. “Father forgive them for they know not what they do” was not directed at a cherry-picked group of individuals or would be Followers, Post-Resurrection, but all those who witnessed firsthand and, in the ages, to come. If you really feel Hart is in error, could please demonstrate assiduously the contextual use of ‘Aion’ and ‘Aionios’ in the original Greek and why you feel they are best interpreted and defined as ‘Everlasting’, rather than ‘Age Enduring’.
I think he's critique of infernalism is spot on, moral imbecility sums it up beautifully. His arguments, if they came from a non emotional standpoint I felt were irrefutable.
I've read the book and I emotionally responded to your your refutation by finding it specious and disengenious.
Thank you for a very lucid summary of Hart’s arguments, dr. Cooper. I have myself formerly been a universalist, but moved away from this position after having considered the scriptural evidence for the possibility of damnation.
However, I am also eager to read more on the issue, so that I don’t simply point to my own understanding or the general argument of “well, most people say that...”. If you were to point to a work that deals with this issue well, which would you recommend?
"The Fire that Consumes" by Edward Fudge is great.
Read this book by Hart. It is only 170 pages. It is not what this man says it is.
What is your scriptural evidence?
The original Greek text of the Bible provides little to no evidence for ECT. you only find scriptural "evidence" for ECT in inaccurate translatioms of the original Bible text.
Here's what I dont understand. There are many other words in the origional Greek classical language that mean "eternal" and are more exact and diffenitive than the word "aion". In Harts words, aion at minimum brings up many ambiguities (questions and debates of it's meaning) when they didn't need to use it! As I previously noted, there were multiple other words that were more definite in the use of the word eternal.....and it wasn't used.
Thats worth questioning.
Let me say that Hart's logic is actually quite strong, and it is Hart's logic that you fail to address in your critique. You want him to deal more with the history of Biblical exegesis and discuss Aquinas and Calvin in greater depth in order for you to take his book more seriously; but with all due respect, you cannot dismiss Hart's book without addressing the logic of his universalist position. That is something you have not done here. Also, his argument does not rely on having gotten Calvin or Aquinas right. I don't know enough about either to say whether he has or not. Even if he had misrepresented both the essentials of his own case would still stand.
You and I have a fundamental disagreement on epistemology here. For you, if I am not mistaken, if the Bible upholds infernalism, that is the end of the matter. For myself (and Hart, if I understand him correctly, and I'm pretty sure I do) if the Bible upholds infernalism, the Bible is making an irrational and morally offensive claim, and is therefor in the wrong in this issue.
Hart would never allow “the Bible” upholds a teaching of everlasting punishment in hell. On the contrary, he makes a very strong case the Bible & St. Paul are teaching the restoration of all things. “The Bible” is never absent its interpreters. IOWs, it is a fiction we can read the Bible “alone”-we always bring a lens.
No one disputes that God punishes sin, what's called into question is the notion that 100 trillion years of torment isn't nearly long enough for the crime of being born in North America prior to the 16th century, or in a North Korean multi-generational concentration camp. Or that the majority of holocaust victims receive the same fate at those who perpetrated it.
I'm Orthodox myself, and I have to say, in this and your other video about Hart and marcionism, you nailed Hart. He puts his intellect and moral intuition over and against everything else. I'm not sure you can square such a high opinion of one's own moral instincts over and against scripture and tradition, with any sort of small o orthodox, small c catholic, Christianity.
While Hart is indeed Orthodox, he's also a Barthian. That part of his influence is for some reason being phased out of his biography. So his reading of Karl Barth and neo-orthodoxy is clear when it comes to universalism and his disregard for the Holy Scripture, placing personal experience above the Word.
Jordan - you should consider giving a critique of Brian Zahnd's 2024 book, "The Wood Between the Worlds." Amazingly, though Zahnd advocates for a rejection of Penal Substitutionary Atonement and is a universalist, I have found zero substantial critique of this work, which is published by IVP. Would love to hear your thoughts.
Anyone who believes in an eternal hell, cannot in good conscience bring a child into the world without being considered a monster of demonic proportions.
Does Hart really have to prove that the rejection of Originism isn't tied to universalism when the rejection of Originism itself makes no claim that this was the doctrine that it took onus with?
