David Bentley Hart: That All Shall Be Saved

Preface

In his new book That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell and Universal Salvation, David Bentley Hart argues, among other things, that the traditional doctrine of eternal punishment, of which Augustine is a main expounder, is immoral and unjust. As an armchair Augustinian, I’m sorely tempted to respond to this charge, to meet my accuser face to face, so to speak, and, if I know anything about Augustine, he would welcome constructive criticisms with open arms.

A little personal background to show where I’m coming from: I was raised an atheist, and it was not until graduate school that I became convinced of the truth of Christianity for the first time. Whatever doctrines I believe, I choose to believe them because they seem rational and coherent to me, not because I’m bound by any tradition or authority. Hart asserts repeatedly that holders of the traditional doctrine have long been institutionally indoctrinated and therefore lacking a “properly functioning moral intelligence”. If his assertion were true, then numerous people with upbringings similar to mine wouldn’t have converted to Christianity.

Hart is evidently an erudite scholar and facile writer, and he is very lucid in explaining some of the important concepts in classical theism, such as freedom of rational being, the relational nature of personhood, and the transcendence of God. I’m also grateful to him for challenging his readers to think more deeply about Christianity — he has certainly achieved one of his stated goals for writing the book.

However, I’m disappointed by the perfunctory manner in which he treats points of contention between him and those whom he criticizes, viz. the majority of Christians throughout history. I’m not sure that he fully understands their views or that he even cares enough to understand them. By his own admission, Hart has made up his mind and is not interested in any further dialogue. I had expected more from an influential philosopher.

What is more troublesome, is that Hart repeatedly makes matter-of-fact statements, e.g., asserting that something is “absolutely correct”, which in fact are only his personal interpretations and perspectives. Some of these things fall within my knowledge, and I can tell that Hart is not giving the whole picture. It makes me suspicious of his statements about those things that are outside of my knowledge, and renders his book a far less valuable scholarly resource than it could be otherwise. It is almost as if Hart cannot distinguish between his personal opinion and objective fact, between his perspective and divine perspective. The whole thesis of his book, reduced to its bare bones, is that his personal vision of the good and rational is also the divine vision, and therefore irrefutable.[1]

In this review, I’ll respond to two issues raised by Hart, first from a sort of common sense perspective, and then from a philosophical and theological perspective.

I. Justice

Hart argues that any notion of divine justice that is contrary to our common understanding of justice is unjust, and that punishment should be proportional to the offense. This is reasonable, and acceptable as a common ground for dialogue. However, Hart goes on to assert that the sin of man is finite, and therefore eternal punishment is unjust, without giving any argument to demonstrate sin is finite, or man is finite, for that matter.

In most legal systems, if a man commits a heinous crime, he is subject to the death penalty, or life imprisonment without parole. A crime that a man commits in the blink of an eye, or, if it is premeditated, in a short period of time, deserves punishment that lasts as long as he lives. Isn’t it justice then that if a man lives forever, and doesn’t repent of his sin, he should suffer for eternity? By contrast, Hart’s notion of universal salvation, which proposes the same happy ending for Hitler and the victims of the Holocaust, is an outrage to all notions of justice known to men.

II. The Problem of Evil

By failing to demonstrate that eternal punishment is unjust, Hart’s argument, stripped of all rhetorical verbiage, becomes nothing more than an emotional appeal against suffering, with the implicit presumption that suffering in itself is evil, and therefore not compatible with the goodness of God. In other words, the problem of evil, which is a common argument against the existence of God, is also Hart’s argument against the doctrine of eternal punishment

Hart attempts to circumvent this problem by asserting that evil is transient and only serves as a “necessary means” to achieve an end that is good for all men. But, this contradicts his own argument that God, being perfectly good and self-sufficient, has no need of anything outside of Himself to execute his will. It is a logical absurdity to argue that God needs evil, as a necessary means, to fulfill his purpose for man, i.e., to transform man into His image, which is Good.

Free Choice of Will, Evil and Justice

From a traditional Christian perspective, Man is created as an autonomous and morally responsible being. He has free choice of will, capable of making choices independent of his Creator’s will for him, but also accountable to his Creator for his choices. In his work On First Principles, Origen posits that free choice of will is the reason why there is a wide diversity and gradation of beings in the world. To Origen, diversity is not ideal, for it falls short of divine unity. Augustine sees unity and beauty in diversity. It is conceivable that God wills diversity in the world which would manifest His manifold wisdom. The trees in the Garden, such as the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge, symbolize potentialities or possibilities that God has opened to Man. Every choice he makes contributes to what he ultimately becomes.

