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. 😋

It's not an "emotional" argument; it's a *moral* argument.

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.

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.)

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.

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]

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 kept waiting for something more substantial than ‘he’s just not convincing’.

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'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.

Me yesterday: "Man, I wish Dr. Cooper had some resources on universalism in Christianity." Dr. Cooper the next day: "Oh, like this?"

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

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.

What books by David Bentley Hart would you recommend?

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?

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?

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.

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?

I bought his book but I havent read it yet.

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.

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.

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 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’.

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.

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”

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

🎯 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

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.

Was hoping you’d talk about his book! Thanks for this!

have you read The Inescapable Love of God

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.

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?

Regardless of all else, his opening anecdote is important- if the concept of eternal damnation as taught by many churches presently is accurrate, it's ridiculously perverse to ever try and speak of the "beauty" of it, or anything peripherally related to it. While the story in the sermon by the orthodox preist he refers to in the opening was clearly myth (no chance it's an event that really happened, the talking skull waxing with regret to the "Saint"), take one of the harder mysteries- why God struck down the Hebrew who tried to steady the Ark from falling when the draft anumals stumbled, for instance- it's not just wrong to try and speak of such an event as "beautiful", "admirable", "good", or any other bizarre lauditory language- it's actually blasphemous.

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 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Thank you

So good. Thanks 😅

I also bought Luther's book on Bondage of the will

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.

Thanks. God's peace

6:00 "moral intuition", "emotional argument"... that's conscience and it shouldn't be ignored.

Can you make a “5 reasons why I’m not Eastern Orthodox” video?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well spoken review. Thanks for putting this out there

Need quick takes on these topic at DebateMeNow.com 3 minute debates muted opponent.

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 .

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.

Yes

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.

Agreed 100%

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?

Solid review, man!

"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).

Scripture -> Annihilationism; Tradition -> ECT; Philosophy -> Universalism

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.

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'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.

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.

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?

For me Hart is right in attacking ECT but wrong in embracing universalism as the correct view.

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..

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.

We need Christian Dogmatics by Jordan Cooper.

Dissapointing video. I don't think you've really interacting with anything. You just ranting in a passive aggressive tone.

Great video pastor. Sounds like Rob Bell's Love Wins written by someone more intelligent.

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.

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.

Doesn’t this put Hart at odds with his own Orthodox denomination?

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: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bNViqpagrbOxj58.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.

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

YOU KNOW, A MAJORITY OF INTELLECTUALS DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD BUT, THEY BURY JUST SAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

+Dr. Jordan B Cooper -- *TANGENT:* Another translation of the New Testament!? Great. Just what the world and Christendom needed. **

can we get a "Farewell David Bentley Hart" tweet?

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 KZfaq. 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.

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.

David Bentley Harts god is his own brain.

It took you 30 mins to say nothing. You are weighed down by your own traditions and bias

Sounds to me like he has a problem letting God be the potter.

Read Heaven and Hell by Bart Ehrman.Also Data Over Dogma podcast "The Dans Go To Hell" ..or any video by Dan McClellan .@ Maklelan