I made some videos on it but originally apocatastasis is taught by apostle Paul and Peter. Origen got blamed for the strange beliefs of his believers.
Even if Hart’s argument is purely “emotional” which, I must say, seems to fall short given the fact that he makes pretty robust arguments all throughout the book. I myself, cannot see how one cannot only believe-but square an eternal hell morally upon one’s mind. How can it remotely be the case that the epitome of moral goodness and perfection, imbued with an everlasting love for us, can leave rational creation to suffer forever in hell? Maybe it’s deemed “emotional," because there is no cogent defense of such a conviction.
Christ's own words are the cogent defense. Hart's book is full of ad hominem and he ultimately asserts that only universalists are true Christians. Hart is a bitter man on the verge of apostasy.
Despite whatever emotion or lack thereof in DBH’s arguments, the real truth is that they are also completely cogent. If the ’emotion’ disturbs you then ignore it and interact with the arguments then.
It seems to me Hart was far more concerned, and centered on, the rhetorical force found in his moral argument against hell, which I think you correctly picked up on. I was disappointed myself because I was expecting more of an exegetical approach dealing with each passage he laid out found within Paul. I have some sympathy with some of his arguments, especially the first meditation.
The book was packed with logical arguments. Literally packed. Critics seem to be distracted with the force of his affective appeal because, when restating infernalism in non-technical, real world terms without euphemisms, it suddenly sounds as blasphemous and medieval as it truly is.
If people want a nice, calm, discussion of eternal conscious torment in abstract formulations, free from any pastoral concerns, it is because they have forgotten, for example, the countless thousands of grieving mothers living in life-long grief because they were told-according to the explicit teachings of Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and their ilk-that her miscarried child was now in perpetual anguish in hell as God's eternal enemy because they died unbaptized (all of which He either foreordained, or foreknew and permitted). It is vulgar, it is heartless, it is anti biblical, and it is anti Christ. Eternal conscious torment is a vulgar offense against the God perfectly, fully, and finally revealed in Jesus of Nazareth. Its consequences have been vast, deep, and destructive. The biblical case against ECT is comprehensive. No more kid gloves.
"Let no one promise infants who have not been baptized a sort of middle place of happiness between damnation and Heaven, for this is what the Pelagian heresy promised them"
The Soul and Its Origin, Patrologiae Latinae, Migne, 44:475, Augustine
"Although we must recollect that God would never have suffered any infants to be destroyed, except those which He had already reprobated and condemned to eternal death."
Harmony of the Law Volume 2, John Calvin
@@youngpilgrim5 Really appreciate your comments here.
Hart’s unapologetic scathing rhetoric is a result of a valid viewpoint being vilified beyond warrant for centuries. The time for the larger body of Christ to tolerate a humble and private universalism was (probably) two decades ago (a La “the Shack,” or Rob Bell’s speculations), but it was repeatedly spat on and ‘cancelled’ until recent scholarship challenged bigoted doctrines with exhaustive logical arguments and retaliatory contempt.
There’s an order to things. You can’t start with the Bible. The Bible is dependent on man, hummanity’s struggle with God over time, and most importantly, logos. In the beginning was the logos. It’s best to start with logic and then let the Bible unfold from there.
I bought his book but I havent read it yet.
0:57 You think he's best when dealing with philosophy and not theology?
I see a grave problem with separating the two. Philosophy is simply the presuppositions we bring into any form of reasoning, be it logical, scientific or theological. Hart is pointing out the philosophical contradictions brought to the table by most theology. For example, when theologians say "love" they must not mean "hate". That is a philosophical presupposition that we must agree to if we are to have any meaningful conversation at all. Hart points out, and rightfully so, how most theologians have rendered all theological language equivocal by claiming that God is "love" while simultaneously claiming a God who's actions could only be done by a God that is objectively "hate".
He also points out that the Christian's supposed view of what a final salvation looks like is essentially anti-Christ. Christ teaches us to visit the sick, feed the hunger, clothe the poor, love our enemies as ourselves and to bless them. Yet our eternal destiny is to live in our own personal bliss, while being indifferent to the suffering of those that weren't quite as good as us to have made it where we are? They have effectively turned the ethos of heaven into the very ethos of hell. Every soul for itself.
