David Bentley Hart That All Shall Be Saved
That All Shall Be Saved (Yale University Pr: New Haven, CT, 2019)— A Summary and Review
David Bentley Hart's argument, when you strip away the polemics, is fairly simple: if Christianity is coherent at all, universalism is the only version of it that can be. Not a hopeful add-on, not a pious wish — the only logically stable position. Everything else in the book is Hart working out the implications of that claim across scripture, philosophy, and the history of doctrine.
He starts with the moral problem, and it's the part of the book I keep coming back to. Borrowing William James's thought experiment — would you accept a utopia bought at the price of one soul's eternal torture — Hart says no coherent Christian ethics can take that deal, whether the soul in question is Hitler or an unbaptized infant. Historically, he points out, the church's answer has usually included the infant. He insists that anyone who claims to fully believe in eternal hell while also loving their neighbor as themselves is holding two incompatible commitments — a believer in hell, he says, "merely believe[s] in their belief in it." I would push back here. He calls the belief in hell immoral rather than simply mistaken. This argument really discloses a problem in utilitarian moral reasoning, the greatest good for the greatest number, reducing it to absurdity. Would it be just to have even one person tormented in hell if the result were that all other human beings would be happy? Utilitarianism would argue yes, but Hart, with William James, is arguing no. Further, his moral argument dismisses the notion that people who hold this belief do so because they think it's true, not because they're indifferent to cruelty.
On a personal level, I know people who have said they wished all were saved but did not believe scripture allowed them to teach it. They often point to Jesus as the one who mentions hell the most in the New Testament. The belief in hell is not a moral failure on the part of those who hold to that belief. He implies a defect of the heart, a callousness, cruelty, and tribalism, rather than a mistaken hermeneutics. He is making a category mistake: Hart is answering an interpretive question ("what does the evidence of scripture support?") with a moral verdict ("what kind of person concludes this?"). He wants his moral outrage to do the work a rational argument should make. I infer that although he thinks his book will persuade no one, he hopes his moral outrage will guilt someone to have a change of mind.
Hart refers to the rules of etiquette that he is transgressing by making his moral argument. This etiquette is not just saying that it is rude to call people immoral. In terms of debate in the public square, social/argumentative etiquette restrains us from calling a sincerely held position immoral exists precisely because people generally hold positions they think are true, and truth-claims and morality-claims are different kinds of claims. Breaching that etiquette isn't just impolite. It is a signal that the argument is trying to win by reclassifying the dispute, moving it from "are you right?" to "are you decent?"
My concern here is that Hart is making a move — swapping "this doctrine may be false" for "believing this makes you complicit in something monstrous." I grant that sometimes moral intuition really is evidence against a doctrine. However, it could be a rhetorical shortcut that lets him treat his opponents' conclusions as evidence of bad character rather than engaging their exegesis on its own terms. That tension is what keeps arising in his discussion of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin: is moral revulsion legitimate evidence, or is it question-begging when the whole dispute is about what's true.
I am on friendlier ground when Hart turns to the New Testament itself and argues it doesn't actually teach what most of the church tradition assumes it teaches. From my reading of the New Testament, I would agree with this. Gehenna, in his reading, comes from Isaiah's imagery of corpses being consumed — final destruction, not perpetual conscious suffering. Revelation, he says, is mostly about the fall of Rome and Jerusalem, not a literal script for the end of time. He reads Paul (especially Romans 9–11) as building toward the opposite of Reformed predestination: that God binds all in disobedience precisely so that he can show mercy to all (Rom. 11:32) — meaning the very passage traditionally used to justify limited election is, for Hart, a proof-text for universal salvation. Read straight, Hart argues, that's a universalist text, and centuries of theology have used it to teach the exact thing Paul was trying to refute.
Underneath the exegesis is a metaphysical argument drawing heavily on Gregory of Nyssa, Origen, and Isaac of Nineveh.
First, creation ex nihilo is inseparable from eschatology — a thing is only truly known/created at its consummation, so if any soul is finally lost, creation itself was never fully good.
About the only cogent argument for the existence of hell is that God respects the freedom of rational agents. However, the part of his metaphysical argument I find genuinely persuasive: we are finite creatures, and it is simply incoherent for finite beings to accrue infinite guilt. A finite life of sin cannot justly earn an infinite sentence. That's not really a debatable point about biblical interpretation — it's a claim about proportion and justice, and I don't see a way around it. Hart pairs this with an argument about freedom, borrowed mostly from Gregory of Nyssa: real freedom is oriented toward the Good by its nature, so a soul that "freely" rejects God forever isn't exercising freedom in any meaningful sense — it's something closer to bondage. His image is a woman who runs into a burning building because she can imagine no greater joy than burning to death. That's not liberty. Thus, Hart rejects the Stump/Plantinga-style defense (God can't make someone freely choose him) — for Hart, God as the transcendental horizon of all willing can guide every soul to its true end without violating freedom, since that end is what the soul most deeply wants.
Further, if God really is "all in all," Hart says, there can't be a permanent territory — hell — that exists outside of that. I found myself restating this one in my own words while reading: if eternal torment is real, then God isn't actually all in all, because there'd be a whole sphere of reality permanently walled off from the divine presence. Hart's own view (echoing Isaac of Nineveh) is that hell is not a separate place but the same divine love experienced as torment by a soul that hardens itself against it — self-imposed suffering, not a sentence imposed from outside.