Free choice of will is an expression of rationality, both of the human being and of the universe as a whole. Origen, whom Hart aligns with as a defender of universal salvation, defends the doctrine of free choice of will. By contrast, Hart makes a blank and curious assertion that free choice of will is akin to chance, and has no place in a rational world. I suspect he has to make this move, in order to avoid treating the notion of justice.

From an Augustinian perspective, evil has no substance, because the world was created and is upheld by the sovereign will of God, who is good. The fire that sustains life can also destroy life, but we do not say that it is evil. However, when man desires and wills what is contrary to God’s perfect will for him, his desire and will become evil. Evil is a departure from the good, which ultimately results in a privation of the good.

From the perspective of justice, free choice of will is the basis of all the legal systems in the world from ancient times until the present. The Code of Hammurabi, the Mosaic Law, and the laws of ancient Rome, just to name a few. Justice is giving each his due, punishing those who transgress the law, and rewarding those who obey the law. A man is judged not by what he does not know, but by the choices he makes with what he does know. Ignorance cannot exonerate a person, if it is within his duty and power to acquire the necessary knowledge. Conversely, knowledge often incriminates a person, if he deliberately and knowingly breaks the law.[2]

One prime example that might illustrate this principle of justice is the Fall. Adam, who enjoyed the presence of God in the Garden of Eden, deliberately disobeyed God’s clear and unmistakable command. He could not use ignorance as an excuse. He did, however try to shift blame onto another, which is usually a sign that a person is aware of his wrongdoing. It was within Adam’s power to choose, either to trust and obey God, or to distrust and disobey Him. Because he was free to choose, he was held responsible for his choices.

Freedom and Knowledge of God

Classical theism makes an important distinction between two types of freedom: free choice of will and freedom of the rational being. The former is an attribute of the latter. Freedom of being has three characteristics: first, full knowledge of the good, second, will and desire for the good, third, practice in accord with the good.

From a Platonic perspective, the root of evil is ignorance. Man chooses evil only involuntarily, because he mistakes the evil for the good he desires. If a rational being has any genuine knowledge of the good, he will necessarily desire and will the good, and consequently live a good life. Aristotle, making a valid criticism of Plato for once, points out that knowing what constitutes goodness is not the same as being good, just as knowing what constitutes freedom is not the same as being free.

There are two types of knowledge. One is knowing in the abstract, as in knowledge of geometry and astronomy, the other is knowing in intimate participation and expression, as in knowledge of one’s own thoughts and feelings. In the latter sense, the Platonic notion is correct: knowing, willing and practicing the good are in unity in a rational being, by definition. However, in actuality, no one enjoys such a perfect unity in himself. Man’s capacity to know what is good, is no greater than his will to attain it: the one is as easily neglected as the other is overruled.

The Augustinian/Christian perspective is different from the Platonic. To the latter, knowledge is a necessary condition of virtue; To the former, faith, which is a cardinal Christian virtue, is a necessary condition of knowledge. Man has no knowledge, neither abstract nor intimate knowledge, of God as the ultimate Good so that he might choose Him of his own free will. Knowledge of God, which is absolute Freedom and Life, is a gracious and extravagant gift, realized only in union with God through Christ, who descended from the Father into the world, that man might ascend to the Father in/through/with Him. Therefore, to know God, man must have faith in Christ first, and follow Him in obedience, so that Christ might guide him into the deep things of God. Hence the saying, “Believe that you may understand”. “Taste and see that the Lord is good!”

Adam seeks knowledge of good and evil that he might be like God. The desire to be like God is praiseworthy, for it is precisely our heavenly Father’s will that we shall be perfect like Him. The problem is, Adam desires to be like God apart from God: he breaks faith with God, and thereby forfeits the gift of the knowledge of Him. Paradoxically, the nearer Adam approaches God-like knowledge, the further away he is from His likeness. The knowledge that is supposed to make him a child of God incriminates him instead as a child of the devil, who believes God is one -and shudder.

Notes:

• ^1. The apparent popularity of Hart’s book is perhaps a reflection of our time: objective truth has given way to subjectivism, the harbinger of tyranny.
• ^2. Incidentally, I find it interesting that many prominent proponents of the traditional doctrine of eternal punishment have backgrounds in law. For example, Tertullian was likely a jurisconsult in Rome, Augustine, though not a lawyer himself, was influenced by Cicero, an erudite lawyer and greatest orator of Rome, and the Reformer John Calvin was also trained as a lawyer. Could this perhaps account for the difference in the doctrine on punishment and Hell between Eastern and Western Christianity?

Related Posts:

• The Brothers Karamazov: II. The Nature of Freedom
• The Divine Comedy: XI. The Problem of Eternal Punishment