I mean, call that emotional all you want I suppose.
Can you make a “5 reasons why I’m not Eastern Orthodox” video?
This sounds like you were correct, that Hart was not writing to scholars but as a popular book. So many of your comments are about a book he was not intending to create at this time. I look forward to your in depth writing about all you mention that layman and scholar will be happy to read.
What's up with all the commercials? My moral intuition hearkens me back to episodes of American Band Stand hosted by the venerable Dick Clark.
Love the video Dr Cooper! I would be interested to get your opinion on some of jay dyer's material, his theological stuff at least. I sometimes get the same intellectual arrogance vibe from him that dbh has. Sometimes it seems to me like he uses unnecessarily complex jargon that makes it difficult to tell what he is actually saying. Love your channel
+Luke Crossman -- *_"I sometimes get the same intellectual arrogance vibe from [Jay Dyer]..."_* Join the crowd. I say that as one who has barely "touched" any of his stuff (a bit more familiar with him when he has appeared on *Red Ice TV* and one or two other outlets in a debate manner) but have a feeling he most probably up and screws the pooch when he wraps his tongue around Protestantism in general and certain Protestant traditions in particular.
I can't believe I have not done so despite downloading his 3+ hour video back in August of this year attempting to disentangle and critique the anti-Trinitarian views spelled out across several videos by a TH-camr named *RockingMrE* who I also critiqued, criticized, etc. within a handful of his videos from last year. The one thing I can say in favor of *RockingMrE* is that Jay Dyer most probably wasted his time seeing the length of his video (I am pretty sure it could have been done in half the time!).
NOTE: On a whim I just glanced at it momentarily a minute ago and the portion I just happened to hear had Mr. Dyer spout off nonsense about Protestantism. What else is new under the sun with the Orthodox!?!? **
Apparently, God created David Hart to complete His understanding of love! Thus- we are all indebted to Hart for making God worthy of our love. Really, God was quite lucky that Hart came from Him.
'Tis the "Fortuity of Aseity"
God has a Hart-shaped hole in His heart 💟.
I read the book, and I have to admit that all of your reservations occurred to me while reading it, especially the exegetical ones. I am not a scholar, so, I always wonder. I'll look for N. T. Wright on this. I have Hart's take on the moral/philosophical/intuitive issues tho, as much as I'd like the NT to line up behind them, it remains an open question for me.
We don't have any details on the rejections of Originism, or even what the 5th century church meant by that rejection. How can you criticize Hart for not being a time traveling mind reader?
While I agree with Dr. Cooper on this one, it is worth mentioning that Hart's book is an essay-as in the European "essai"-and not an exhaustive text. So the lack of thorough argumentation is to be expected. But.. that said, it is even more odd for the sycophantic universalists in the comments to cling to it so dearly given that, again, (and as Hart admits) is not a rigorous, systematic opus.
I'm pretty disappointed with this review. You don't address the logic of the arguments in his meditations at all. 20 minutes of complaining Hart hurt your feelings. I don't like Hart's personality, I don't like his politics, but I read him for his arguments. If you think he is wrong show his arguments are not sound.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
📘 The *video is a run-through of Jordan Cooper's thoughts on David Bentley Hart's new book, "That All Shall Be Saved". *
📖 The *book, according to Cooper, is not a formal philosophical or theological argument, but more a collection of Hart's personal reflections and objections against the idea of an eternal hell. *
👨🏫 Hart *is considered by Cooper more convincing when dealing with philosophy than theology, and his strength lies in his critique of materialism and dualism.*
😫 The *main driving force in Hart's book is his emotional struggle with the concept of eternal damnation, which doesn't align with his understanding of God's love and goodness.*
📜 Hart *discusses scriptural evidence in support of universal salvation, without providing a thorough or detailed analysis, according to Cooper.*
🔍 Hart's *reading of scripture is influenced by his predetermined conclusion about universal salvation, leading to what Cooper claims as less than an honest interpretation.*
⛪ Hart's *arguments showing lack of understanding of Protestantism and Calvinism, while his dismissive tone and intellectual arrogance make the book less inviting for differing opinions.*
🤔 Overall, *Cooper found the book lacking in depth and breadth in its argument for universal salvation, influenced more by Hart's personal objections and moral struggles than a detailed study of scripture.*
Made with HARPA AI
In another era you might be leading his inquisition. Quite simply Hart is letting his innate human morality and decency clash openly with the the obvious problems with morality as espoused in the tradition
6:00 "moral intuition", "emotional argument"... that's conscience and it shouldn't be ignored.
