That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation

by David Bentley Hart

at least as a relative ratio of believers,

This is a crap metric. If you have two believers in the beginning and one of them is a universalist then 50% of the infant church believed in universalism. In fact if that guy got a friend to believe as he did now 66% of the church is universalist. Of course the data represented as a relative ratio of believers is going to be higher in the beginning.

the healing assault of unyielding divine love upon obdurate souls,

Ah, but the third chapter of 1 Corinthians is not addressing obdurate souls. Paul is writing not to those who are stubbornly refusing to change their opinions but rather to those who have already repented and are now wrestling with the question, “now what?” Of course they will be saved even as through fire for they have already put their faith in Christ. How they act in regards to the “now what” is what will determine whether or not their works will survive.

The universalists were not even necessarily at first a minority among the faithful, at least not everywhere.

Shouldn’t we expect those who share an opinion to congregate into an area occupied by like opinions? We see this even in our “virtual” communities today. Of course there will be areas in which the majority of people share the same opinion.

obvious

I am suspicious of anyone who tells me something is obvious. It’s only obvious if we already share the same opinion.

their imaginations had not been corrupted by centuries of theology written in entirely different spiritual and intellectual environments,

This is a serious allegation. Not unlike the allegation made by Joseph Smith and the Theological fabrication that became the Church of Later Day Saints.

My hope is that I can assume a vantage somehow “innocent” of any number of presuppositions belonging to the inheritance of later developments in Christian culture.

My hope is that you will substantiate the charges that you claim to be innocent of.

I am firmly convinced that two millennia of dogmatic tradition have created in the minds of most of us a fundamentally misleading picture of a great many of the claims made in Christian scripture.

It is my conviction, you see, that the misericordes have always been the ones who got the story right, to the degree that it is true at all.

I mean only that, if Christianity taken as a whole is indeed an entirely coherent and credible system of belief, then the universalist understanding of its message is the only one possible.

(if they are very boring indeed)

In my experience, this particular issue is especially fertile in generating circular debates, and in inviting the most repetitious sorts of argument.

I seem to have nearly perfected a tone of voice that veils vexation behind lustrous clouds of disingenuous patience; and the acquisition of a new social skill is always a blessing.

An arrogant statement of contempt for those who would disagree.

For better or worse, my reasoning convinces me entirely,

and that—sadly or happily—will certainly never change.

So here I go, about to read a book written to convince me of an argument I am convinced is wrong by an author who refuses to consider that he may be convinced by anyone that he is wrong.

On hearing these things, Macarius began to weep, and declared that it would have been better had the unfortunate priest never been born at all.

since they had never known the true God and so had never really had the choice of serving him;

Doesn’t Paul address this in Romans? There is an allegation here; an appeal to an injustice that requires justice. Who would confine a person to such torment without giving them a chance to escape?

immeasurably more terrible were the penalties endured by those plunged deep down in the abyss of fire below, it said, for they had known God and had rejected him nevertheless.

Is the injustice addressed by hell the injustice of not accepting God or is the injustice addressed by hell owned by the one in hell? Does justice require hell because the one in hell committed the injustice or is one in hell because god is unjust?

Not for a moment, as far as I can recall, had it occurred to me to take the story seriously, or to think that it had anything to tell me either about God or about the life to come.

Abba Macarius was not only extraordinarily merciful, but in fact immeasurably more merciful than the God he worshipped.

But this tale is a straw man built to demonstrate the mercilessness of god.

It would also have been exceedingly hard for me not to notice how viciously vindictive the creator of such a hell would have had to be to have devised so exquisitely malicious a form of torture and then to have made it eternal, and how unjust in condemning men and women to unending torment for the “sin” of not knowing him even though he had never revealed himself to them, or for some formally imputed guilt supposedly attaching to them on account of some distant ancestor’s transgression.

There is the sum total of the universalist’s argument and it is built on a flawed understanding of hell. Hell is not the punishment for rejecting Christ. Hell is the fulfillment of a requirement of justice demanded by a God who loves those upon which the injustice was imposed. If you are loved of God and someone commits an injustice against you in which you cry out to God for justice isn’t a good and loving God required to impose that justice? Hell is the default end because we have all committed injustice upon that which a good and just God loves. Mercy is that there is any way to escape at all.

I have never really wavered from it since then. I still find myself unable to repudiate my initial, callow response: a slight shiver of distaste at the naïve religious mind at its most morally obtuse, and then boredom at what I took to be an inept attempt to scare me.

Since then, admittedly, I have encountered far subtler pictures of perdition and, at tedious length, have mastered all of the more common arguments for the moral intelligibility of the idea of a hell of eternal torment, not to mention a good number of the uncommon ones. None of these, however, has ever persuaded me of anything, except perhaps the lengths of specious reasoning to which even very intelligent persons can go when they feel bound by faith to believe something inherently incredible.

He has a very low opinion of those who would disagree with him.

the question of whether we can make moral sense of God’s acts in the great cosmic drama of creation, redemption, and damnation.

If the answer is no then at best there is no god and at worst we become morally superior to him. You can only make a moral accusation from a position of moral superiority or to a position of moral superiority. You either have to be the authority or appeal to a higher authority.

which these days tends to be the question of whether a free, rational agent, in order to be truly free, or truly capable of a relation of love with God, must have the power justly to condemn himself or herself to everlasting dereliction, and whether then God will allow him or her to do so out of regard for the high dignity of this absolutely indispensable autonomy.