Where the book got personal for me was the moral argument, because I've been circling this question my whole adult life. I grew up in an evangelical church in Austin, MN, and I remember being embarrassed by our fair exhibit — "Where will you be a million years from now?" — because the whole pitch ran through threat rather than through what faith could actually do for people in this life. Years later, a philosophy professor at Indiana Wesleyan told me privately that yes, if it were up to him, Hitler would be in hell — but he liked to think God was "bigger" than his own desire for revenge. That stuck with me. And then there was an ordinary evening, walking back from a tennis match in Broadview, IL, thinking that if my denomination were right, most of the people in the houses I was passing were bound for hell. That's the moment the abstract argument became concrete for me: no amount of "God has his reasons" makes it acceptable that God would create someone he foreknows is damned. That's not a mystery I can defer to. It's a moral problem, full stop.
So, on most of the substance, I'm with Hart. Finite guilt can't justify infinite punishment. Romans 9–11 really does read the way he says it does, and it means Augustine and the Reformed tradition got it backwards. Calvin at least has the honesty to follow his own premises to their conclusion rather than dressing them up — that only makes the conclusion worse, not better.
But I keep snagging on the same thing every time Hart calls the belief in hell immoral, rather than simply mistaken. It's not squeamishness about strong language. It's that I know people who wished all were saved and still didn't think scripture taught it — their position comes from a hermeneutic they didn't invent to be convenient, not from some deficiency of the heart. Calling that immoral collapses two different questions — is this interpretation right, and is this person decent — into one, and lets Hart win the second by asserting it rather than the first by arguing it. It also smuggles in a premise: the charge only lands if you've already accepted that a doctrine is immoral whenever its consequences are bad enough, whatever the truth of it turns out to be. That's a substantive ethical claim, and it deserves an argument, not just outrage standing in for one. Even the etiquette he says he's breaching is doing real work — it exists because we generally assume people hold positions they believe are true, and moving the dispute from "are you right" to "are you complicit in something monstrous" is a much harder charge to answer and a much easier one to make.
So, where I land is this: Hart's philosophical and exegetical case is close to airtight, and I don't think traditional infernalism survives it intact. But the moral-condemnation frame he wraps around it is a separate move, and not obviously a legitimate one. Moral revulsion can be real evidence against a doctrine — I felt that revulsion myself, walking home in Broadview — but it's not the same thing as proving the doctrine false, and Hart sometimes writes as if it is. The book convinced me further of something I already suspected. It didn't convince me that everyone who disagrees is, by that fact, morally compromised.
Hart would resist part of what follows. My argument so far has been that I disagree with the tone but agree with the substance. Here is where I disagree with at least a portion of the substance.
Long before Hart wrote his book, I wrote my own statement on hell. While it shares his conviction that judgment is purgative rather than retributive, it doesn't share his certainty that the outcome is guaranteed for everyone. I leave room for something closer to conditional immortality: that a few may, by their own total self-negation, have nothing left in them to save. Hart takes up that possibility directly. He calls it 'more palatable' than eternal torment but still, in his view, an 'irreducible price exacted' from creation. He rejects it on the same grounds he rejects everlasting hell. I'm not as sure he's right to reject it.
The resurrection of the dead, grounded in the resurrection of Jesus, means God does not lose anything that happened in time. It is a renewal of creation by the Spirit, one that gives each of us back our own particular shape, the self our life in time has made us into. God's eternal present does not erase that; it holds it.
However, getting there means passing through judgment, and I think of that judgment as cleansing rather than punitive — fire that purges rather than torments, freeing whatever is living in us to become what it was actually meant to be.
What eternity offers, in the end, is redemption and reconciliation. The struggle we are caught in — with ourselves, with each other, with the rest of creation — does not get to have the last word. God is the future we are moving toward, and that future makes room for us as we actually are, finite and specific, without swallowing us up. That is what it would mean for us to become fully ourselves, individually and in relation to each other. But none of that is available without judgment doing its work on sin and evil first.
The New Testament emphasis upon the return of Christ is really an emphasis on the arrival of the rule of God. Jesus preached the coming of that rule; his return is that rule coming to completion. And in a way, that arrival, eternity breaking into time, is at first a kind of hell. It means finally seeing clearly the wreck we have made of what we were given. Right now, we get to keep our sins and our public selves at arm's length from each other; judgment closes that gap, and the dissonance we feel is just the natural consequence of how we've actually lived. But God does not leave us there. The Father has already shown, in sending the Son, that God faithful to what God has made — faithful enough to redeem it, not just judge it. Jesus himself is the standard by which that judgment happens. For those who have already responded to that in faith, judgment still comes, but it comes with the assurance that their sin has been acknowledged and forgiven. For those who haven't, judgment still comes by the same standard — Jesus's own word, love of God and neighbor, the Beatitudes, the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25, that quiet reckoning of who helped and who didn't. Either way, judgment rests in the hands of the one who died for us.
I do not think we are in a position to rule out the possibility that after all that purging, some people might simply have nothing left to redeem and reconcile. That someone could give themselves over to evil so completely that there's no longer anything in them left to redeem.
Comments
Post a Comment