Opinion of David Bentley Hart’s quote on Calvin?

[Kingpoleon]

“Calvin, in telling us that hell is populated with babies not a cubit long, merely reminds us that within a certain traditional understanding of grace and predestination, the choice to worship God rather than the devil is at most a matter of prudence.”

[vitoNova]

Meaningless babble.

I can 1+ up him on word salad, and say something like "My Toyota Camry is tree, and the lamb juice is door over solar plexus", and how come I don't have a Wiki entry and hot bitches?  

Damn.  Life sucks.  Gotta get me some of that old white Boomer money.   lol

[Kingpoleon]

Meaningless babble.

I can 1+ up him on word salad, and say something like "My Toyota Camry is tree, and the lamb juice is door over solar plexus", and how come I don't have a Wiki entry and hot bitches?  

Damn.  Life sucks.  Gotta give me some of that old white Boomer money.   lol

If you really wish to read a word salad:
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2011/05/a-person-you-flee-at-parties

[RFayette]

Bad quote, as it seems Calvin never said it.

In the next sentence, Mr. Hart tells us, again without citation, that John Calvin once expressed the view that “hell is copiously populated with infants not a cubit long.” The diligent reader will search in vain for anything close to this remark in Calvin’s oeuvre, though it does circulate on the internet.

[Kingpoleon]

Bad quote, as it seems Calvin never said it.

In the next sentence, Mr. Hart tells us, again without citation, that John Calvin once expressed the view that “hell is copiously populated with infants not a cubit long.” The diligent reader will search in vain for anything close to this remark in Calvin’s oeuvre, though it does circulate on the internet.

I find this surprising, as it is a quote I have known Calvinists to defend. Interestingly enough, most of them refuse to defend this one:

“The Jews’ rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone.”
(A Response To Questions and Objections of a Certain Jew, as a citation.)

I know Quakers defend Fox’s writings as without error and Methodists do the same for Wesley’s; but I don’t believe Calvinists or Lutherans can reasonably do the same.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Bad quote, as it seems Calvin never said it.

In the next sentence, Mr. Hart tells us, again without citation, that John Calvin once expressed the view that “hell is copiously populated with infants not a cubit long.” The diligent reader will search in vain for anything close to this remark in Calvin’s oeuvre, though it does circulate on the internet.

I find this surprising, as it is a quote I have known Calvinists to defend. Interestingly enough, most of them refuse to defend this one:

“The Jews’ rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone.”
(A Response To Questions and Objections of a Certain Jew, as a citation.)

I know Quakers defend Fox’s writings as without error and Methodists do the same for Wesley’s; but I don’t believe Calvinists or Lutherans can reasonably do the same.

     Considering oneself a Calvinist today is generally a function of embracing a Calvinist soteriology. Many such people have no idea what else Calvin believed and frequently diverge quite far from his doctrines. More than once I have encountered so-called "Calvinist Arians", which is the height of absurdity when Calvin wrote more extensively in defense of the Trinity than he did on the matters of soteriology that are now closely tied to his legacy.

[TJ in Oregon]

HQ coming from David Bentley Hart, even if it has a point specifically about Calvinism. Hart's unwillingness to accept the existence of an eternal hell is made even worse by the implication that he would not worship God if there anyone is in hell. Ultimately, his relentless polemics about God's judgment say more about him than they do about God. Hart is extremely nasty and aggressive to his opponents, preferring to attack them personally and insinuate they are motivated by some sort of personal desire for revenge rather than holding, uh, the default Christian position for centuries including the position of his own Church. If eternity really was all flowers and rainbows and butterflies as Hart believes, then he would have no reason to be so nasty to everyone who disagrees - if we're all going to heaven anyways, then just chill man, who cares. But in the end, the bluster covers up an unwillingness to seriously engage with the possibility of eternal damnation thoroughly deserved by us all and only spared to some through God's mercy.

[Associate Justice PiT]

HQ coming from David Bentley Hart, even if it has a point specifically about Calvinism. Hart's unwillingness to accept the existence of an eternal hell is made even worse by the implication that he would not worship God if there anyone is in hell. Ultimately, his relentless polemics about God's judgment say more about him than they do about God. Hart is extremely nasty and aggressive to his opponents, preferring to attack them personally and insinuate they are motivated by some sort of personal desire for revenge rather than holding, uh, the default Christian position for centuries including the position of his own Church. If eternity really was all flowers and rainbows and butterflies as Hart believes, then he would have no reason to be so nasty to everyone who disagrees - if we're all going to heaven anyways, then just chill man, who cares. But in the end, the bluster covers up an unwillingness to seriously engage with the possibility of eternal damnation thoroughly deserved by us all and only spared to some through God's mercy.

