Great to see that Bishop Barron admires Hart's work. Though I must say, the whole affair between Hart and Wright, and then between Hart and Feser was rather disappointing.
Crysus Bu Dr. David Bentley Hart? I know he teaches, writes, does quite a bit of speaking, and I think he is leading something for some kind of institute at Notre Dame.
My opinion is that Hart was not well understood by Feser during the natural law debates; in fact they largely talked past each other. But Hart's harsh review of Feser and Bessett's book on the death penalty betrayed a surprisingly inattentive reading, and yes, it was disappointing. Still, it is Hart who is by far the more well-rounded - and it was Hart who made a Christian out of me; Feser could never have done so, though admittedly I'm speaking only for myself! Feser is brilliant, but he is a theologian whose philosophical appeal to me is purely _post revelatio;_ he baptizes Aristotle in the same way Thomas did. Keeping Thomas (and Aristotle) alive is no mean feat, and of vital importance! But Hart has built a completely different philosophical bridge toward theology. His deconstruction of postmodernism, and the logical and aesthetic shaking of its shoulders he provides, is breathtaking. All that is left of it is an arrow pointing to the divine.
He's a very insightful thinker. I just started getting into his work. Many of his ideas , I already shared without knowing. I also always had a problem with a loving God sending people to eternal torment. But from reading the Bible my belief was that some people are extinguished or the second death. The death of the soul. Basically ceasing to exist.
If all cease to exist, then how is this verse in scripture? - > "1 Timothy 4:10 "...the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, SPECIALLY of those that believe."
@@deusvult9372 I was only pointing out that Bentley is completely right about Universalism. "He is the Saviour of AL MEN, BUT SPECIALLY THOSE WHO BELIEVE". The non believing can be saved postmortem: 1 Peter 4:6 [6]"For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." This truth is shunned simply because this world belongs to satan. It's hidden because it's the simple truth. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who HOLD THE TRUTH in unrighteousness"Rom1:18
@@deusvult9372 I understand brother, but remember Paul. Even goats loose their freewill and become SLAVES to righteousness. And Christ "must reign until ALL His enemies are put under His feet, the last enemy being death" (Even death becomes slave to righteousness). Then Christ will give the Kingdom to His Father, and God shall be ALL IN ALL (ECHAD=ONE). That "put them under His feet" is from Isaiah 45. That chapter is about universal reconciliation. Jerusalem's enmies come bowing down and saying "truly you are a God who hides Himself". By this their tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of His Father, and they are saved. As the scripture says: "TO RECONCILE ALL THINGS CREATED UNTO HIMSELF". Even the heavenly host was CREATED in Gen 2:1
🇷🇺☦️🤝☪️🇵🇸No, he is a dumb heretic. That's right, and you should be ashamed to kiss up to him instead of learning & then understand how PRETENTIOUS & also arrogant & insecure he is when challenged. In fact, I have never heard someone so heretical & unorthodox than this elitist secularist in academic clothing. Despicable 🤦
@@josephcandito The arguments favoring universalism are much stronger than the arguments against it, and this whole debate is a shame and a stain upon the Church. It's absolutely reprehensible.
@gazlo235 See Thomas Talbott's Inescapable Love of God, or Talbott's work in the 2003 volume "Universal Salvation? The Current Debate" edited by Parry and Partridge, or Robin Parry's 2008 book "The Evangelical Universalist" (under pen name Gregory MacDonald), or Reitan and Kronen's "God's Final Victory: A Comparative Philosophical Case for Universalism." The Biblical, theological, and philosophical arguments *for* Christ-centered universalism are stronger than attempted rejoinders, even with free will taken into consideration. Universalist critics, by and large, don't know the literature very well. It's what allows them to keep pushing their morally repugnant views.
so Bishop Barron is a "hopeful universalist". I think that`s the most balanced position to take. We don`t really know. Gos is not unequivocal on the subject of hell in the New Testament. Deliberately so I suspect.
"Hopeful" is a meaningless distinction here. Epistemically there is a lot that we don't "know" about the Christian faith with absolute certainty, but we rationally deduce based off of our faith in various revelations. I mean, do you really "know" that Jesus is God and that He is going to return to resurrect the dead? No -- we have faith in the revelations of the past and hope in the promises of the future. Why hope for anything less than the absolute best possible ending? Is God not the Good Himself? Is He not the source of all Goodness, power, and love? Why then should we not proclaim our trust in his plan with boldness? There is no need for timidity.