That's absurd. He is a theologian first and not a philosopher. NT Wright does not even come CLOSE to this mans genius and expertise in the field of theology. He's translated the NT from the original Greek and is deeply versed in the early Church Fathers and the early church. Evanagelicals and evangelical converts who bring their baggage when they convert to Orthodoxy, always dislike DB Hart because (as he says about the Pope) he has the sheer audacity to behave like a Christian. It think the true reason you cannot see his VAST superiority to Wright is - ironically enough - your own emotional attachment to denominational church dogma.
Although I essentially think DBH's universalism is correct , especially after reading his controversial treatise , I nonetheless respect your sincerity and charitably expressed rejection of his arguments . I would really appreciate a more comprehensive justification for your own contrary view on universalism , the gist of which perhaps could involve exegesis and logical criteria . Many thanks .
After watching your video, I am left wondering if we really did the same book. TASBS spends a great deal of time analyzing the text and refuting the infernalist position. His emotional tone is present, but nowhere near as stridently as you claim. His remarks about Calvinism are quite accurate, since Calvin's God is indeed a monster. Ditto for his comments about Protestantism,.
More to the point, you did not engage with his actual arguments. Instead you fell back on the bandwagon argument:, backed by insults and, of course, moving the goalposts. I can only conclude that you are either jealous or are threatened by the universalist position. In any event, I wish you well.
I think you missed Hart's point regarding emotion. As he mentioned, St Augustine acknowledged a large number of universal reconciliationists in his day and did not accuse them of heresy, as ignoranus orthodox Christians do today. Rather, St Augustine implied their issue was soft heartedness, as if that were a bad thing. Based on that idea, Hart is suggesting that the only reason many orthodox Christians don't give the idea of eternal torment vs universal reconciliation much exegetical, theological, and historical attention is because they refuse to think through what they profess due to largely unconscious and erroneous fears around downplaying Divine judgement and recognizing that many revered saints have perpetuated a horrific and contradictory doctrine of God. Which continues to result in confessional toxicity whether considering evangelism, spirituality, or moral reasoning, etc, as well as any topic related to the Divine character. Therefore, a genuine emotional response to the notion of eternal torment is often needed to counteract such unwarranted fears so that objective thought can begin to take place. And, of course, Martin Luther's theological emphases leading to much needed reforms were themselves largely inspired by emotion.
Scripture -> Annihilationism; Tradition -> ECT; Philosophy -> Universalism
Our concept of love may not be exactly the same as God's but it can't be completely antithetical or else we might as well all pack up and go home. It has to be at its highest level to a large extent analogous or to put it simply, we cannot be made in God's image. I think DBH's book is convincing. I really like Robin Parry's work on this issue too. If you can't be appalled about the concept if never ending torment, then what would ever appall you?
All the arguments regarding faith are essentially emotional. Its not science!!
Thats why im an atheist.
I find Dr Hart to be far more rational than most other Christians. Dr Hart is a breath of fresh air.
What books by David Bentley Hart would you recommend?
The Experience of God is a great read.
Interesting....I work at an ELCA church where the pastor mentions some orthodox Christians who believe that all will ultimately be saved.....I think that's where the pastor where I work gets his ideas about universalism....there and Rob Bell's church
Lol. There are much more universalists in the orthodox tradition than Hart.
Rob Bell does not have a church any longer (It's been years since he pastored a church).
What I don't understand hell is not in the Bible. There sheol, Hades and another Greek mythology reference and Gehenna which is actual place outside of Jerusalem. Wasn't the concept of hell created by Catholics in the middle ages?
Arent experiential and emotional arguments just as valid as the Bible. God can talk to us in many ways. He’s teaching me about himself not from the bible but through experience. It’s far more profound than any bible study I’ve ever done, or sermon I’ve ever listened to.