     It is not only incompatible with the position of the Orthodox Church on salvation, but furthermore incompatible with what we believe about revelation. Orthodoxy does not engage in the fundamentally Protestant dialectic of seeing doctrines as being reasoned forth from the scriptures, but understands them as being part of the Tradition revealed to the Apostles (along with the Scriptures) and maintained through the Church in the hearts of the faithful and the spiritually enlightened. If we take Hart's polemics seriously, then the many, many Church Fathers such as St. John Chrysostom and St. Mark of Ephesus who believed in the eternality of Hell did not in fact possess genuine knowledge of God and were deluded by their own anger and desire for revenge. If that is the case, then there is no question that the Orthodox Church is a false church that has failed to maintain the true Gospel.

     I don't think it is a coincidence that Hart has little influence in the Orthodox Church. A few priests and bishops like him, but the vast majority have ignored him. I've noticed likewise that few of his fans have gravitated to Orthodoxy, with most either choosing to abide in their sins (for they see no reason to worry with the assurance of their salvation) or pursuing their own fundamentally Gnostic path. Contrary to what Hart suggests, there is no real evidence that his position is the genuine faith of the Orthodox Church, and a great deal of evidence that it is not.

[Kingpoleon]

HQ coming from David Bentley Hart, even if it has a point specifically about Calvinism. Hart's unwillingness to accept the existence of an eternal hell is made even worse by the implication that he would not worship God if there anyone is in hell. Ultimately, his relentless polemics about God's judgment say more about him than they do about God. Hart is extremely nasty and aggressive to his opponents, preferring to attack them personally and insinuate they are motivated by some sort of personal desire for revenge rather than holding, uh, the default Christian position for centuries including the position of his own Church. If eternity really was all flowers and rainbows and butterflies as Hart believes, then he would have no reason to be so nasty to everyone who disagrees - if we're all going to heaven anyways, then just chill man, who cares. But in the end, the bluster covers up an unwillingness to seriously engage with the possibility of eternal damnation thoroughly deserved by us all and only spared to some through God's mercy.

Hart is a thoroughly unpleasant man, but as a Methodist I am compelled by all enemies of Calvin. Calvinism is, in my view, a worldview impressively worse than Buddhism. As such, I am very suspicious of any theology which sounds close to “What is it to the pottery if the potter breaks it in two?” This may make me a natural ally of universal reconciliation, but many of Hart’s critics are nasty.

[Alcibiades]

HQ coming from David Bentley Hart, even if it has a point specifically about Calvinism. Hart's unwillingness to accept the existence of an eternal hell is made even worse by the implication that he would not worship God if there anyone is in hell. Ultimately, his relentless polemics about God's judgment say more about him than they do about God. Hart is extremely nasty and aggressive to his opponents, preferring to attack them personally and insinuate they are motivated by some sort of personal desire for revenge rather than holding, uh, the default Christian position for centuries including the position of his own Church. If eternity really was all flowers and rainbows and butterflies as Hart believes, then he would have no reason to be so nasty to everyone who disagrees - if we're all going to heaven anyways, then just chill man, who cares. But in the end, the bluster covers up an unwillingness to seriously engage with the possibility of eternal damnation thoroughly deserved by us all and only spared to some through God's mercy.

This to me says a lot about the authoritarianism inherent in a lot of Christianity. For me, as an outsider, it seems perfectly reasonable that someone drawn to Christ’s message of love would not want to worship the evidently unloving Calvinistic God, but clearly a lot of Christians think that people should not have this agency; that defying God is not an option, no matter how despotic or heartless he might be.