@@Gumbi1012 Yes; but he has also strongly criticised certain errors in Aquinas. And he thinks that Aquinas was not such a great theologian and I agree. Inherited sin? The vision of hell augmenting the joys of heaven? Predestination to glory antepraevisa merita? Etc
Bishop Barron is a very intelligent and moral man, I admire him dearly, but at times it almost feels like his obligation to uphold Catholic dogma is holding him back. If he was Orthodox or Protestant I bet you he would be an outspoken confident universalist, but this timid "hope" is the most that he is allowed to advocate for as a representative of the Catholic church.
02:13 Well, bishop Barron, its a bit more uncomplicated than certain passages from Paul used by Augustine. I mean Jesus Christ who is God in the flesh said this: "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." One should not hope against the words of our Lord!
That passage is open to interpretation clearly. We are all sinners. Everyday we all choose a path that leads us away from God. Yet you have hope you will be saved. It seems like you are unaware of the position of hope
@@tookie36 As Christians I think we have perfect security of salvation by faith in Christ which is the gift of God! A gift offered to all. Yet, I do think that Barron speaks here about a hope of universal salvation. That no one in the ultimate-final end will remain lost. But, as Christ tells us, this sadly will not be the case.
@@ausonius100 we can lose our salvation just like others may gain salvation. It’s up to God. We may have hope, we pray, we love, etc but beyond that I don’t think it’s prudent or logical to say god will damn anyone to hell.
@@tookie36 If salvation in Christ could be lost it would simply not be salvation! But rather some kind of divine assistance only. But, praise be to God, His salvation is truly everlasting life and union with Him!
I thought the Catholic Church does infallibly accept the existence of hell? It's existence can easily be proven from Scripture, from the saints, and from the Councils.
Yes but the Balthasarian position is sort of playing with the boundaries insofar as it affirms the existence of hell but affirms that we can hope that it's empty.
@@HIMYMTR why is hoping for an empty hell heretical? Wouldn't the alternative be hoping for a non empty hell, meaning wanting people to be in punished, going against God's desire that all might be saved?
@@internetenjoyer1044 Daniel Prendergast it's heretical because the person "hoping" that hell is empty is denying the fact that millions of souls are already in hell, including heretics and criminals and genocidal maniacs, and rapists and child abusers &people who died in the state of mortal sin. the bible talks about people who are in hell ( story of the rich man), Saint Boniface names numerous Kings who went to hell, but most importantly, It's the infallible teaching of the church, and Catholic Dogma that non Catholics go to hell Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence (ex-Cathedra and infallible):“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church” (“Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra).I
@@anahata3478 How about St.John Paul2 John Paul II, General Audience, Dec. 27, 1978 - “Jesus is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity become a man; and therefore in Jesus, human nature and therefore the whole of humanity, is redeemed, saved, ennobled to the extent of participating in ‘divine life’ by means of Grace.” John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (# 4), Dec. 7, 1990 - “The Redemption event brings salvation to all, ‘for each one is included in the mystery of the redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery.’”
@@streamscreen Yeah, because all is seen towards The Good and moved towards The Providence of God itself which is Good Itself! All of Humanity is saved because all of Humanity is revealed to be saved, but nature of Humanity containing themselves that which is Divine Only, I stress, only by doing piecing back and together their own Divine-ness do you ascend towards the Heavens, otherwise they are perpetually drowned in the Pits of Hell. In truth, none can escape God, we are and of and in the Divine, and that cannot be changed, the two can be separated We are in there A Man's Hell is His non-letting Go
Barron is an Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. One of a few. Why is he using the title "Bishop"? Aux. Bishop Barron is not a scholar. He popularizes a historicity of the Bible that Pope Francis rejects, and virtually all true scholarship of the Bible rejects. My understanding is the Aux. Bishop has a Masters, but his thesis is on Marx. He also has four honorary degrees. Barron is not a serious theologian.