Thanks. God's peace
Thanks for this review. You seem knowledgable and have helped me make the decision to not waste my money on this book. I need evidence with these.topics ! That's all I'm looking for.
I had a bit of a random question I was hoping you could answer. I’m an independent baptist, and I stumbled upon your channel doing research on the church fathers. I really enjoy your content even on things we may disagree on. I was curious how the sacramental Lutherans view the salvific nature of non-sacramental baptism. I.e. If one gets baptized upon profession of faith in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the blessed Holy Spirit , but does not view baptism as sacramental, from your perspective is that person regenerate or unregenerate?
As long as it includes water and the Triune name, it is a valid Baptism.
Who cares if it is “biblical” all that matters is whether the Church teaches it or not. They gave us scripture.
have you read The Inescapable Love of God
Dissapointing video. I don't think you've really interacting with anything. You just ranting in a passive aggressive tone.
For me Hart is right in attacking ECT but wrong in embracing universalism as the correct view.
What else is there?
We seem to live in an age in which people want to create a god in their own image and imbue him (or it) with their personal concepts of love and morality that generally contradict those of Scripture, Jesus, and the consensus of Christians of all ages, and think they have made an argument that should be taken seriously. Thanks, but I'll take Jesus, the Apostles, and what has been believed always, everywhere, and by all.
Eternal hell has not been believed always everywhere and all, maybe try reading the book
You have to think as love does. God is love, love is the ONLY good. Love doesn't think like logic and logic doesn't think like love. Love will always want the authentic creation to be realized, as it is an expression of God's heart, spoken into existence. How is eternal punishment with no reconciliation ever found in love? It isn't. What healthy parent would be blissful if their child was eternally separated from them?
If Hart is incorrect then our understanding of love,justice and mercy have no meaning
Much of Hart's "ungracious" attitude comes from the fact that he is arguing against infernalism, an absolutely barmy idea believed by so many otherwise good and intelligent people for centuries. Under the circumstances, I don't think he is so ungracious. Nor is he excessively emotional by any means. If people are offended by "That All Shall be Saved" I think the primary reason is that Hart has a very strong argument against hell, and there are many who cling to hell quite fiercely, even desperately, for some reason. Of course their feelings are likely to be hurt if they begin to think they are wrong.
Also, you seem to equate moral objections with emotional objections. The two are by no means inherently identical. If Hart finds a God who tortures people forever to be morally objectionable, is Hart therefor being emotional as opposed to objective? What would the objective response to an eternal torturer be?
Also, you seem to require that Hart go more into scripture and church history, etc. Well, I'm sure there would be value in that. But Hart's focus is on philosophical argument, not scripture. As he says, if I recall correctly, he is prepared to disagree with scripture if it speaks nonsense. No, it is not necessary for Hart to look at every bit of eschatology in the Bible and prove his case accordingly. I don't think he would fail to see the value in that, but again, it is beyond the purview of the book.
And no, Hart does not have to show how all the infernalists got their biblical exegesis wrong. Again, that would be great. But if his argument on a philosophical level is sound (and it is) that draws Biblical reliability into question, if indeed the Bible preaches infernalism.
His whole argument with infernalism would've disappeared if he'd been properly catechized when he became EO. Or rather, if he'd converted for more than just the smells and bells so to speak.
Great thoughts. While I thoroughly enjoyed the book, Hart was emotional and gave the appearance of threatening his critics with being labeled stupid. For scholars, his lack of reviewing counterpoints and previous writers is a problem. For the rest of us, it was entertaining and offered an imposing list of verses which none of his detractors have dealt with, leaving plebeians like myself the impression that his list of scriptures cannot be argued against.
You seem to have fallen into your own criticism of DBH, however, in that you dismissed his list of scriptures without dealing with those scriptures. DBH dismissed detractors without dealing with them. You and apparently all his detractors have not dealt with his list of scriptures. Most failed to even mention his list, so at least you did that while only counter-arguing that his understanding is a minority view. A Lutheran surely appreciates to value of a heroic minority, in light of Luther himself..