[Kingpoleon]

It is not only incompatible with the position of the Orthodox Church on salvation, but furthermore incompatible with what we believe about revelation. Orthodoxy does not engage in the fundamentally Protestant dialectic of seeing doctrines as being reasoned forth from the scriptures, but understands them as being part of the Tradition revealed to the Apostles (along with the Scriptures) and maintained through the Church in the hearts of the faithful and the spiritually enlightened. If we take Hart's polemics seriously, then the many, many Church Fathers such as St. John Chrysostom and St. Mark of Ephesus who believed in the eternality of Hell did not in fact possess genuine knowledge of God and were deluded by their own anger and desire for revenge. If that is the case, then there is no question that the Orthodox Church is a false church that has failed to maintain the true Gospel.

I don't think it is a coincidence that Hart has little influence in the Orthodox Church. A few priests and bishops like him, but the vast majority have ignored him. I've noticed likewise that few of his fans have gravitated to Orthodoxy, with most either choosing to abide in their sins (for they see no reason to worry with the assurance of their salvation) or pursuing their own fundamentally Gnostic path. Contrary to what Hart suggests, there is no real evidence that his position is the genuine faith of the Orthodox Church, and a great deal of evidence that it is not.

A majority of the Greek fathers were not necessarily universalists, but some were. Does this mean that those who were, such as Origen, did not possess in fact genuine knowledge of God?

If you really care to defend John Chrysostom’s writings as true & without error, I can think of a thousand problems therein. “I do not think that people, though also saints, could completely understand all depths of God... Even if a saint speaks about such opinions, you will not find that he confirmed the words as though had the statement from above.” - Varsanofios the Great

[Associate Justice PiT]

It is not only incompatible with the position of the Orthodox Church on salvation, but furthermore incompatible with what we believe about revelation. Orthodoxy does not engage in the fundamentally Protestant dialectic of seeing doctrines as being reasoned forth from the scriptures, but understands them as being part of the Tradition revealed to the Apostles (along with the Scriptures) and maintained through the Church in the hearts of the faithful and the spiritually enlightened. If we take Hart's polemics seriously, then the many, many Church Fathers such as St. John Chrysostom and St. Mark of Ephesus who believed in the eternality of Hell did not in fact possess genuine knowledge of God and were deluded by their own anger and desire for revenge. If that is the case, then there is no question that the Orthodox Church is a false church that has failed to maintain the true Gospel.

I don't think it is a coincidence that Hart has little influence in the Orthodox Church. A few priests and bishops like him, but the vast majority have ignored him. I've noticed likewise that few of his fans have gravitated to Orthodoxy, with most either choosing to abide in their sins (for they see no reason to worry with the assurance of their salvation) or pursuing their own fundamentally Gnostic path. Contrary to what Hart suggests, there is no real evidence that his position is the genuine faith of the Orthodox Church, and a great deal of evidence that it is not.

A majority of the Greek fathers were not necessarily universalists, but some were. Does this mean that those who were, such as Origen, did not possess in fact genuine knowledge of God?

If you really care to defend John Chrysostom’s writings as true & without error, I can think of a thousand problems therein. “I do not think that people, though also saints, could completely understand all depths of God... Even if a saint speaks about such opinions, you will not find that he confirmed the words as though had the statement from above.” - Varsanofios the Great

     Origen is a condemned heretic, and not really regarded as a Church Father by the Orthodox. Ironically, he seems to be treated with more reverence by Western Christians. We cite him on occasion, but he usually wouldn't be invoked to support contentious doctrines, given that so many of his doctrines are suspect.

     Saints do not have the power to speak infallibly, but recall Hart's polemic against the doctrine of eternal Hell. He has said that his argument is unanswerable and the entire truth of Christianity is at stake. In his mind, St. John Chrysostom is not merely wrong about a point of doctrine, but has sacrificed the truth of Christ and believes in an unloving God. This is a very strong claim, and effectively amounts to calling St. John Chrysostom a false teacher. As the Orthodox Church has witnessed him as being one of our greatest saints, dubbing him an "ecumenical teacher" and one of the "Three Holy Hierarchs", then if Hart is correct we have exalted a false teacher to the highest levels possible for a mortal man. Such a claim is not compatible with the Orthodox Church being the true Body of Christ.

[Kingpoleon]

     Origen is a condemned heretic, and not really regarded as a Church Father by the Orthodox. Ironically, he seems to be treated with more reverence by Western Christians. We cite him on occasion, but he usually wouldn't be invoked to support contentious doctrines, given that so many of his doctrines are suspect.