I have never heard Bishop Barron claim to be a scholar or a theologian. He seems to be an evangelist and apologist who happens to be fairly well-read in philosophy. His Wikipedia page indicates that he has a doctorate in sacred theology from Institut de Catholique Paris. His videos on Biblical Interpretation do not stress historicity. In fact, one of his videos stresses the importance of reading the texts as they are meant to be read (Psalms as poetry, Genesis as allegory, and so forth.)
He is using the title "Bishop" because that's what he is: an ordained minister holding the fullness of the sacrament of holy orders. "Auxiliary" in no way takes away his Bishopness. Also, he has a Doctor of Sacred Theology from the Institut Catholique de Paris. NOT an honorary one.
"Auxiliary" bishop, "arch"-bishop, "titular" bishop and so on are just administrative titles. All of them have received the third degree of holy orders, and so have the prerrogative of ordaining priests and other bishops.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 86 | คู่เอก "คมเพชร vs ชาติพยัคฆ์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/m3q_dRYDuU8/mqdefault.jpg)
I would be interesting seeing these two have a conversation.
Yep. It would be like seeing two frogs mumbling about flies.
Rob would be lost.
Great to see that Bishop Barron admires Hart's work. Though I must say, the whole affair between Hart and Wright, and then between Hart and Feser was rather disappointing.
Crysus Bu I know Feser and Hart have critiqued each other heavily before.
Crysus Bu Dr. David Bentley Hart? I know he teaches, writes, does quite a bit of speaking, and I think he is leading something for some kind of institute at Notre Dame.
Crysus Bu This is what I was writing about: ndias.nd.edu/fellows/hart-david-bentley/
Google "feser Hart death penalty" and you should find the angry altercation between them about Feser's book on the topic.
My opinion is that Hart was not well understood by Feser during the natural law debates; in fact they largely talked past each other. But Hart's harsh review of Feser and Bessett's book on the death penalty betrayed a surprisingly inattentive reading, and yes, it was disappointing. Still, it is Hart who is by far the more well-rounded - and it was Hart who made a Christian out of me; Feser could never have done so, though admittedly I'm speaking only for myself! Feser is brilliant, but he is a theologian whose philosophical appeal to me is purely _post revelatio;_ he baptizes Aristotle in the same way Thomas did. Keeping Thomas (and Aristotle) alive is no mean feat, and of vital importance! But Hart has built a completely different philosophical bridge toward theology. His deconstruction of postmodernism, and the logical and aesthetic shaking of its shoulders he provides, is breathtaking. All that is left of it is an arrow pointing to the divine.
He's a very insightful thinker. I just started getting into his work. Many of his ideas , I already shared without knowing. I also always had a problem with a loving God sending people to eternal torment. But from reading the Bible my belief was that some people are extinguished or the second death. The death of the soul. Basically ceasing to exist.
If all cease to exist, then how is this verse in scripture? - >
"1 Timothy 4:10
"...the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, SPECIALLY of those that believe."
@@JTomas96 I think you misunderstood what I'm saying
@@deusvult9372 I was only pointing out that Bentley is completely right about Universalism. "He is the Saviour of AL MEN, BUT SPECIALLY THOSE WHO BELIEVE". The non believing can be saved postmortem:
1 Peter 4:6
[6]"For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."
This truth is shunned simply because this world belongs to satan. It's hidden because it's the simple truth.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who HOLD THE TRUTH in unrighteousness"Rom1:18
@@JTomas96 I agree with bentley on universal salvation. But I'm not sure if everyone will accept the gift of salvation. It's in God's hands
@@deusvult9372 I understand brother, but remember Paul. Even goats loose their freewill and become SLAVES to righteousness.
And Christ "must reign until ALL His enemies are put under His feet, the last enemy being death" (Even death becomes slave to righteousness).
Then Christ will give the Kingdom to His Father, and God shall be ALL IN ALL (ECHAD=ONE).
That "put them under His feet" is from Isaiah 45. That chapter is about universal reconciliation. Jerusalem's enmies come bowing down and saying "truly you are a God who hides Himself". By this their tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of His Father, and they are saved.
As the scripture says: "TO RECONCILE ALL THINGS CREATED UNTO HIMSELF".
Even the heavenly host was CREATED in Gen 2:1
Bob, love your channel. Keep it up.
What a nice gentleman
Catholics don't know what to do with DB Hart. He's far too... honest.