After watching this video, I do agree with you and will continue to be a universalist. But I still have so much to learn. Hell is one of the most misinterpreted and misunderstood ideas in biblical history. In a way, a "place" or reality of torment does exist but not for eternity. Neither the Greek nor the Hebrew (or Aramaic for that matter) prove an eternal state of torment and punishment after earthly death. Yes, Hart is arrogant but he is also extremely knowledgeable. I'm praying for his humility and holiness in all matters of study and life. God bless.
I'd suggest looking into the actual Eastern Orthodox views on the afterlife (not Origen/DBH's). Universal reuniting with God does happen (by EO theology) BUT forcing that reuniting to be a joyful experience for everyone, including those that hate God is a violation of the free will that God gave us.
God can but death unto death and redeem all creation and mankind. He refuses to force us to love Him.
Evil is a defect of the good. Beings unreconciled to God is a defect; an evil. If you believe beings will be unreconciled for all eternity then you believe that God will never defeat evil and Satan wins. However Scripture does not say this. Scripture says Christ reconciles ALL THINGS. Christ is the Telos, as He says in Revelation. If you believe in eternal punishment, you dont believe Christ is the Telos. You believe Christ is one telos, and Hell is the other. You are essentially a Manichean, like Augustine, whom I believe never completely shed his Manicheism and is largely responsible for the dualistic telos eschatology we have today. This is not an emotional argument.
Tho I suppose I agree with your critique of Hart. He has the burden of proof and he shortcuts a lot of things and is just simply dismissive about a lot of things. And yes it seems he knows nothing of Calvin and even lies about him.
Right, as you well state, the New Testament does not teach what Hart espouses and so he could never do it well. Hart suggest that hell is only temporary? If that is the case, then Christ going to the cross and suffering there for the salvation from such hell bent fate of sinners, would only be temporary. No, it is an everlasting fix (redemption) from an everlasting consequence (downfall).
Again, if all will be saved regardless of faith being put in Christ, then Christ died in vain!
He say's, this notion of eternal hell does not sit well with him, yet how does Gods grace on repentive sinners sit any better? I mean, surly we have trouble thinking some one like Hitler could receive forgiveness and salvation by grace, through faith Ephesians 2:8,9. Then why does the same bible that speaks of the grace of God, speak also of the wrath of God? As this is why (according to scripture) "..God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." John 3:17. God has made provision for escape, yet we must take it "through faith", as "How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation" Hebrews 2:3.
Gods love is universal, as in "God so loved the world" John 3:16. It effects the whole world, as in "he is the propitiation (payment for) for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world". 1 John 2:2, yet the word is clear, make a choice, you cannot have it both ways, as his philosophy of more like; "Having your cake and eating it too". Impossible. "The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up. From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew 4:16,17.
That may all be true...the key word though is eternal, or aionos. He doesn't neccessarily beleive there is not a correction. He beleives its just not eternal. Is it possible Christ died for THAT?
@@djm.326 No dj M, it is an everlasting fix (redemption through Jesus) from an everlasting consequence (downfall of Adam), as the life that the righteous enjoy is parallel to the punishment the wicked suffer. Basically, Hell lasts as long as heaven.
For example, Daniel speaks of those who will awake from death: “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2). This idea is carried through into the New Testament by Jesus in Matthew 25 (which many think is, by itself, decisive on the matter) when he teaches the parallel fates of the righteous and the unrighteous: “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matthew 25:46). Thanks, and Happy New Year!
I also bought Luther's book on Bondage of the will
It looks like you struck a nerve by criticizing Hart. I found his book to be 200 pages of conjecture, self defeating logic, and pure rancor. I think Hart is on the verge of apostasy.
Thanks for the review of a very important book. I think, however, that your review fails to fully grasp the force of Hart's argument, and circumscribes it within a too-reductive dismissal as "emotional." Viewers interested in another opinion to fairly balance this one out should see this review with a couple very devoted pastors: th-cam.com/video/6o2w3oHMM_k/w-d-xo.html
While it is true that Hart at times employs impassioned, forceful, and vehement rhetoric against the notion of eternal conscious torment and the character of a God who would initiate a creation bound for such a destiny, it is an egregious disservice to the depth of his thought here to characterize his primary argument as "emotional." The argument that you call "emotional" is in fact a carefully reasoned argument from moral philosophy, and the meaning of the language we use when we call God "good." Moral reasoning is an essential dimension of our humanity created in the image of God, that is, in the image of the Logos Jesus Christ, who is the word, reason, and logic of God's being and love made manifest in the flesh. And surely no respectable theologian of any stroke would deny this.