     Saints do not have the power to speak infallibly, but recall Hart's polemic against the doctrine of eternal Hell. He has said that his argument is unanswerable and the entire truth of Christianity is at stake. In his mind, St. John Chrysostom is not merely wrong about a point of doctrine, but has sacrificed the truth of Christ and believes in an unloving God. This is a very strong claim, and effectively amounts to calling St. John Chrysostom a false teacher. As the Orthodox Church has witnessed him as being one of our greatest saints, dubbing him an "ecumenical teacher" and one of the "Three Holy Hierarchs", then if Hart is correct we have exalted a false teacher to the highest levels possible for a mortal man. Such a claim is not compatible with the Orthodox Church being the true Body of Christ.

I was under the impression that Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers, Eusebius, and the School of Alexandria was highly respected in Orthodoxy. My main familiarity with this comes from The Westminster Handbook To Origen - is McGuckin considered a good Orthodox historian?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Origen is a condemned heretic, and not really regarded as a Church Father by the Orthodox. Ironically, he seems to be treated with more reverence by Western Christians. We cite him on occasion, but he usually wouldn't be invoked to support contentious doctrines, given that so many of his doctrines are suspect.

     Saints do not have the power to speak infallibly, but recall Hart's polemic against the doctrine of eternal Hell. He has said that his argument is unanswerable and the entire truth of Christianity is at stake. In his mind, St. John Chrysostom is not merely wrong about a point of doctrine, but has sacrificed the truth of Christ and believes in an unloving God. This is a very strong claim, and effectively amounts to calling St. John Chrysostom a false teacher. As the Orthodox Church has witnessed him as being one of our greatest saints, dubbing him an "ecumenical teacher" and one of the "Three Holy Hierarchs", then if Hart is correct we have exalted a false teacher to the highest levels possible for a mortal man. Such a claim is not compatible with the Orthodox Church being the true Body of Christ.

I was under the impression that Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers, Eusebius, and the School of Alexandria was highly respected in Orthodoxy. My main familiarity with this comes from The Westminster Handbook To Origen - is McGuckin considered a good Orthodox historian?

     Origen occupies an odd place, in that it is true that some of the greatest saints of the Church were under his tutelage, but they generally did not carry on his extreme form of Neoplatonism and tempered his ideas into something more reasonable. St. Gregory of Nyssa is about as far as the Alexandrian method can reasonably be carried within the bounds of Orthodoxy, and it is no mistake that he seems to be Hart's favorite saint. Despite that, Hart holds to many views about the nature of Scripture and revelation that likely would have horrified St. Gregory of Nyssa, let alone the other Alexandrian saints.

     I am not that familiar with McGuckin. I have not read his works directly, but I have read other works that quoted him, and I did not see him saying anything too heterodox in those.

[Kingpoleon]

In case anybody is confused by me stating that Wesley is without error and then defending universalism, I ought to be clear. I am an inclusivist, and as such use language similar to universal reconciliation. For example, “It is the will of God that all men shall be saved”; “In Him there is no wrath at all”; “I shall leave men to be judged by their Maker.”

This is in line with Wesley himself, and indeed many of his Moravian allies explicitly taught universal reconciliation.

Also see C. S. Lewis: “But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the unsaved people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.”

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

There is a long line of similar comments to the effect that predestination makes God out to be morally equivalent to a devil, including from William Laud and John Wesley. 

I have always had trouble conceiving how predestination would make any moral sense, apart from universalism.  I have imagined it would have to involve something like considering the elect and the redeemed as almost two separate radically different species: one of whom is evil and deserving of only harm, and the other beloved by God. But we don't know for sure who is who in this life, so we have to treat everyone well just in case.  Something like that? 

Of course really I sense that isn't quite the perspective.  I know there is a richer tradition of Calvinist moral and social philosophy than could conceivably follow from such a perspective. It just doesn't make sense to me, how, for example, the idea of 'common grace' can coexist with particular irresistible damnation.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I have always had trouble conceiving how predestination would make any moral sense, apart from universalism.

The strictest Calvinist I've ever been personally close to was also a universalist, although I suspect most members of conservative Reformed denominations would object to his self-categorization as a strict Calvinist.

I'm a big fan of the orthodox Alexandrian theologians but I think it's beyond dispute that Hart grossly overstates many of their claims in his reception of them.