Neither do Orthodox.
seems to me like Bishop Barron knows exactly what to do with DB Hart here :)
🇷🇺☦️🤝☪️🇵🇸No, he is a dumb heretic. That's right, and you should be ashamed to kiss up to him instead of learning & then understand how PRETENTIOUS & also arrogant & insecure he is when challenged. In fact, I have never heard someone so heretical & unorthodox than this elitist secularist in academic clothing. Despicable 🤦
The only Roman Catholic complaint about Hart that I've encountered is that he isn't a Thomist.
How about: he is a universalist.
And that he is a universalist. People still have the freedom to reject God. As Bishop Barron correctly states, we can hope that all are saved though.
@@ChristvsVincit That's a problem???
@@josephcandito The arguments favoring universalism are much stronger than the arguments against it, and this whole debate is a shame and a stain upon the Church. It's absolutely reprehensible.
@gazlo235 See Thomas Talbott's Inescapable Love of God, or Talbott's work in the 2003 volume "Universal Salvation? The Current Debate" edited by Parry and Partridge, or Robin Parry's 2008 book "The Evangelical Universalist" (under pen name Gregory MacDonald), or Reitan and Kronen's "God's Final Victory: A Comparative Philosophical Case for Universalism."
The Biblical, theological, and philosophical arguments *for* Christ-centered universalism are stronger than attempted rejoinders, even with free will taken into consideration.
Universalist critics, by and large, don't know the literature very well. It's what allows them to keep pushing their morally repugnant views.
I’d pay money to see a debate between NT Wright and DBH. I’d also very much like to see a WLC/DBH debate.
Person is making a point, let's play anxiety inducing music at the end lol
so Bishop Barron is a "hopeful universalist". I think that`s the most balanced position to take. We don`t really know. Gos is not unequivocal on the subject of hell in the New Testament. Deliberately so I suspect.
"Hopeful" is a meaningless distinction here. Epistemically there is a lot that we don't "know" about the Christian faith with absolute certainty, but we rationally deduce based off of our faith in various revelations. I mean, do you really "know" that Jesus is God and that He is going to return to resurrect the dead? No -- we have faith in the revelations of the past and hope in the promises of the future. Why hope for anything less than the absolute best possible ending? Is God not the Good Himself? Is He not the source of all Goodness, power, and love? Why then should we not proclaim our trust in his plan with boldness? There is no need for timidity.
i came here to comment about the hitchens video where the comments are disabled, so what are we thinking?
And the good Bishop neglected to mention that Hart is a ferocious critic of Thomism
Of scholastic Thomism in particular - which Bishop Barron has also criticised. Hart has stated outright that Aquinas was a superb philosopher.
@@Gumbi1012 Yes; but he has also strongly criticised certain errors in Aquinas. And he thinks that Aquinas was not such a great theologian and I agree. Inherited sin? The vision of hell augmenting the joys of heaven? Predestination to glory antepraevisa merita? Etc
@@bayreuth79 Sure. I don't deny that at all.
@@bayreuth79Bp. Barron has criticized St. Thomas views on the joy of hell for the saved.
@@bman5257 As he should do! The notion of rejoicing in the misery of others just is sadism.
The “Balthazar” position is nonsense. That’s shoulder-shrugging, non-committal, back door Calvinism
No its not lol
Both Christians and atheists argue about things we cannot know anything about.
DB Hart has it right. Barron's Catholic hangups are... distasteful.
Bishop Barron is a very intelligent and moral man, I admire him dearly, but at times it almost feels like his obligation to uphold Catholic dogma is holding him back. If he was Orthodox or Protestant I bet you he would be an outspoken confident universalist, but this timid "hope" is the most that he is allowed to advocate for as a representative of the Catholic church.
02:13 Well, bishop Barron, its a bit more uncomplicated than certain passages from Paul used by Augustine. I mean Jesus Christ who is God in the flesh said this: "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." One should not hope against the words of our Lord!
That passage is open to interpretation clearly. We are all sinners. Everyday we all choose a path that leads us away from God. Yet you have hope you will be saved. It seems like you are unaware of the position of hope
@@tookie36 As Christians I think we have perfect security of salvation by faith in Christ which is the gift of God! A gift offered to all. Yet, I do think that Barron speaks here about a hope of universal salvation. That no one in the ultimate-final end will remain lost. But, as Christ tells us, this sadly will not be the case.