We are called to exercise a well-formed conscience and discern between justice and injustice, morally right and wrong acts on a daily basis. There is no reason to suddenly turn this switch off when examining the character of God. If God is indeed good, his goodness must correlate with something of the same goodness and justice that we understand on the human plane. It can't totally contradict what we understand of goodness and justice-- as Jesus points out, even the wicked don't give their son a snake when he asks for bread. Jesus can point to our human intuitions for justice and goodness to illustrate something about our heavenly father. And what father would not be a monster who punished his children for any reason other than their correction and improvement? We cannot teach a behavior of God that we would find reprehensible and morally damnable in human behavior. And eternal conscious torment, vindictive punishment without end, with no hope of moral reform or improvement of character and no purpose but to cause pain, day after day for trillions of trillions of years is precisely such a morally repugnant absurdity as to be completely abhorrent to human reason and everything we know about what is good and just.
Hart makes this and other arguments far more eloquently and with a depth of reasoning that greatly exceeds anything you present in your video. As far as I can tell, his logic is completely unassailable, and the only defense against his case is proof texts from scripture interpreted through a pre-committed dogmatic lens that simply accepts as a dogmatic given that eternal hell must be the case.
Alas, this is probably one of the biggest reasons people become atheists and hate the church: because frankly, in a universe where eternal hell exists, God is a monster, and Satan is the real moral hero to defy him.
So Christ was a liar because his words upset you? Apostasy.
Need quick takes on these topic at DebateMeNow.com 3 minute debates muted opponent.
So good. Thanks 😅
Was hoping you’d talk about his book! Thanks for this!
YOU KNOW, A MAJORITY OF INTELLECTUALS DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD BUT, THEY BURY JUST SAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@Oners82 I STATED MY POINT!!!!!!! READ THE SENTENCE AGAIN, AGAIN, AND AGAIN!!!!!!! HOW AM I SPEWING NONSENSE??????? WHAT I STATED IS 100% CORRECT!!!!!!! I KNOW THE CAPS ARE LOCKED ON!!!!!!! THAT IS WHAT THEY CALL AFFECT AND EFFECT!!!!!!!?????? HAVE A GOOD DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well spoken review. Thanks for putting this out there
Yes
Thank you
We need Christian Dogmatics by Jordan Cooper.
Working on it.
@@DrJordanBCooper Just made my year! I'll be sure to pray for you as you undertake this task.
Great video pastor. Sounds like Rob Bell's Love Wins written by someone more intelligent.
Doesn’t this put Hart at odds with his own Orthodox denomination?
He claims that it does not, but it is hardly the predominant view within Eastern Orthodoxy.
Well - as you know - the "predominant view" will unerringly lead you to the Truth! :)
(e.g. see the Scribes and Pharisees as a cautionary tale)
It is certainly a genuinely received and acceptable view - otherwise the Orthodox would have to disavow one of their greatest of saints, Gregory of Nyssa!
@@MrHwaynefair
"For, as to the latter, on account of the depth of the ingrained evil, the chastisement in the way of purgation will be extended into infinity; but as for what has never existed, how can any torment touch it?” According to this, Judas and some similarly grievous sinners (devils and demons presumably included) will never be saved."-Gregory of nyssa
"the fire which man will experience in the next life will be different from the fire of the present life. The fire of this life is extinguished in various ways, whereas the fire of the next life remains unextinguished."-Gregory of Nyssa
It's not clear cut what Gregory believed.
But even then, just because a saint in wrong on a very specific issue doesn't mean he can't be a saint.
Clement believed in justification through faith alone, justin martyr believed justification by faith and works. These are contradictory positions yet both Catholic and orthodox churches hold these people as saints.
You (or who ever you’re quoting) has misrepresented/mistranslated Gregory. Please see Ilaria Ramelli’s “A Larger Hope”. “Justification by faith” is certainly true (insofar as it goes) - but we mustn’t continue to force our understanding of Paul into a 15th century language game. We understand so much more about 2nd temple Judaism than Luther or Calvin (or the Catholic Thomists) ever did- and therefore what Paul meant....