We very rarely condemn ourselves. That is where the term self righteous comes from and if we are honest we are all self righteous out of a self interest at survival. To condemn ourselves is to admit that we are deserving of hell. If we are deserving of hell then we do not need to condemn ourselves and our condemnation isn’t the mechanism but rather the realization of our predicament. Where we really get into trouble is in our condemnation of others. Here we can both recognize that another is deserving of condemnation and simultaneously ignore our own justly deserved condemnation. We demand justice for the injustices committed against us while ignoring the justice required for the injustices we have committed.

which these days tends to be the question of whether a free, rational agent, in order to be truly free, or truly capable of a relation of love with God, must have the power justly to condemn himself or herself to everlasting dereliction, and whether then God will allow him or her to do so out of regard for the high dignity of this absolutely indispensable autonomy.

“Will allow” is an interesting use of words. As if God would allow the injustice of hell even if voluntarily entered into. The problem is that in order for God to be good He must deal with injustice. As a leader of soldiers, specifically in a command position, it would be an injustice to ignore the injustice committed against one soldier by another. If a soldier steals from another soldier and it comes to the attention of the commander that commander would not be considered good if he or she were to ignore the theft. In order to remain a good commander he must deal justly with both soldiers. Can God remain good if ignores injustice? If the answer is no then the following question is what is required of an injustice of one man against another? This is where most go wrong. An injustice against man is viewed as a finite thing in which an infinite and eternal judgment appears to be too harsh. However, this is understood from an improper understanding of the injustice. Any injustice against the creation, ie against man, is an injustice against the creator or God. Seen this way it becomes an eternal and infinite injustice that requires an eternal and infinite justice. Where this really fascinates me isn’t in regards to offenses against God, obviously an eternal offense, and offenses against my fellow man, an eternal offense offended against the creator by means of His creation, but rather what this means for offenses against myself. I am a creation offending against the creator in an offense against myself. In the eternal scheme there are no victimless crimes.

condemn itself

You stand condemned already regardless of whether or not you condemn yourself. Hell is required because God is good and an injustice which can not be ignored must be dealt with. Our difficulty in reconciling this is with our inability to see that Hell, though infinitely bad for those condemned to it, is required in order for a good God to remain good.

God who has elected to create a reality in which everlasting torture is a possible final destiny for any of his creatures.

Here is where free will enters into the equation. God is good and any injustice committed has to be known by an all knowing God. If God knows of an injustice that injustice must be dealt with in order for God to remain good. Before God created His creation the only thing missing that would require hell is for someone to commit an injustice. This could not occur with in the confines of the trinity; that eternal relationship between the three persons of the God Head. Satan, among the first free actors, committed the first injustice when he sought to steal the sovereignty of God from God. Satan had to be free to choose an injustice over justice. That is what is meant when Jesus says that hell was intended for Satan and his followers. That hell was never intended for mankind is further proven in that God’s salvation from justice is offered only to mankind and not to Satan and his followers. However, man is also free to choose injustice over justice and in doing so God must deal with that injustice. Should he merely overlook it? Not if He is to remain good. Should he confine the punishment to a finite time? Not if the offense warrants an eternal punishment. Any offense committed against an eternal entity warrants an eternal punishment. This is difficult only in that we lack an eternal farm of reference. We don’t know what that is. However, ask yourself, how much eternity can you cut off of an eternal justice in order for that justice to still be sufficient for an injustice committed against the eternal?

the tale of Macarius

Keep in mind that this is a tale told to help an audience to understand a Christian concept. It is not the Christian concept itself and yet this author continues to hold it in that position. That is what makes it a Strawman.

It made me anxious that Christians were in danger of being outdone in the “love and mercy” department by other creeds.

If Christianity is true and Buddhism is false then it makes no sense to ask if Christianity is more moral than Buddhism. Additionally, if Buddhism is true and Christianity is false then it makes no more sense to ask if Christianity is more moral than Buddhism. First, reality gets a vote. After that morality is a pragmatic tool. By that I mean that morality is either/or. Something is either moral or it is not moral. When a worldview, philosophy, or idea is not moral it puts into question the coherence of that worldview, philosophy, or idea. If Christianity or any Christian idea is immoral then Christianity or that Christian idea is not coherent. The same is true of Buddhism or any Buddhist idea. Of course this assumes that your understanding of Christianity or Buddhism is the proper understanding or that your understanding of an idea is the Christian or Buddhist’s actual understanding. If not then it is not Christian or Buddhist coherence that is under question bot your own. This is what I suspect in the authors case. I suspect that he is presenting a Christian idea of hell that is not really the Christian idea of hell. Again, the definition of straw man.

It would have been very hard for me to accept the thought that the “infinite love” and “omnipotent benevolence” of the Christian God would ultimately prove immeasurably less generous or effectual than the “great compassion” and “expedient means” of the numberless, indefatigably merciful bodhisattvas populating the Mahayana religious imagination.

Ugh, this chapter is exhausting! God’s infinite love was demonstrated in that He sent His infinite son to pay the penalty demanded of an injustice committed against an infinite God. You as a finite being would have to die an infinite number of times to pay that penalty. He an infinite being only has to die once to pay that same price. What does Buddhism offer that matches that infinite love and infinite mercy?