@@ausonius100 we can lose our salvation just like others may gain salvation. It’s up to God. We may have hope, we pray, we love, etc but beyond that I don’t think it’s prudent or logical to say god will damn anyone to hell.
@@tookie36 If salvation in Christ could be lost it would simply not be salvation! But rather some kind of divine assistance only. But, praise be to God, His salvation is truly everlasting life and union with Him!
Speaking of this life.
Can’t Rome just condemn universalism already? Oh wait...That would mean actually believing in the Infallible teaching on Hell...
I thought the Catholic Church does infallibly accept the existence of hell? It's existence can easily be proven from Scripture, from the saints, and from the Councils.
Yes but the Balthasarian position is sort of playing with the boundaries insofar as it affirms the existence of hell but affirms that we can hope that it's empty.
@@valarhelnandor5909 yeah well, he is a heretic
@@HIMYMTR why is hoping for an empty hell heretical? Wouldn't the alternative be hoping for a non empty hell, meaning wanting people to be in punished, going against God's desire that all might be saved?
@@internetenjoyer1044 Daniel Prendergast it's heretical because the person "hoping" that hell is empty is denying the fact that millions of souls are already in hell, including heretics and criminals and genocidal maniacs, and rapists and child abusers &people who died in the state of mortal sin. the bible talks about people who are in hell ( story of the rich man), Saint Boniface names numerous Kings who went to hell, but most importantly, It's the infallible teaching of the church, and Catholic Dogma that non Catholics go to hell
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence (ex-Cathedra and infallible):“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church” (“Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra).I
Bishop Barron. You do not compare to Hart. No offence
They're different people. And Hart doesn't compare to Bishop Barron in other respects.
Joe Hinkle
Exactly man, you got it.
True - Hyperion to a satyr.
Try listening more to the saints of your Church and less to the unstable DBH, Bishop.
@@anahata3478 How about St.John Paul2
John Paul II, General Audience, Dec. 27, 1978 -
“Jesus is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity become a man; and
therefore in Jesus, human nature and therefore the whole of humanity, is
redeemed, saved, ennobled to the extent of participating in ‘divine life’
by means of Grace.”
John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (# 4), Dec. 7, 1990 -
“The Redemption event brings salvation to all, ‘for each one is included in the mystery of the redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery.’”
@@streamscreen Yeah, because all is seen towards The Good and moved towards The Providence of God itself which is Good Itself!
All of Humanity is saved because all of Humanity is revealed to be saved, but nature of Humanity containing themselves that which is Divine
Only, I stress, only by doing piecing back and together their own Divine-ness do you ascend towards the Heavens, otherwise they are perpetually drowned in the Pits of Hell.
In truth, none can escape God, we are and of and in the Divine, and that cannot be changed, the two can be separated
We are in there
A Man's Hell is His non-letting Go
Barron is an Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. One of a few. Why is he using the title "Bishop"? Aux. Bishop Barron is not a scholar. He popularizes a historicity of the Bible that Pope Francis rejects, and virtually all true scholarship of the Bible rejects. My understanding is the Aux. Bishop has a Masters, but his thesis is on Marx. He also has four honorary degrees. Barron is not a serious theologian.
I have never heard Bishop Barron claim to be a scholar or a theologian. He seems to be an evangelist and apologist who happens to be fairly well-read in philosophy. His Wikipedia page indicates that he has a doctorate in sacred theology from Institut de Catholique Paris. His videos on Biblical Interpretation do not stress historicity. In fact, one of his videos stresses the importance of reading the texts as they are meant to be read (Psalms as poetry, Genesis as allegory, and so forth.)
Barron is not a serious theologian?? Are you kidding? This is not a serious comment!
He is using the title "Bishop" because that's what he is: an ordained minister holding the fullness of the sacrament of holy orders. "Auxiliary" in no way takes away his Bishopness. Also, he has a Doctor of Sacred Theology from the Institut Catholique de Paris. NOT an honorary one.
"Auxiliary" bishop, "arch"-bishop, "titular" bishop and so on are just administrative titles. All of them have received the third degree of holy orders, and so have the prerrogative of ordaining priests and other bishops.
ObjectiveBob who are you? I would like to interview you. Is this possible? Why haven’t you posted anything in ten months?