But what they failed most to see and acknowledge was the utterly unilateral nature of God’s salvation which is especially pronounced in Romans 5: “while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.... while we were enemies we were reconciled...” As Paul goes on to say there- Just as everyone has been profoundly influenced by Adam’s sin- so (“how much more”) will everyone be justified by the death of Christ: “Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. “
And- “Where sin abounded - Grace did MUCH MORE abound!”
@@MrHwaynefair
So you're claiming I misrepresented/mistranslated Gregory but don't provide the textual or contextual information needed to repair this misunderstanding. You just provide text from a book written by an author who already agrees with your position.
I already have several books I want to get but don't have the spending money.
If you have a philosophical argument or quotes from church fathers please just present them.
Agreed 100%
+Dr. Jordan B Cooper -- *TANGENT:* Another translation of the New Testament!? Great. Just what the world and Christendom needed. **
It would be interesting to see how Hart translates hell-related passages in his own translation.
HaecceitasQuidditas Like the Youngs Literal translation- Hart has the wisdom to leave ambiguous words like aionos- well, ambiguous! I.e. he does not translate it as simply “eternal” because the words most natural and indeterminate meaning is simply “age”.
Yeah, Hart's just primarily emotional. Thank God you're on the side of logic and scholarship.
I would've hoped Hart's loud, glaringly emotional rhetoric would actually help you in seeing past that crude distinction. This was disappointing.
Solid review, man!
It took you 30 mins to say nothing. You are weighed down by your own traditions and bias
1. Emotional appeal of God's Justice/Love
2. Appeal to the analogy of love between God/Man
3. Appeal to the "other"
4. Intellectual Arrogance
5. Poor historical argumentation via Scripture/Patristics/eccumemical condemnation of Origenism
6. Ignores Eternal Heaven Eon
7. Ignores Text on cosmic redemption
8. Amateur understanding of Atonement and Protestantism (Calvinism)
9. Hypothetical exegesis of Romans 9 is not historical
Here is what Dr. Cooper states about the book. Actually watch the video, he clearly put forth over 9 seperate objections.
Largely, I have no idea what you're talking about. There isn't enough detail for me to make a decision and at the same time enough for me to tune out. I've never heard of Hart before your video. I watch your videos to learn about Lutheranism. This video, to me, is another reason not to watch TH-cam. I wish you all blessings and peace. Unsubscribed.
He is allowed to make vids on prominent theological figures when asked.
isnt it an acceptable position to be dismissive to protestantism though? The arguments have been flushed out for 500 years now. Sola Scriptura is completely nonsensical.
can we get a "Farewell David Bentley Hart" tweet?
David Bentley Harts god is his own brain.
Sounds to me like he has a problem letting God be the potter.
Perhaps he's noticed that pots don't suffer, but people do...?
Kirk Hansen we are just clay in the end. From dust we are and to dust we shall return.
If the potter crafted you with the sole purpose of being raped and murdered, only to be thrown in hell hereafter - for his glory of course - would you be okay with that? I mean, they didn't accept Jesus so they deserve it, right? Because if Calvinism is true, there will be many who suffer such fates. Those who endure fates worse than crucifixion - those disfigured by acid, chemically castrated, driven mad by schizophrenia, sold into sex trafficking, etc. If "God" really wills all these things for personal glory, then he his far more wicked than the Romans who supposedly crucified Christ. By many fold. And if you are really kowtowing to a vicious, duplicitous, manipulative, calculating, machiavellian tyrant like that - well that is truly pathetic. Its sycophancy that eclipses even the most spineless bootlicking uncle tom in this world. It's the sort of mentality that let the nazis commit such atrocities. Just accept the Führer's will.
@@itisnow It has got to be the most morally depraved religion on earth today. Unless there is some cannibal cult I don't know about.
@@itisnow I know of the mental effects you speak of. I deconverted 3 years ago and I'm just now healed of all the ptsd-like symptoms. I still believe in God, but not Jesus or the Christian god in any way. Truth surge on youtube has a great series that exposes all the holes and flaws in the gospels. Highly recommended.